Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The Consent is Key Act creates a federal incentive for States to authorize civil causes of action for nonconsensual removal of sexual protection barriers (commonly called “stealthing”). If a State has such a law, the Attorney General may increase the State’s Sexual Assault Services Program formula grant by up to 20 percent for a four-year period, renewable up to four times.
Liberals emphasize survivor protections and consent; conservatives emphasize federal influence.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory incentive that modifies federal grant distribution authority to encourage State adoption of specified civil causes of action.
The Consent is Key Act creates a federal incentive for States to authorize civil causes of action for nonconsensual removal of sexual protection barriers (commonly called “stealthing”).
If a State has such a law, the Attorney General may increase the State’s Sexual Assault Services Program formula grant by up to 20 percent for a four-year period, renewable up to four times.
States must include relevant information in grant applications.
Technically simple, low-cost, and incentive-based design improves prospects, but many standalone bills nonetheless stall; some legal and procedural objections possible.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory incentive that modifies federal grant distribution authority to encourage State adoption of specified civil causes of action. It sets out the principal funding mechanism, caps, durations, and necessary definitions, but leaves important implementation detail to the Attorney General and contains limited fiscal linkage and oversight provisions.
Liberals emphasize survivor protections and consent; conservatives emphasize federal influence.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize survivor protections and consent; conservatives emphasize federal influence.
Overall supportive: the bill recognizes bodily autonomy and creates civil remedies for survivors of nonconsensual removal of protection barriers.
It uses existing victim-service grant funding to encourage state-level legal protections without imposing criminal penalties at the federal level.
Moderately supportive but cautious: the bill aims to protect consent and offers measured federal incentives rather than mandates.
It balances state flexibility with a clear definition, yet raises questions about costs, administrative complexity, and potential litigation consequences.
Skeptical: while endorsing consent, this persona worries the bill uses federal grant money to induce state tort-law changes.
Concerns focus on federal overreach, expanded litigation risk, and unclear legal standards creating private lawsuits.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple, low-cost, and incentive-based design improves prospects, but many standalone bills nonetheless stall; some legal and procedural objections possible.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize survivor protections and consent; conservatives emphasize federal influence.
Technically simple, low-cost, and incentive-based design improves prospects, but many standalone bills nonetheless stall; some legal and pr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory incentive that modifies federal grant distribution authority to encourage State adoption of specified civil causes of action. It sets ou…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.