Bill Overview
Title: Prohibiting Religious Exemption and Accommodations Databases Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from disclosing to other agencies or organizations any information relating to the religious beliefs, identity, or affiliation of an individual with a religious accommodation, including with respect to a COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The bill specifically incorporates such information into the Privacy Act of 1974 (which restricts how agencies may disclose or share records that identify individuals in the absence of written consent) and exempts related records from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (which provides the public a right to access federal agency information).
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: People who claim religious accommodations globally
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill addresses the privacy of individuals with religious accommodations, which may relate to a variety of settings such as workplace, schools, and healthcare.
- As per Pew Research, approximately 84% of the global population identifies with a religion.
- The workforce constitutes a significant proportion of the population and many workplaces include individuals seeking religious accommodations for various reasons, including vaccine mandates.
- Global data suggests that there are about 3.9 billion people engaged in religious activities or have religious beliefs that might necessitate accommodations.
Reasoning
- The bill targets privacy concerns for individuals with religious accommodations, which are highly relevant in today's socio-political climate.
- There is a significant portion of the population that identifies with a religion, and a subsector within this group who actively seek accommodations in various settings such as work, schools, and healthcare.
- The policy primarily affects those who have requested religious accommodations, which may not be the majority of religious people but is still a sizable number.
- Attention to individual privacy is crucial as religious beliefs are considered sensitive personal data.
Simulated Interviews
IT Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will better secure my personal beliefs and prevent potential discrimination.
- My religious accommodations were a concern during the vaccine mandates.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Privacy matters a lot to me, especially with my religious beliefs documented.
- I've seen how such information can be misused or lead to bias in hiring and assignments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect me much as my company manages such affairs internally.
- However, I see the importance of putting such protections in place for others.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel relieved knowing my religious accommodations are protected.
- There was a fear of my religious beliefs becoming a topic of discussion among my peers due to administrative sharing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy though I believe it's more pertinent to larger enterprises.
- As a business owner, my concerns are more about client privacy and less about my personal religious beliefs.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Film Producer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my industry, maintaining a neutral stance is crucial. This policy ensures my privacy rights.
- There have been unclear boundaries in the past regarding personal information handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a great step forward in protecting student privacy.
- Many of us fear repercussions during potentially sensitive processes like vaccine exemptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
HR Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a policy that aligns with privacy policies we already implement at my workplace.
- It will streamline how we deal with religious accommodations in line with agency requirements.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm no longer personally affected, but it's good to see protections for future generations.
- I recall issues with how such data was handled in the past.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-profit Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is directly in line with our organization's values.
- There is always a risk of discrimination without adequate protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $11000000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost primarily arises from changing data management policies across federal agencies.
- There could be long-term cost stabilization as processes mature and become more efficient.
- Initial implementation will be the costliest phase of the policy.