Religion and the law have always had a messy relationship in America. It’s complicated. For decades, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—most people just call it RFRA—was the gold standard for protecting people’s right to practice their faith without the government breathing down their necks. But things shifted. What started as a shield for religious minorities has, in the eyes of many civil rights advocates, been sharpened into a sword. That’s exactly why the Do No Harm Act was introduced. It's basically an attempt to say, "Look, your faith matters, but it shouldn't give you a free pass to ignore nondiscrimination laws."
Honestly, if you haven’t been following the Supreme Court lately, you might have missed how much RFRA has grown. It’s huge now. We saw it in the Hobby Lobby case back in 2014, where the Court ruled that "closely held" corporations could opt out of the contraceptive mandate if it violated their religious beliefs. That was a massive turning point. It signaled that RFRA could be used by big employers, not just individuals, to sidestep federal rules. The Do No Harm Act is the direct response to that evolution. It’s a piece of legislation designed to narrow the scope of religious exemptions so they don’t end up hurting third parties—like employees who need healthcare or LGBTQ+ individuals looking for services.
What the Do No Harm Act Actually Does
The core of the Do No Harm Act is pretty straightforward, though the legal jargon can get thick. At its heart, the bill amends RFRA. It doesn’t get rid of it. That’s a common misconception. Instead, it carves out specific areas where religious exceptions simply wouldn't apply anymore. We're talking about things like labor laws, child abuse protections, and, most notably, healthcare and nondiscrimination.
Imagine a world where a federally funded homeless shelter could turn someone away just because of who they love, citing religious freedom. Under the current interpretation of RFRA, that’s a real legal possibility. The Do No Harm Act wants to shut that door. It clarifies that religious freedom is about your personal practice, not about exercising power over others in the public sphere.
The bill has been championed by folks like Representative Bobby Scott and Senator Cory Booker. They’ve been vocal about the fact that civil rights shouldn't be "optional" based on an employer's or a provider's religious tenets. But it isn't just about big headlines. It’s about the small stuff too. It’s about making sure a child in the foster care system isn't denied a loving home because the state-contracted agency has a religious objection to same-sex couples. It’s about ensuring a woman can get her prescription filled at the only pharmacy in town without being lectured or refused.
The Friction Between Faith and Equality
There is a lot of tension here. Real tension. On one side, you’ve got groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They argue that RFRA has been "weaponized." They see the Do No Harm Act as a necessary correction to restore the balance. To them, "do no harm" isn't just a catchy name; it's a fundamental principle of a pluralistic society. You can't use your rights to trample on mine. Simple, right?
Well, not according to everyone.
👉 See also: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
Opponents, including many religious liberty advocacy groups and various denominations, see this act as a direct assault. They argue it would effectively gut RFRA. If you start carving out exceptions for every civil right, they say, what’s left of religious freedom? They worry that religious hospitals, charities, and schools would be forced to choose between following their conscience and keeping their doors open. It’s a high-stakes game of legal chicken.
Take the Little Sisters of the Poor case. It’s a classic example of this friction. They are a group of nuns who didn't want to be involved in providing birth control. To their supporters, forcing them to do so is a violation of the "free exercise" clause. To their detractors, the exemption they sought creates a burden on the women they employ. The Do No Harm Act is essentially siding with the employees in that specific tug-of-war. It posits that the harm caused to the employee (losing health coverage) outweighs the burden on the employer's religious practice.
Why This Matters for the Average Person
You might think this is just a bunch of lawyers arguing in D.C., but it hits home. Fast.
If you work for a large company that decides its "religious identity" forbids certain types of medical care, you’re the one who pays the price. If you’re a member of the LGBTQ+ community and you’re looking for a house or a job in a state without strong local protections, federal law is your safety net. The Do No Harm Act is about reinforcing that net.
It’s also about taxes.
Think about it. A lot of these organizations receive federal grants. They’re using taxpayer money. The argument goes: if you’re taking public funds to provide a public service, you should have to follow public rules. No exceptions. This is particularly relevant in the foster care and adoption space. In several states, we’ve seen agencies refuse to work with Jewish parents or LGBTQ+ parents. If the Do No Harm Act becomes law, those agencies would likely have to change their policies or lose their federal funding.
✨ Don't miss: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
It’s a massive shift in how we think about the "public square."
The Legal Path Ahead
Is this bill going to pass? Honestly, it’s an uphill battle. The political divide in Congress is a canyon. Democrats generally support it as a civil rights priority, while Republicans generally view it as a threat to the First Amendment.
Even if it doesn't pass this year, or next, the conversation isn't going away. Why? Because the Supreme Court keeps taking cases that push the boundaries of religious exemptions. Whether it’s Fulton v. City of Philadelphia or 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the judiciary is currently leaning toward a very broad interpretation of religious rights. This puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act if they want to protect the reach of nondiscrimination laws.
We also have to look at the history. When RFRA was passed in 1993, it was nearly unanimous. Everyone loved it. It was a reaction to a case involving the use of peyote in Native American religious ceremonies (Employment Division v. Smith). Back then, it was about protecting the "little guy" from the government. But as the "little guy" became the "multibillion-dollar corporation," the consensus evaporated. The Do No Harm Act is the manifestation of that lost consensus.
Specific Protections Targeted by the Act
To understand the depth of this, you have to see exactly what the bill tries to protect. It isn't a vague document. It lists specific areas where RFRA cannot be used to bypass the law:
- Nondiscrimination Laws: This is the big one. It covers employment, housing, and public accommodations.
- Health Care: Specifically ensuring that people aren't denied services based on someone else's religious beliefs.
- Labor Standards: Think minimum wage, overtime, and child labor laws.
- Government-Funded Services: If the government pays for it, the service must be available to everyone regardless of the provider's faith.
- Child Welfare: Protecting children from abuse or neglect, regardless of religious claims.
The wording is deliberate. It’s meant to address the "harms" that have cropped up in litigation over the last decade. It’s a reactive piece of legislation, born out of real-world court cases where people felt their rights were sidelined by another person’s religious claim.
🔗 Read more: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
Actionable Insights and Next Steps
The debate over the Do No Harm Act is a window into the soul of American law. It forces us to ask: where does my right to believe end and your right to exist equally begin? There are no easy answers, but there are ways to stay informed and protect your interests.
1. Know Your State Laws.
Federal law is only one part of the puzzle. Many states have their own versions of RFRA, and some have "Mini-Do No Harm" clauses or very strong nondiscrimination statutes. If you feel you've been discriminated against under the guise of a religious exemption, check your local and state protections first. They are often more robust than federal law currently is.
2. Follow the Dockets.
Keep an eye on the Supreme Court. Cases involving religious liberty are scheduled every term. Organizations like the SCOTUSblog provide accessible breakdowns of what’s happening. The rulings they issue will dictate whether the Do No Harm Act remains a legislative proposal or becomes an absolute necessity for civil rights advocates.
3. Engage with the Legislative Process.
If you feel strongly about this—either way—reach out to your representatives. This bill is frequently reintroduced in new sessions of Congress. Legislators need to hear from constituents about how these legal interpretations affect their daily lives, their businesses, and their families.
4. Review Workplace Policies.
If you are an employer, it’s worth reviewing your handbooks. The legal landscape is shifting. Even without the Do No Harm Act, the way courts balance "sincerely held beliefs" against "compelling government interests" is in flux. Being proactive about inclusive policies is usually a better legal strategy than waiting for a lawsuit.
5. Support Advocacy Groups.
Whether you align with the ACLU or the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, these are the groups doing the heavy lifting in court. They often provide resources, legal aid, and educational materials that can help you navigate these complex issues.
The struggle to balance faith and freedom isn't a new story in America. It’s the original story. The Do No Harm Act is just the latest chapter in that ongoing saga, trying to ensure that in our search for religious freedom, we don't lose sight of the people who might get hurt along the way.