Do No Harm Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1954
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-01T08:08:51Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Do No Harm Act" (H.R. 1954) aims to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to ensure that religious freedom claims do not undermine key civil rights protections or cause significant harm to others. RFRA is a federal law that prevents the government from substantially burdening a person's religious exercise unless it serves a compelling interest in the least restrictive way. This bill adds exceptions to limit RFRA's scope in specific areas.
Key Provisions
- Exception for Laws Preventing Harm: RFRA's protections do not apply to federal laws or their enforcement that:
- Protect against discrimination or promote equal opportunity, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public places and employment), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (which ensures equal access for people with disabilities), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (which provides unpaid leave for family or medical reasons), and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (which addresses domestic violence and stalking).
- Require employers to provide wages, benefits (like paid leave), or protections for group activities in the workplace (e.g., union rights).
- Safeguard against child labor, child abuse, or child exploitation.
- Ensure access to, information about, referrals for, or coverage of health care items or services (e.g., reproductive health or mental health care).
- Government Funding Restrictions: RFRA does not apply to terms in government contracts, grants, or agreements that fund programs or services for beneficiaries, requiring those services to be provided without religious exemptions that could harm participants.
- Equal Access Rule: RFRA exemptions cannot be used if they would deny someone full and equal access to government-provided goods, services, benefits, or facilities (e.g., public accommodations).
- Limits on Private Lawsuits: RFRA only allows claims in court cases where the government is a party; it does not apply to disputes between private individuals or entities seeking relief against each other.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Narrowing RFRA's Scope: Previously, RFRA could be invoked broadly to challenge government actions burdening religion, even in ways that affected civil rights or third parties. This bill carves out explicit exceptions for anti-discrimination, labor, child protection, and health care laws, preventing religious claims from overriding them.
- Clarification on Applicability: The amendment specifies that RFRA lawsuits are limited to proceedings involving the government as a defendant, closing potential loopholes for private parties to use RFRA against each other (e.g., in employment or service disputes).
These changes aim to prioritize preventing harm over unrestricted religious exemptions, without altering RFRA's core framework for genuine government burdens on religion.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies enforcing civil rights, labor, or health laws (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Labor, or Health and Human Services) would face fewer RFRA-based challenges, streamlining enforcement but possibly requiring clearer guidelines for handling religious accommodation requests.
- On Citizens: Strengthens protections for vulnerable groups, such as employees facing discrimination, patients seeking health care, or children protected from exploitation, by limiting religious objections that could deny services. However, individuals or organizations with sincere religious beliefs might find it harder to obtain exemptions, potentially affecting their operations.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence U.S. foreign aid or contracts involving human rights standards, ensuring funded programs align with anti-discrimination norms without religious overrides.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Civil Rights Advocates and Marginalized Groups: Including racial minorities, people with disabilities, women (especially in reproductive health), LGBTQ+ individuals, and survivors of domestic violence, who benefit from stronger enforcement of equality laws.
- Employers and Workers: Businesses and employees in sectors like health care, education, or retail, where religious exemptions might previously conflict with wage, leave, or anti-discrimination rules.
- Religious Organizations and Individuals: Faith-based groups, churches, or businesses claiming religious burdens (e.g., on hiring or service provision) may face restrictions on using RFRA to avoid compliance.
- Government Contractors and Fund Recipients: Entities receiving federal funds (e.g., hospitals, schools, or nonprofits) must ensure services are provided equitably, without religious-based denials.
- Health Care Providers and Patients: Doctors, insurers, and patients, particularly in areas like contraception, abortion referrals, or end-of-life care, where religious objections could limit access.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Reinforces the hierarchy of civil rights laws over religious freedom claims in specified areas, potentially reducing litigation volume but inviting challenges under RFRA itself or other statutes. Courts may need to interpret "harm to third parties" more narrowly to avoid overreach.
- Constitutional Implications: Balances the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause (protecting religious practice) with the Establishment Clause (preventing government favoritism of religion) and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (ensuring fair treatment). It could face scrutiny for unduly restricting religious liberty, though it preserves RFRA for non-harmful cases.
- Political Implications: Addresses ongoing debates over religious exemptions in culture-war issues like same-sex marriage, transgender rights, and reproductive health, signaling a congressional intent to prioritize secular protections in a diverse society. As a bipartisan bill (introduced by Democrats but with broad co-sponsors), it may highlight tensions in judicial interpretations of RFRA post-Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), where the Supreme Court allowed some religious exemptions in health care.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
Cosponsors (121)
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30], Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Neal, Richard E. [D-MA-1], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35], Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5], Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3], Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Gomez, Jimmy [D-CA-34], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23], Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24], Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43], Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2] and 71 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Do No Harm Act — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (4 pages)