Bill Overview
Title: Arrest Murderers not Ministers Act
Description: This bill specifies that in order for the federal government to prosecute individuals for violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (which prohibits forceful or threats of forceful interference with an individual's access to reproductive health services or exercise of religious freedom), the violation must involve intentional physical injuries or damage. Any funds that would have been used for prosecutions that are prohibited under the bill must be used to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes or other specified offenses.
Sponsors: Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]
Target Audience
Population: People accessing reproductive health services and exercising religious freedoms
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill modifies the scope of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, impacting federal prosecution policy.
- The FACE Act relates to individuals accessing reproductive health services and religious freedoms, hence affecting those facilities and users.
- The bill restricts federal prosecution to cases involving intentional physical injuries or damage, affecting individuals who might otherwise face prosecution under broader circumstances.
- Funds redirected from the FACE Act to violent crime prosecution affects federal and local law enforcement and potentially communities affected by violent crimes.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals related to the access of reproductive health services and those exercising religious freedoms. This includes people visiting clinics, religious organizations, and activists who might be involved in protests.
- The redirection of funds towards prosecuting violent crimes could improve community safety and alter perceptions of government priorities.
- The effects of reduced prosecutions under the FACE Act could lead to differing opinions among the population, with some advocating for the protection of clinic access while others may see it as a relief from legal pressure.
- Considering the budget has constraints, the scope of change in wellbeing is likely limited to communities most directly impacted by these legal adjustments.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it is crucial to ensure safety at reproductive health clinics.
- This policy might reduce the perception of safety among staff who see potential threats beyond physical violence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to protect non-violent protest activities, which I support.
- Funding redirected to violent crimes could be positive if it truly enhances safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Religious Leader (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on violent crimes, but the vague threat of reduced legal protections concerns me.
- Freedom to practice religion without fear is a priority, and any erosion of that is worrying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing prosecution scope can embolden more aggressive protests, which could be dangerous.
- The shift to combating violent crime is positive, but I worry about the consequences for clinic access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Police Officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might ease our workload on protesting events and let us concentrate on violent crimes.
- More resources for violent crimes could lead to better crime resolution rates.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems urban-focused, doesn't affect our community directly.
- However, emphasizing violent crimes could improve public safety, which is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Lawyer (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could reduce the number of cases we handle related to federal charges.
- I believe more focus should be given to differentiating non-violent actions from violent threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Artist (Portland, OR)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift away from prosecuting non-violent protest-related actions is good, but it needs clear guidelines.
- There is hope that violent crime rates will drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investing in managing violent crime is necessary in our community.
- I don't think this policy affects my daily life much, unless crime rates drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support freedom of religious practices, I worry about implications for protests at clinics.
- It's crucial that the policy enhances community safety without eroding civil liberties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Redirecting federal prosecution resources could lead to improved outcomes in dealing with violent crimes.
- This bill may change the prosecution landscape for activities related to the FACE Act, potentially affecting the prevalence and nature of protests and interactions with reproductive health facilities.
- Legal and administrative adaptations may be required to comply with the new directive of resource allocation.
- Economic effects are mostly indirect and hinge on the impacts of altered crime rates and prosecution practices on local communities.