Overview
Title
To amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to protect civil rights and otherwise prevent meaningful harm to third parties, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 894 wants to make sure that people can't use religious reasons to break rules that stop unfair treatment, keep work safe, or let everyone get healthcare and other public services. It also says that religious arguments can't be used in court unless the government is part of the case.
Summary AI
S. 894, also known as the “Do No Harm Act,” seeks to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to prevent the act from being used in a way that harms third parties. It specifies that religious freedom cannot be used as an excuse to override laws that protect against discrimination, ensure workplace standards, or guarantee access to healthcare and other public services. The bill also clarifies that the act cannot be used in private lawsuits unless the government is directly involved in the case.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill, S. 894, is an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 aiming to balance religious freedoms with the protection of civil rights and prevent harm to third parties. Titled the "Do No Harm Act," this legislative proposal seeks to ensure that religious beliefs do not exempt individuals or organizations from adhering to certain federal laws designed to protect against discrimination, ensure workplace fairness, prevent child abuse, and safeguard access to healthcare.
General Summary
The bill introduces an exception, stating that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used to challenge federal laws if these laws are in place to prevent harm to others. This encompasses laws related to non-discrimination, workplace protections, child safety, healthcare access, and obligations tied to government-funded contracts or benefits. Moreover, the bill clarifies that religious freedom claims are not applicable in private lawsuits, addressing only those cases where the government is a party.
Significant Issues
Several issues have been identified in the bill's language. Firstly, there is complexity in how the bill lists specific acts without clear definitions of their interaction with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The notion of "indirect" funding in government contracts also brings ambiguity about compliance requirements. Additionally, the bill lacks specificity in determining and enforcing what constitutes "full and equal enjoyment" of government-provided services or benefits.
Furthermore, while the amendment restricts cases where the government is not a party, it introduces potential ambiguity regarding what constitutes adequate government involvement in a legal case. The complexity of legal references may also necessitate legal expertise, inadvertently making them hard for a general audience to comprehend.
Broad Public Impact
The proposed amendment could have broad implications for religious institutions, employers, employees, and individuals seeking government services. By establishing clear exceptions, it attempts to affirm that religious freedom should not override important protections offered by various federal laws aimed at minimizing harm and promoting equality.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For religious organizations, the bill might limit the use of religious freedom claims to bypass specific obligations under federal laws. This could be viewed negatively by those who feel their religious practices are compromised. Conversely, individuals and groups advocating for civil rights might see this amendment as a positive step towards ensuring broad and consistent protection from discrimination based on race, disability, gender, or other statuses.
Employers may be positively impacted by clearer guidelines that help prevent legal disputes related to workplace policies and religious exemptions. Lastly, beneficiaries of government contracts and services stand to gain greater assurance of equitable treatment and access without religious exemptions jeopardizing these rights.
Ultimately, while the bill seeks to uphold civil rights, it must navigate potential legal challenges and ambiguities in its language, demanding careful consideration to avoid unforeseen consequences.
Issues
Section 2: The language in section (d)(1)(A) is overly complex, listing specific acts without clear definitions of how they interact with the amendments to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which might lead to legal uncertainties and challenges.
Section 3: The amendment introduces ambiguity by specifying 'judicial proceeding to which a government is a party.' This leaves room for interpretation of what constitutes adequate government involvement, potentially creating a legal gray area.
Section 2: Ambiguity in section (d)(2) exists concerning 'indirect' funding and its impact on compliance requirements under various government contracts, which could complicate application and enforcement.
Section 2: Section (d)(3) lacks specificity regarding the criteria used to determine 'full and equal enjoyment' and how it will be enforced or measured, raising concerns about consistent application.
Section 3: The complexity of the amendment and legal references may necessitate legal expertise for interpretation, potentially making the provisions difficult for the general public to understand.
Section 2: The section does not address potential conflicts or overlaps with existing laws and regulations, which could lead to legal challenges or uncertainties.
Section 3: The lack of examples or scenarios for the amendment's application could result in misinterpretations or unforeseen applications of the law.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states its short title, which is the “Do No Harm Act”.
2. Exception from application of act where Federal law prevents harm to others Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act specifies that the law does not apply to situations where federal laws prevent harm to others. This includes promoting non-discrimination, ensuring fair workplace practices, protecting against child exploitation, providing access to healthcare, and fulfilling government contract requirements or benefits.
3. Clarification of preclusion of litigation between private parties Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 only applies to legal cases where the government is a party and people seek relief from the government, not cases between private individuals.