Do No Harm RFRA Reform

Full Title:
Do No Harm Act

Summary#

This bill, called the Do No Harm Act, changes the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It narrows when RFRA can be used to excuse actions that harm other people. It also limits RFRA lawsuits so they apply only to cases where the government is a defendant.

  • Main change: RFRA would not apply to federal laws that protect others from harm, including many anti-discrimination rules, workplace protections, child-protection laws, and laws guaranteeing access to health care (including information, referrals, provision, or coverage).
  • Main change: RFRA would not be available to challenge the terms of government contracts or grants that require services to be provided to program participants.
  • Main change: RFRA could not be used in private lawsuits between two private parties; it would only be usable in lawsuits where a government is a party and relief is sought against the government.
  • Stated goal: The bill says it aims to protect civil rights and prevent meaningful harm to third parties.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking services (patients, customers, clients):
    • If a federal law guarantees access to a health service or coverage, someone could not use RFRA to refuse to provide that care, refuse to give information or referrals, or deny coverage on religious grounds. This could mean more consistent access to services covered by federal law.
  • Workers and employers:
    • RFRA could not be used to avoid federal workplace rules that require wages, benefits, leave, or protections for collective activity. Employers could have fewer paths to claim religious exemptions from those federal requirements.
  • People asserting religious exemptions:
    • Individuals or businesses would have narrower ability to use RFRA to opt out of complying with certain federal laws that protect others (for example, anti-discrimination laws).
    • Also, RFRA could no longer be invoked in private legal disputes between private parties; it would be limited to cases against a government actor.
  • Government contractors and grant recipients:
    • If a government contract or grant requires delivering goods or services to program beneficiaries, RFRA could not be used to avoid those contract or grant terms on religious grounds.
  • Government agencies:
    • Agencies that enforce federal anti-discrimination, health, labor, or child-protection laws could face fewer RFRA-based defenses from regulated parties. The bill does not clearly say how agencies should handle disputes about overlap between RFRA and other federal laws.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
  • This could mean changes in litigation patterns: fewer private RFRA claims might reduce some court time, while new disputes about the bill’s scope could create litigation about its meaning. The bill does not quantify those effects.
  • It is unclear whether federal agencies would need extra staff, training, or guidance to apply the new rules.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to protect civil rights and prevent others from being harmed by religious exemptions.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would stop RFRA from being used to override federal anti-discrimination laws, workplace protections, child-protection rules, and federal protections for health care access.
  • The bill could be seen as clarifying that RFRA was not meant to allow harms to third parties or to undermine government-funded programs.
  • Limiting RFRA suits to cases against the government could be argued to keep RFRA focused on government action rather than private disputes.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill narrows religious liberty protections by preventing people and businesses from using RFRA to seek exemptions from federal laws, even in cases they say conflict with their religious beliefs.
  • The bill does not clearly define some broad phrases (for example, “access to ... any health care item or service,” or what it means for a law “to prevent harm to others”), which could lead to legal uncertainty and more court cases to interpret those phrases.
  • It is unclear how the changes will interact with state laws and state-level religious exemption claims; the text amends the federal RFRA but does not say whether or how state rules are affected.
  • Restricting RFRA to suits against government could leave some private parties without a RFRA-based defense in disputes with other private parties; the practical fairness and effects of that change are not detailed in the bill.