Bill Overview
Title: Right to Contraception Act
Description: This bill sets out statutory protections for an individual's right to access and a health care provider's right to provide contraception and related information. Contraception refers to an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives (i.e., a device or medication used to prevent pregnancy), fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures. Generally, the bill prohibits measures that single out and impede access to contraception and related information. However, a party may defend against a claim that a measure violates the bill's prohibitions by demonstrating, through clear and convincing evidence, that the measure significantly advances the safety of contraception and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The bill also specifies that the prohibition preempts inconsistent state and local laws and applies in spite of other federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Department of Justice, individuals, or health care providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals of reproductive age (15-49) worldwide
Estimated Size: 70000000
- Contraceptive use is prevalent worldwide among individuals of reproductive age, primarily those aged 15-49, which is about 1.9 billion people as per data from the United Nations.
- The global usage rate of modern contraceptives among married or in-union women is about 64%.
- Access to contraception is a fundamental health issue that affects all genders, as it enables family planning and impacts maternal health, population growth, and gender equality.
- The bill affects all individuals globally who might face legal or practical barriers to accessing contraceptives or information on their use.
- Health care providers, particularly those involved in reproductive health, constitute a specific group impacted by the bill.
- The preemption of state and local laws implies that US residents will directly experience changes in their access to contraceptives.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to improve access to contraceptive services, which can lead to significant health benefits and personal freedom for many individuals, particularly women, within the reproductive age group.
- Since access to contraception is already relatively high in the US, the policy's most transformative impacts will likely be felt in areas with restrictive local laws, potentially improving wellbeing for those who faced obstacles.
- Given the budget constraints, the implementation needs to focus on regions with the largest access barriers and where legal actions are most likely to be brought.
- The interviews will be structured to reflect a cross-section of the population, considering various demographics, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic locations to gauge a broad spectrum of responses.
- The cost of administering and defending legal protections could consume a significant portion of the budget, meaning efficiency in legal processes is necessary.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a step in the right direction to ensure that access to contraception is uniform across the country.
- It feels like a relief knowing the state cannot impose overly restrictive measures anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Healthcare Provider (New York)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law supports the work I do by ensuring my patients have unimpeded access to contraceptive options.
- I have fewer concerns about state laws conflicting with the rights of my patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy can greatly improve student access to contraceptives.
- It's reassuring to know there is federal support for contraceptive rights, despite state-level barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the policy upholds access rights across states, but I don't see much change locally because we're already well-supported here.
- I do support it as an overarching protection for those in more restrictive environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Ohio)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel the policy could help ease the financial burden of contraceptives under my current insurance plan.
- However, I worry about the actual rollout and what changes I'll really notice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Pharmacist (North Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy clarifies what the law allows, which helps me serve patients without worrying about legal repercussions.
- While direct impact on my work is minimal, it's good for the healthcare community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retail Worker (Michigan)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this bill makes obtaining contraception less of a public ordeal, providing more privacy and acceptance.
- It's crucial for young individuals like me who need access without judgment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Lawyer (Alabama)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a significant tool in the fight against unconstitutional state restrictions.
- It's great for reinforcing the rights of those I represent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Religious Leader (Utah)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There are concerns about how this policy might conflict with religious values, but it's also about ensuring informed choice.
- Dialogue and respectful implementation will be key going forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Freelancer (Georgia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the policy simplifying access to contraceptives, making health planning simpler for me even with frequent insurance changes.
- It's reassuring to have a stable federal framework over state variations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $110000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $115000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's costs are balanced against potential long-term savings in healthcare and welfare spending.
- Enforcement costs may vary significantly based on judicial challenges and state-specific legal adjustments.
- The economic benefits may take several years to materialize but are expected to be substantial.