Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The Do No Harm Act amends the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to add exceptions where application would prevent harm to others. It says RFRA does not apply to federal anti-discrimination laws, workplace wage/benefit protections, child protection laws, or access to health care (including information, referrals, provision, or coverage).
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and health access
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that clearly inserts enumerated exceptions into RFRA and narrows the availability of private RFRA litigation, and the primary mechanism (direct changes to statutory text) is appropriate and precise.
The Do No Harm Act amends the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to add exceptions where application would prevent harm to others.
It says RFRA does not apply to federal anti-discrimination laws, workplace wage/benefit protections, child protection laws, or access to health care (including information, referrals, provision, or coverage).
It also exempts terms of government contracts and bars RFRA from being used to deny full and equal enjoyment of government goods or services.
Narrow statutory change but high political salience; easier in one chamber than both, significant filibuster risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that clearly inserts enumerated exceptions into RFRA and narrows the availability of private RFRA litigation, and the primary mechanism (direct changes to statutory text) is appropriate and precise.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and health access
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and health access
This persona would view the bill positively as a needed fix to stop RFRA being used to excuse discrimination or deny health care.
They see it restoring the ability of federal civil-rights and health laws to operate without religious-law exemptions that harm third parties.
They would still note state RFRAs and implementation details remain uncertain.
This persona would see the bill as a targeted, pragmatic refinement of RFRA balancing religious freedom and third-party protections.
They would appreciate the focus on federal statutes, contracts, and beneficiaries, but worry about implementation details and unintended burdens on small providers.
They would look for clearer definitions and administrative guidance before full endorsement.
This persona would likely oppose the bill as a weakening of RFRA and an expansion of federal power over religious conscience.
They would worry it forces religious individuals and organizations to provide services contrary to beliefs, and undermines protections for faith-based contractors.
They may favor carve-outs for religious actors.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow statutory change but high political salience; easier in one chamber than both, significant filibuster risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and health access
Narrow statutory change but high political salience; easier in one chamber than both, significant filibuster risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory amendment that clearly inserts enumerated exceptions into RFRA and narrows the availability of private RFRA litigation, and the primary…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.