Bill Overview
Title: Protecting National Access to Reproductive Care Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits state or local governments from implementing or enforcing any restriction on the use of or access to any reproductive health product. The bill defines reproductive health product as any approved drug or device that is used to diagnose, prevent, manage, treat, or terminate a pregnancy or to prevent or manage conditions of the reproductive system. The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who use or rely on reproductive health products or services
Estimated Size: 170000000
- The bill affects anyone who uses reproductive health products, which includes contraception, medication for reproductive health conditions, and abortion-related drugs or devices.
- Approximately half of the world population is female, and a significant portion of this population uses reproductive health products during their lifetime.
- Men who require reproductive health management also constitute part of the target population, though to a lesser extent than women.
- Reproductive health laws can affect families, partners, and children indirectly as well.
- In 2022, the global population was estimated at around 7.9 billion, with about 3.9 billion being women.
Reasoning
- Considering a demographic distribution, the policy primarily affects women, but also indirectly affects men and families who need reproductive health services.
- The budget constraint means the policy needs to be cost-effective and targeted. It cannot completely alleviate all reproductive health challenges nationwide but can address key areas like birth control and access to abortion services that face significant restrictions in some states.
- While half the population is directly impacted, the policy's effects might not be felt by all immediately. For example, those living in states without restrictive reproductive laws may remain unaffected.
- Families, partners, children, and indirectly affected individuals should be considered in the evaluation since the policy has ramifications beyond the individuals directly using reproductive health products.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would bring peace of mind, knowing my access to birth control is secure.
- Working in healthcare, I see how crucial access to these products is for managing health conditions.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is essential for ensuring that future generations have the same or better access to reproductive care.
- While I personally may not be immediately affected, I believe it supports greater gender equality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Elementary School Teacher (Jackson, MS)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to abortions and contraception here is very limited; this policy could make a significant difference in my life.
- The fear of unplanned pregnancies and healthcare barriers is constant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
IT Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For my daughter's sake, this policy gives me peace of mind that her rights will be protected no matter where she attends college.
- I think it's important for all families to have reliable access to reproductive health products.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ensures access to gender-affirming and reproductive health products which is critical for marginalized communities like mine.
- Feeling safer to be who I am without worrying about access is a big relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Stay-at-home mom (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent access to my medication without state interference would be a relief.
- I worry about the impact of broader restrictions on my daughters as well.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cashier (Detroit, MI)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to affordable medications has been a struggle; this policy could change that.
- It's about basic healthcare dignity, ensuring everyone has access, regardless of income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Retired (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a step in the right direction for my daughters and granddaughters.
- Reproductive care shouldn't be a political issue but a fundamental right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Financial Analyst (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved because this policy could solidify what we've been fighting for years here.
- Access isn't just about choice; it's about having the freedom to plan your life.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Software Developer (Portland, OR)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly impacts my friends facing restrictions in other states, indirectly affecting my community.
- Access should be universal; no one should have to bear this additional stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- The judiciary costs associated with increased civil actions.
- Administrative costs related to monitoring compliance.
- The scale of impact across different states might vary, influencing enforcement complexity.
- Legal challenges that could arise and require substantial resources.