An Act amending the act of December 9, 2002 (P.L.1701, No.214), known as the Religious Freedom Protection Act, further providing for definitions and for free exercise of religion protected.
Summary
HB54 would amend Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Protection Act to broaden and clarify when government action is treated as a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. The bill adds a new definition of “adverse action” and expands the definition of “substantially burden” to include agency actions that significantly constrain religious conduct or expression, curtail adherence to faith, deny a reasonable opportunity to engage in religious activities, compel conduct contrary to religious tenets, prevent physical assembly or travel for religious gathering, or authorize penalties or sanctions against a person for exercising religion.
The bill also adds a new limitation on the existing statutory exception for government action during emergencies or disease-control situations. Under HB54, an agency could not rely on a gubernatorial emergency order or a control measure under the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 as the basis for an exception to the act’s protections for free exercise of religion. The measure would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB54 would amend the Religious Freedom Protection Act, 71 P.S. § 2401 et seq., by expanding statutory definitions and narrowing the circumstances in which the Commonwealth may justify burdens on religious exercise. It would affect state agencies and other government actors whose orders, sanctions, or emergency measures could be challenged as substantially burdening religion, especially in contexts involving public health orders, emergency declarations, restrictions on gatherings, or penalties tied to religious conduct.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a pro-religious-liberty policy approach, with sponsors seeking stronger protections against government restrictions, particularly those associated with emergency or disease-control actions.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on using emergency orders and disease-control measures as exceptions to religious-freedom protections. Supporters would likely view this as necessary to prevent government overreach and protect worship, assembly, and travel for religious purposes. Opponents may argue it could limit the Commonwealth’s ability to respond to public health emergencies or other urgent situations and could make enforcement of neutral, generally applicable safety measures more difficult.
To enact section 9.51 of the Revised Code to provide for the preservation of religious freedom and to name this act the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act.