Bill Overview
Title: Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act
Description: This bill sets out protections for and establishes programs to support health care providers (and those who assist such providers) who offer reproductive health care services that are lawful in the state where the services are provided. Reproductive health care services refer to abortion services; contraceptive services; in vitro fertilization; or other reproductive care, education, and counseling that is provided (1) at a health care site or via telehealth, and (2) in a medically accurate manner. The bill prohibits individuals, entities, and states from preventing, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the provision of lawful reproductive health care services by health care providers. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. Furthermore, states may not use federal funds to pursue legal cases or similar proceedings (e.g., adverse licensing proceedings) against health care providers, individuals, or entities that offer or assist with lawful reproductive health care services. Additionally, medical malpractice insurers may not deny coverage to or sue a health care provider because the provider offers or assists with lawful reproductive health care services. The bill also funds grants to assist health care providers who offer or refer for abortion services and face legal issues relating to their provision of reproductive health care services with legal matters and improving security.
Sponsors: Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
Target Audience
Population: people accessing or providing reproductive health care services
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill impacts health care providers who offer reproductive health services as it provides legal protections for them.
- Individuals seeking reproductive health services such as abortion, contraceptive care, and in vitro fertilization are beneficiaries due to improved access to these services without interference.
- The bill aims to limit state and individual interference with reproductive health care services, suggesting those who receive such services will also be impacted.
- By prohibiting states and entities from using federal funds to prosecute providers, the bill shields providers from legal actions, thereby potentially increasing service availability.
- Patients who may have faced restricted access due to provider fears of legal repercussions will now potentially have improved access to care.
- The funding of grants to help providers with legal issues and security suggests that there is an acknowledgment of ongoing risks and therefore a large number of people potentially affected.
Reasoning
- The policy targets both health care providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services, likely affecting millions who interact with the health care system for these purposes.
- The Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale measures individual wellbeing from 0 to 10, providing a useful way to measure wellbeing changes due to policy impacts.
- The bill's intention to protect and enhance access to reproductive health care suggests a focus on improving both mental and physical health outcomes, as fragmented access can negatively impact wellbeing.
- Implementation must consider regional variations in law and health care provision, as well as differing starting points in wellbeing based on current access to services.
- It is expected that individuals in states with high restrictions on reproductive health services will see a more significant change in wellbeing due to the policy compared to those in less restrictive environments.
- The assumed protection from legal threats could lead to increased provider availability and lower stress levels among those seeking services, improving overall wellbeing scores after policy implementation.
- The budget allocation suggests a broad implementation, though the amount will likely focus on areas with the highest need, namely those with restrictive local laws.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would allow our clinic to function without constant fear of shutdowns or legal threats.
- I expect more patients to seek services they might have avoided due to current restrictions.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
OB-GYN (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill reinforces the legal protections we already benefit from in California, providing a buffer against any federal level shifts.
- It gives me peace of mind knowing our state protections are supported federally too.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
teacher (Alabama)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could bring more specialists to Alabama offering the services we desperately need.
- I hope it alleviates the added stress of seeking treatment out of state.
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 |
activist (New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act will help ensure access via telehealth which is critical for those unable to physically reach services.
- It reinforces the network of reproductive rights I've been advocating for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
attorney (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help reduce the harassment cases I see from states infringing on provider rights.
- The legal protection grants could improve my client's capacity to serve without constant legal battles.
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 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
student (Florida)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved this bill will protect my ability to access contraceptives without fear of policy changes.
- Stability in reproductive health care access allows me to focus on my studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
clinic manager (Mississippi)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial in allowing us to operate without as many fears of closures or legal actions.
- Grants for legal issues would directly aid our clinic's sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
rural general practitioner (Nebraska)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ability to offer telehealth without fear of legal repercussions is a boon for my rural patients.
- This policy supports my decision to assist more openly with reproductive health issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
retired (Massachusetts)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to correct many of the issues I campaigned against in my career.
- Important for future generations to have these protections ensured federally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
stay-at-home mom (Kentucky)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the Act, I feel more secure about continuing to access needed services for family planning.
- It speaks to a broader commitment to protecting women's health rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 5: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill could face legal challenges that could impact its implementation and associated costs.
- By limiting state and federal interventions in reproductive health, the bill may shift costs and legal burdens from providers to states.
- The diversity in state laws and political climates may affect the policy's uniformity and effectiveness across different regions.