Bill Overview
Title: A bill to prohibit any requirement that a member of the National Guard receive a vaccination against COVID-19.
Description: This bill prohibits federal funds from being used to require a member of the National Guard to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, the Department of Defense is prohibited from taking any adverse action (e.g., punishment) against a member of the National Guard because the member refuses to receive such a vaccination.
Sponsors: Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the National Guard
Estimated Size: 440000
- The National Guard consists of approximately 440,000 personnel across the United States.
- Not all members may be unvaccinated or unwilling to get vaccinated, but the bill impacts the vaccination policy affecting the total number of National Guard members.
- The wellbeing and operational capacity of National Guard members and potentially those they interact with could be impacted by this legislation.
- Given the US-only nature of the National Guard, the global impact is limited to the US population.
Reasoning
- The National Guard consists of approximately 440,000 personnel across the United States, but not all members refuse vaccination.
- The policy specifically impacts those who are unvaccinated and face mandates, which could be a minority within the Guard.
- Given the policy's budget, the impact on wellbeing would need to focus on those who feel most affected by vaccine mandates or adverse action due to refusal.
- Wellbeing scores will vary depending on individual perspectives on vaccination and related mandates.
Simulated Interviews
National Guard member (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't want to get vaccinated, but the potential for disciplinary action was stressful.
- This policy means I can avoid vaccination without worrying about my career being impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
National Guard medic (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe everyone should have the right to choose regarding medical decisions.
- This policy doesn't change my role, but it reduces tension among my peers.
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 |
National Guard officer (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Vaccines are crucial for maintaining unit readiness, but as long as refusal doesn't impact service, I'm alright with this policy.
- Our focus should be maintaining operational effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
National Guard IT specialist (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this policy could lead to outbreaks and operational disruption.
- Vaccinations are a collective responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
National Guard logistics specialist (Ohio)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a relief; I won't face further repercussions for sticking by my choice.
- It takes away a lot of stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
National Guard HR specialist (Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've observed the stress mandates place on unvaccinated colleagues; this policy could reduce conflict.
- I'm still concerned about overall health safety.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
National Guard Sergeant (North Carolina)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the freedom to choose now without facing punishment.
- It's important to feel supported by the organization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
National Guard Colonel (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our mission readiness could take precedence, but I respect my soldiers' right to choose.
- The policy might decrease tension within the ranks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
National Guard intelligence analyst (Iowa)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this doesn't make my job more difficult due to increased health risks.
- Regulations should prioritize safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cadet (Illinois)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might influence my final decision about joining.
- It's reassuring to know there could be more freedom of choice.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- This bill primarily affects policies of the Department of Defense with minimal direct financial impacts.
- Indirect costs relating to healthcare utilization could emerge if unvaccinated personnel face higher rates of illness.
- Potential legal and administrative challenges could lead to administrative cost increases.