Do No Harm Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 6, 2025
Bottom line
The Do No Harm Act aims to narrow the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to prevent its use as a justification for actions that infringe upon the civil rights or well-being of others, while also clarifying its scope in private disputes.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to prevent its application where federal law provides protections against discrimination, promotes equal opportunity, ensures fair wages or benefits, protects children, or guarantees access to healthcare. It also clarifies that RFRA applies only to judicial proceedings where a government is a party, thus precluding its use in litigation between private parties.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill restores RFRA's original intent, preventing its misuse to undermine civil rights, public health protections, and labor standards. They contend it ensures that religious freedom is balanced with the fundamental rights and well-being of all citizens, preventing religious exemptions from being used to justify discrimination or cause harm to third parties.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill infringes on religious freedom by significantly limiting the scope of RFRA, potentially forcing religious individuals and organizations to act against their deeply held beliefs in various contexts, including employment, healthcare, and social services.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2, adding subsection (d) to 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1
Exception from RFRA Application Where Federal Law Prevents Harm to Others
This provision specifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) does not apply to federal laws or their implementation that provide protections against discrimination (e.g., Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act), promote equal opportunity, require employers to provide wages or benefits (e.g., Family and Medical Leave Act), protect against child labor or abuse, or ensure access to health care items or services. It also applies to government contracts and prevents RFRA from being used to deny equal enjoyment of government-provided goods or services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial to prevent RFRA from being weaponized to justify discrimination or harm, ensuring that religious freedom is balanced with the rights and well-being of all citizens. They contend it clarifies that religious freedom should not come at the expense of others' fundamental protections.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision unduly restricts religious freedom by carving out broad exceptions, potentially forcing religious entities to violate deeply held beliefs or withdraw from public life and service provision.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between protecting religious exercise and ensuring comprehensive civil rights, public health, and labor protections, aiming to prevent religious exemptions from creating loopholes in these critical areas.
Section 3, amending 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(c)
Clarification of RFRA's Application to Government as a Party
This section amends RFRA to explicitly state that it applies only to judicial proceedings where a government is a party, and relief can be obtained against that government. This clarifies that RFRA cannot be used in litigation between private parties, preventing individuals or entities from using religious freedom as a defense against private lawsuits.