Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The bill amends title 38, U.S. Code to add a new section allowing a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) chaplain who has conducted a spiritual assessment of a patient to, at the patient's election, transmit that patient's contact information to a non‑Department religious or faith‑based organization specified by the patient. The bill defines “spiritual assessment” as a chaplain's evaluation to gather spiritual information about the patient and to inform the patient's medical treatment plan, if applicable.
Privacy and data‑security: liberals see major gaps; conservatives tend to prioritize access and want fewer procedural barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a new permissive disclosure authority for VA chaplains but provides limited legislative detail on implementation, privacy safeguards, fiscal impacts, and integration with existing information‑protection laws.
The bill amends title 38, U.S. Code to add a new section allowing a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) chaplain who has conducted a spiritual assessment of a patient to, at the patient's election, transmit that patient's contact information to a non‑Department religious or faith‑based organization specified by the patient.
The bill defines “spiritual assessment” as a chaplain's evaluation to gather spiritual information about the patient and to inform the patient's medical treatment plan, if applicable.
The authority is explicitly voluntary and requires the patient’s election.
On content alone the bill is narrow, low-cost, and contains a clear consent safeguard, which increases its chance to advance in committee and attract some bipartisan support. However, its intersection with religion, privacy, and potential constitutional concerns (no privacy guardrails or implementation detail in the text) reduces its standalone appeal; it is more likely to be enacted if included as a provision in a broader, must-pass veterans or appropriations package than if offered as a standalone floor measure.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a new permissive disclosure authority for VA chaplains but provides limited legislative detail on implementation, privacy safeguards, fiscal impacts, and integration with existing information‑protection laws.
Privacy and data‑security: liberals see major gaps; conservatives tend to prioritize access and want fewer procedural barriers.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy and data‑security: liberals see major gaps; conservatives tend to prioritize access and want fewer procedural barriers.
A mainstream liberal observer would see this bill as potentially helpful in connecting some veterans to faith-based support networks, but would be concerned about privacy, church–state separation, and protection of vulnerable patients from pressure or coercive referral.
They would note the bill’s lack of explicit privacy, nondiscrimination, or oversight rules, and worry these gaps could lead to implicit coercion or inappropriate sharing of medical or contact data.
They would look for stronger civil‑rights and privacy safeguards before supporting it.
A centrist would view the bill as a targeted, modest expansion of veterans’ options that respects patient choice, while noting missing implementation details that could create problems.
They would appreciate the voluntary nature and potential for better wraparound care, but want concrete privacy, consent, and anti‑coercion procedures codified.
Overall, a centrist would be cautiously favorable if the bill were amended to add clear administrative safeguards and oversight.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill positively as restoring or enabling faith-based organizations to help veterans when the veteran requests it, emphasizing religious freedom and community support.
They would appreciate that transmission is voluntary and driven by the patient's choice and see it as reducing bureaucracy that can block beneficial community involvement.
The conservative view would favor implementation with minimal additional restrictions that could impede faith groups or burden chaplains.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is narrow, low-cost, and contains a clear consent safeguard, which increases its chance to advance in committee and attract some bipartisan support. However, its intersection with religion, privacy, and potential constitutional concerns (no privacy guardrails or implementation detail in the text) reduces its standalone appeal; it is more likely to be enacted if included as a provision in a broader, must-pass veterans or appropriations package than if offered as a standalone floor measure.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy and data‑security: liberals see major gaps; conservatives tend to prioritize access and want fewer procedural barriers.
On content alone the bill is narrow, low-cost, and contains a clear consent safeguard, which increases its chance to advance in committee a…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment that clearly creates a new permissive disclosure authority for VA chaplains but provides limited legislative detail on imp…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.