Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill creates a new federal crime for knowingly assaulting hospital personnel on hospital grounds, with penalties up to 10 years. Enhanced penalties (up to 20 years) apply for use of a dangerous weapon, serious bodily injury, or during a Stafford Act emergency.
Progressives emphasize mental-health criminalization risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory insertion that creates a new federal criminal offense focused on assaults of hospital personnel and includes an associated GAO study.
The bill creates a new federal crime for knowingly assaulting hospital personnel on hospital grounds, with penalties up to 10 years.
Enhanced penalties (up to 20 years) apply for use of a dangerous weapon, serious bodily injury, or during a Stafford Act emergency.
It supplies an affirmative defense for defendants with qualifying disabilities who prove inability to appreciate wrongfulness.
Relatively narrow, low‑cost safety measure with bipartisan appeal, but federalization of criminal law and burden-shifting affirmative defense introduce legal and political friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory insertion that creates a new federal criminal offense focused on assaults of hospital personnel and includes an associated GAO study. The legal elements, penalties, affirmative defense, and definitional cross-references are relatively specific, but the bill omits funding provisions, implementation guidance, and detailed timelines for the mandated study or enforcement coordination.
Progressives emphasize mental-health criminalization risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize mental-health criminalization risks
Generally supportive of stronger protections for healthcare workers but wary of expanding federal criminal law.
Concerned about criminalizing people with mental illness, substance use, or acute medical conditions despite the affirmative defense.
Will want safeguards, alternatives, and resources for de-escalation and behavioral health.
Supports protecting hospital staff while balancing federalism and criminal-justice concerns.
Sees practical value in deterrence and data collection, but wants clarity on jurisdiction, enforcement costs, and interaction with state prosecutions.
Likely to favor amendments limiting unintended consequences.
Strongly supportive as a law-and-order measure protecting frontline workers.
Views federal penalties as appropriate deterrent and supports enhanced sentences for weapon use or during emergencies.
May prefer broader federal authority to ensure prosecutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Relatively narrow, low‑cost safety measure with bipartisan appeal, but federalization of criminal law and burden-shifting affirmative defense introduce legal and political friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize mental-health criminalization risks
Relatively narrow, low‑cost safety measure with bipartisan appeal, but federalization of criminal law and burden-shifting affirmative defen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory insertion that creates a new federal criminal offense focused on assaults of hospital personnel and includes an associated GAO study. T…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.