Do No Harm Act Proposes Limits on Religious Freedom Claims in Discrimination, Healthcare Cases

This bill, officially titled the "Do No Harm Act," directly targets the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Its main goal is to carve out specific areas where RFRA cannot be used as a defense, essentially saying religious freedom claims shouldn't override certain fundamental protections for people.

RFRA Gets a Rewrite: What Changes?

So, what's RFRA? It's a federal law designed to prevent government actions from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion. The Do No Harm Act amends RFRA (specifically Section 2 of the bill) to say this protection doesn't apply if it means undermining laws that:

• Fight Discrimination: This includes major civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The idea is RFRA can't be used to justify discrimination that these laws prohibit.
• Ensure Workplace Standards: Protections for wages, benefits (like leave), and collective bargaining rights are shielded. An employer couldn't cite RFRA, under this bill, to deny legally required compensation or benefits.
• Protect Children: Laws against child labor, abuse, or exploitation are explicitly protected from RFRA challenges.
• Guarantee Healthcare Access: This is a big one. The bill states RFRA doesn't apply to laws ensuring access to, information about, referrals for, or coverage of any healthcare item or service. For example, a claim based on religious objection couldn't be used under RFRA to deny someone access to a legally mandated health service or coverage.

It also clarifies RFRA can't override terms in government contracts or grants meant to serve beneficiaries, nor can it be used to deny someone equal access to government services or facilities.

Keeping It Between You and the Government

Section 3 of the bill tackles who can use RFRA and against whom. It clarifies that RFRA is strictly for legal disputes involving the government. This means it's intended for situations where an individual believes a government action infringes on their religious freedom. It explicitly states RFRA isn't a tool for lawsuits between private parties. So, one private company couldn't use RFRA as a defense against a discrimination claim brought by a private employee under a separate law, according to this clarification.

The Bottom Line: Balancing Protections

Essentially, the Do No Harm Act tries to draw clearer lines around RFRA. It aims to ensure that while religious freedom is protected, it doesn't become a legal loophole to bypass laws designed to guarantee equal opportunity, fair labor standards, child welfare, and access to healthcare. The practical effect is intended to strengthen these other legal protections by preventing RFRA from being used to challenge them in the specified contexts.