Bill Overview
Title: Right to Build Families Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits states from prohibiting (or unreasonably limiting) access to, provision of, or insurance coverage for assisted reproductive technology (e.g., in vitro fertilization). The Department of Justice and individuals adversely affected by violations may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking or using assisted reproductive technology
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill targets anyone using or seeking to use assisted reproductive technologies (ART).
- This includes individuals and couples facing infertility issues, same-sex couples who require ART to have children, and single individuals wishing to have children using ART.
- The global population using ART is significant, given the increasing accessibility and use of such technologies worldwide.
- ART includes procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is increasingly common across the globe due to rising issues such as infertility.
- Infertility rates can be as high as 15% of couples globally, suggesting a high demand for ART services.
- Countries differ in access to ART due to legal, cultural, and economic reasons, but legal assurances like this bill expand potential reach.
Reasoning
- The Right to Build Families Act primarily targets individuals or couples seeking to use assisted reproductive technologies (ART). This includes those struggling with infertility, same-sex couples, and single individuals wishing to have children through ART.
- Approximately 15% of couples in the U.S. face infertility issues, making them potential beneficiaries of the policy. This suggests a high demand for increased access to ART services.
- Despite the need, there are budgetary constraints. Year 1's $50,000,000 USD limit means the policy must focus on populations where the cost of intervention per individual or family seeking ART can be managed effectively.
- The policy is likely to impact those who find current restrictions or costs prohibitive. Therefore, the budget should prioritize those in states with stricter existing limitations or less insurance coverage.
- The variance in acceptance and use of ART across states might affect how the policy is received and how impactful it will be for different demographics.
- The social and personal benefits for those affected would be considerable, especially for those for whom having a biological child would otherwise be impossible.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been hoping for better access to IVF, as it's been a financial strain.
- I believe this bill will ease our emotional and financial burden, allowing us to focus on building our family.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are eager to start a family but the costs and legal hoops were discouraging.
- This bill could significantly help us with financial and legal barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Freelancer (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being single, it's hard to even think about the costs involved with starting a family on my own.
- This bill could open doors for me that I thought were financially impossible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Marketing Specialist (Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been trying for years and exhausted our savings.
- I am hopeful but worried the policy might not cover everything we need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Project Manager (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might not affect us personally as we've chosen a different path.
- However, I see its value for friends who desire biological children.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any financial relief provided by this policy will be greatly beneficial.
- Healthcare costs have been a significant hurdle in family planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While we didn’t have these options, it’s heartening to see future generations may.
- I'll advocate for my kids if they choose ART.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Artist (Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been considering ART for years but the costs and risks were just too high.
- This bill gives us some hope again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
IT Specialist (Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our main barriers are social rather than financial, but improved access could shift perspectives.
- I'm optimistic about the small ways it might help our situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Research Scientist (Alabama)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our state's stringent policies make ART access difficult.
- I believe federal support through this bill can help us overcome these barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32040000, High: $76120000)
Year 5: $58359264 (Low: $34585380, High: $82102924)
Year 10: $72689297 (Low: $43013584, High: $102211603)
Year 100: $421736142 (Low: $249041401, High: $592257512)
Key Considerations
- This policy could improve access to reproductive technologies but might lead to higher demand and associated costs.
- Potential legal challenges and adjustments in state laws and insurance policies could add transitional costs.