Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6676

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Parental Rights Act

Description: This bill establishes a new federal criminal offense for administering a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without the prior consent of a custodial parent or legal guardian of the minor. A violation is subject to a fine, a prison term of up to one year, or both.

Sponsors: Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA-3]

Target Audience

Population: Minors receiving COVID-19 vaccines and their custodial parents/legal guardians worldwide

Estimated Size: 74000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Teacher (Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe parental consent is crucial. This policy reinforces our rights as parents.
  • I am worried about how this might slow down our local vaccination efforts, especially with misinformation out there.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Healthcare Worker (California)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This adds an extra layer of work for us, but I support parental rights.
  • We already ensure consent, so the policy formalizes what's in practice.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Public Health Official (New York)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could introduce new challenges in our efforts to achieve herd immunity.
  • It might empower those resistant to vaccinations for their children.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 3 3

Small Business Owner (Florida)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a win for parental rights against government overreach.
  • Encourages more parents to engage in their children's health decisions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Stay-at-home Parent (Illinois)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I fear this policy might deter some parents from vaccinating, compromising health.
  • Parental rights are important, but so is public health safety.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 3 5
Year 3 3 5
Year 5 3 5
Year 10 2 4
Year 20 1 3

Software Engineer (Washington)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The legislation restricts public health efforts and might increase misinformation.
  • Parental consent is key, but it should not hinder vaccination campaigns.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 4 4

Nurse (Kentucky)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy may lead to fewer teens getting vaccinated due to parents' hesitancy.
  • Balancing consent and public health is always challenging.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 4 4
Year 5 3 4
Year 10 2 3
Year 20 2 3

College Student (Massachusetts)

Age: 22 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Protecting parental rights is essential, but education on vaccine safety is necessary.
  • I hope this doesn't delay necessary vaccinations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Retired (Ohio)

Age: 63 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Parents should always have the final say.
  • This policy aligns with ensuring family decisions are respected.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Journalist (Pennsylvania)

Age: 44 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might embolden anti-vaccine rhetoric more than protect.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 4 5
Year 5 3 5
Year 10 3 4
Year 20 2 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $14000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $19000000)

Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $18000000)

Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations