Bill Overview
Title: Reproductive Freedom for All Act
Description: This bill establishes a general right of all persons to make certain reproductive decisions without undue government interference. It specifically provides statutory authority for the Supreme Court's prior holdings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey . In Roe , the Court held that the Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Casey , the Court reaffirmed this holding and additionally held that state abortion regulations may not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability (i.e., an undue burden). However, a state may (1) restrict abortions after viability, except when a pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman; and (2) enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, except for unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion. Additionally, the bill provides statutory authority for the Court's holdings in Griswold v. Connecticut (the right of married couples to obtain contraception), Eisenstadt v. Baird (the right of single persons to obtain contraception), Carey v. Population Services International (the right of minors to obtain contraception), and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (that certain state restrictions on abortion facilities and providers created an undue burden). The bill allows the Department of Justice or any person adversely affected by a state law that violates this bill to seek injunctive relief. It also specifies that the bill does not affect laws regarding conscience protection.
Sponsors: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
Target Audience
Population: Women and individuals capable of reproductive decisions
Estimated Size: 77000000
- The global population includes all persons capable of reproductive decisions, which primarily includes women of childbearing age.
- The UN estimates that there are approximately 1.9 billion women of childbearing age (15-49 years) worldwide as of 2023.
- While all genders are mentioned due to reproductive rights in contraception, women are primarily impacted due to direct reference to historical court cases focused on women's rights and reproductive autonomy.
- The ability to access contraception impacts both men and women globally, though the focus is reproductive rights which often centralize in women's rights.
- The legislation specifically solidifies rights previously discussed under US Supreme Court decisions relevant to abortion and contraception, impacting populations within similar judicial frameworks globally.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy primarily includes women of childbearing age, which is approximately 77 million in the US according to CDC data. However, reproductive decisions impact all genders to some extent due to access to contraception issues, implying a broader scope albeit the primary focus remains on the direct reproductive health rights for women.
- Budget considerations limit the intensity of outreach and implementation. The $50,000,000 initial budget suggests a need for prioritization of states with more restrictive current abortion laws to maximize immediate impact within financial constraints.
- Given the nature of the policy, the focus will also have to address potential legal battles or enforcement actions via the Department of Justice or private suits in states with restrictive laws, influencing where initial resources may be emphasized.
- The backlash or support could vary widely depending on political, social, and cultural differences across the US, influencing perceived and actual policy impact on individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Austin, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will finally bring concrete protections and remove barriers for women like me.
- Having faced legal and procedural obstacles in accessing reproductive health services, this is a step towards autonomy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always believed in the fundamental rights encompassed in this act and I'm glad to see them legislated more firmly.
- This doesn't seem to impact my life directly, but I’m happy about broader societal equity.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think in states like Utah, where access has been particularly challenging, this policy could mean greater opportunities to actualize reproductive choices safely.
- It empowers women and relieves the constant anxiety about state-level legal changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired Teacher (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I remember the days before Roe v. Wade; this act is crucial for the protection of future generations.
- It directly impacts my daughters and granddaughters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small business owner (Birmingham, Alabama)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives my family a sense of security concerning reproductive choices we may have to make.
- Playing a role in a state with restrictive policies, I’m relieved by its potential federal intervention capacity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Healthcare Consultant (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act reinforces what I see as already sound practice in Illinois around reproductive services.
- It solidifies rights many of my patients depend on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (New York City, New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this policy is a win for my generation. We often take our freedoms for granted, and this cements them.
- It provides peace of mind during this critical stage in my life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Public School Counselor (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting reproductive rights is essential in ensuring my students have fair life choices available to them.
- This act could reverse many harmful regional policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Designer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Gender freedom in reproductive decisions means less anxiety and a more inclusive society.
- I feel this act ensures my rights and respects diversity in reproductive health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
High School Senior (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about how politics affect my control over my own body, but this policy gives me hope.
- I hope this opens up more conversations about women's health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32030000, High: $76090000)
Year 5: $58336000 (Low: $34599900, High: $82159500)
Year 10: $66225600 (Low: $39295900, High: $93245800)
Year 100: $169667700 (Low: $100996100, High: $239947300)
Key Considerations
- The bill's litigation provisions may introduce significant legal costs initially, especially in states with highly restrictive laws.
- The reinforcement of existing legal precedents could stabilize certain economic sectors previously impacted by inconsistent state regulations.
- There may be cost considerations related to increased administrative duties in enforcing the expanded rights.
- Potential health care system efficiencies due to reduced rates of unintended pregnancies.