The Do No Harm Act would amend the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to limit when RFRA can be used to excuse compliance with other federal laws. The bill states that RFRA’s protections would not apply to laws or government actions that prohibit discrimination or promote equal opportunity, require wages or benefits, protect against child labor or abuse, or provide access to health care items or services. It also excludes certain government contracts, grants, and other awards when they require services for program beneficiaries.
The bill further clarifies that RFRA cannot be used in litigation between private parties in the same way it has been invoked in disputes involving government action. It amends RFRA’s judicial-proceeding language so that relief would be available only in proceedings to which the government is a party, narrowing the statute’s reach in private disputes. Overall, the measure is designed to preserve civil rights, labor, child welfare, and health care protections from being overridden by religious liberty claims under RFRA.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly narrow the practical scope of RFRA by carving out broad categories of federal law and government-funded programs from its application. It would affect civil rights enforcement, workplace protections, child protection laws, and health care access rules, and it would limit RFRA-based defenses in cases involving government contracts, grants, and benefits. The bill would also alter the statute’s litigation framework by restricting RFRA relief to cases involving the government, thereby reducing its use in private-party disputes.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s title and structure, the measure appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as a civil-rights and harm-prevention reform, emphasizing that religious liberty claims should not be used to cause meaningful harm to others. The available context shows no committee debate, votes, or recorded opposition in the provided materials, so there is no documented roll-call sentiment here. The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicating it is at an early stage.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the balance between religious freedom and the enforcement of civil rights, labor, health care, and anti-discrimination laws. Supporters would view the bill as preventing RFRA from being used to deny services, benefits, or equal treatment, while opponents may argue it weakens religious liberty protections and limits defenses available to individuals and organizations with religious objections. The private-party litigation clarification may also be controversial because it narrows how RFRA can be asserted in disputes beyond direct government enforcement.