PRRIPRRI 2024 American Values Atlas - LGBTQ module · Jan 2024 – Dec 31, 2024 · US national
Verification note. WORDING RECOVERY SWEEP. Item text and battery instruction copied character-for-character from PRRI's 2024 AVA LGBTQ Module topline (Q10/Q10d). PRRI's rendering has no 'would' - 'Laws that prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition.' || Toplines and party breaks read from the PRRI report text, retrieved in session. PARAPHRASE RISK: PRRI's report describes the item repeatedly as 'laws that would prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition' but does not print the fielded question stem in the body text; question_text_verbatim is therefore false.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE]:
Laws that prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition.
Wording notes: restrictive policy is the 'favor' pole | frames the ban as acting on parents, not on providers
neutral — policy stated plainly in both directions
Laws that would prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition [favor or oppose]
Wording reconstructed from: PRRI, 'LGBTQ Rights Across All 50 States: Key Insights from the 2024 PRRI American Values Atlas', section 'Opposition to Laws Restricting Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Minors'. This is PRRI's own repeated description of the item, not a reproduced topline stem.
Wording notes: BAN framing (favor = restrict) | the restricted party is PARENTS, not doctors or minors - the most parental-rights-inflected wording in this file | 'medical care for a gender transition' rather than 'gender-affirming care' | no treatment named | no age threshold beyond 'child'
neutral — Symmetric favor/oppose. What matters analytically is the target of the restriction: by making parents the party being blocked, this wording recruits parental-autonomy sentiment onto the anti-ban side, and it produces markedly higher opposition to bans (49%) than doctor-targeted or treatment-named wordings among Republicans (only 30% oppose). It is the natural counterpart to Marquette's and NYT/Ipsos's provider-targeted items.
| Group | Oppose |
|---|---|
| Democrats | 70% |
| Independents | 49% |
| Republicans | 30% |
| Group | Oppose | Favor |
|---|---|---|
| Gen Z | 49% | 46% |
| Millennials | 48% | 48% |
| Gen X | 47% | 49% |
| Baby boomers | 51% | 44% |
| Silent Generation | 58% | 38% |
| Group | Oppose |
|---|---|
| College degree or more | 56% |
| No four-year degree | 46% |
| Group | Oppose |
|---|---|
| White evangelical Protestants | 31% |
| Religiously unaffiliated | 62% |
| Group | Oppose |
|---|---|
| Residents of states without care bans | 54% |
| Residents of states with care bans | 44% |
Every figure on this page is transcribed from the source linked above. How to read this data →