Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Do No Harm Act amends the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to create exceptions where RFRA cannot be used to avoid compliance with certain federal protections. It bars RFRA defenses from overriding federal anti-discrimination laws, workplace protections, child-protection laws, and access to any health care item or service, and limits RFRA claims to judicial proceedings in which a government is a party seeking relief against that government.
Progressives emphasize protecting civil rights and healthcare access
Substantive but narrow change; likely partisan divide on religious exemptions makes floor votes contentious.
The Do No Harm Act amends the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to create exceptions where RFRA cannot be used to avoid compliance with certain federal protections.
It bars RFRA defenses from overriding federal anti-discrimination laws, workplace protections, child-protection laws, and access to any health care item or service, and limits RFRA claims to judicial proceedings in which a government is a party seeking relief against that government.
It also specifies RFRA does not apply to terms of government contracts, grants, or to actions that would deny people equal enjoyment of government-provided goods or services.
Legally targeted and low-cost but high political salience and limited compromise features make enactment uncertain absent broad bipartisan support.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives emphasize protecting civil rights and healthcare access
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize protecting civil rights and healthcare access
Likely strongly supportive.
Sees the bill as restoring the primacy of civil-rights, workplace, and health-care protections over religious exemptions that can harm third parties.
Views the clarification about government-party suits as preventing private religious exemptions that evade federal protections.
Generally favorable but cautious.
Values preventing harm to third parties and protecting civil-rights enforcement, while worrying about unintended consequences for small faith-based providers and clarity in application.
Would seek narrowly tailored language and implementation guidance to avoid overbroad effects.
Likely opposed.
Views the bill as a rollback of RFRA protections that narrows religious liberty and forces compliance in conscience matters, especially regarding health care and employment.
Concerned it expands government power over faith-based actors and limits private religious defenses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Legally targeted and low-cost but high political salience and limited compromise features make enactment uncertain absent broad bipartisan support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize protecting civil rights and healthcare access
Legally targeted and low-cost but high political salience and limited compromise features make enactment uncertain absent broad bipartisan…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Do No Harm Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.