1. United States
2. Mich.
3. Letter

I strongly urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1016, the “Protecting Women’s Private Spaces Act.” Based on evidence from comparable state-level measures, the bill presents unnecessary and costly risks. Unworkable and Costly Enforcement • Precedent: A comparable “bathroom bill” in North Carolina triggered economic boycotts, costing the state an estimated billions in lost business revenue over several years. • Federal Compliance Costs: Implementing a similar approach on federal property would require new procedures, staff training, and facility signage or renovations—driving up operational expenses without a corresponding public benefit. Legal and Constitutional Overreach • Privacy and Fourth Amendment Risks: Enforcing the law will involve verifying an individual’s “biological sex,” potentially amounting to intrusive or unreasonable searches. • Equal Protection Concerns: Ambiguous or selective enforcement will open the door to discrimination claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, burdening the government with costly and protracted litigation. No Demonstrated Public Need • No Data-Backed Justification: This bill cites no compelling evidence of a prevalent or urgent issue that justifies imposing additional security checks or facility-monitoring efforts. • High Cost, Low Return: The state-level experience mentioned above shows how such laws can backfire financially and generate significant public backlash, all for a perceived problem that is not clearly supported by empirical data. Measures with broad, ambiguous enforcement criteria often lead to inadvertent overreach, ballooning administrative costs, and legal challenges. Implementing H.R. 1016 poses exactly these risks, with little indication of tangible public benefit. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1016. Protecting privacy should not come at the expense of exposing agencies, and taxpayers, to expensive lawsuits, unworkable policies, and constitutional challenges.