Bill Overview
Title: Religious Freedom Over Mandates Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for a record system that captures religious accommodations (e.g., exemptions) related to COVID-19 vaccination requirements requested by or granted to an employee, contractor, volunteer, or any other person.
Sponsors: Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates
Estimated Size: 1000000
- This bill primarily affects individuals who are seeking religious accommodations related to COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
- The bill would impact employees, contractors, volunteers, or any person subject to mandates, who have requested exemptions based on religious grounds.
- People who work in sectors where vaccination records are required might be impacted, including healthcare, education, and certain corporate environments.
Reasoning
- This policy specifically targets individuals seeking religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccine mandates, a very specific and relatively narrow slice of the population, estimated at 1,000,000 in the U.S.
- We need to capture a diverse range of people impacted by this policy, including those who will be noticeably affected both positively and negatively and those unaffected, to understand broader societal impacts.
- Not every individual seeking religious exemption will experience the policy's impact on wellbeing; the policy's benefit might be more subtle for some. Others might not feel an immediate consequence.
- Budget constraints limit the policy's scope, as giving each potential individual detailed support might exceed budgets, keeping the implementation somewhat minimalistic.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Nashville, TN)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy means I won't face pressure at work over my vaccine status.
- Having my religious exemption is important to my personal beliefs and values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a relief; I felt uneasy about my exemption being recorded.
- Ensuring my privacy regarding my exemption is very important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
HR Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how this will affect documentation and compliance efforts.
- The policy makes things more complex for HR departments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects me much.
- My main concern is having job stability regardless of mandates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Volunteer Coordinator (Miami, FL)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might mean I'll have less record-keeping to manage.
- I'm neutral on the policy itself, but appreciate reduced compliance workload.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels good not to worry about my exemption being tracked.
- I hope it helps ease tensions among staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this policy affecting me or my colleagues directly.
- Most of us work remotely, so mandates haven't been pressing.
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 |
Public School Administrator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about keeping clear communication about exemption guidelines.
- This policy might add a layer of complexity.
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 |
IT Support Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how long religious exemptions will stay respected.
- I like that this policy seems supportive of keeping my record private.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it could reduce unnecessary paperwork.
- It's a mixed blessing; easier on us, but might raise questions in compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily changes administrative protocols related to capturing data, not broader religious freedoms or mandates.
- The cost projections are limited primarily to the administration of records.
- This policy may invoke debate over the necessity and defense of digital records of religious accommodations.
- Implementation will require coordination with agencies currently tasked with managing such records.