Pray for God’s wisdom to prevail over this proposed legislation.

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12)

View Comments (6)

Reps. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) introduced the Do No Harm Act Wednesday, which would amend the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to specify that religious exceptions should not apply to “protections against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity” and “access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.”

The legislation is intended to “clarify that no one can seek religious exemption from laws guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights.”…

“The Do No Harm Act will restore the balance between our right to religious freedom and our promise of equal protection under law,” he argued.

RFRA currently says that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless it is demonstrably “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and is the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.

A prominent use of RFRA which would not hold up under the proposed legislation is the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Supreme Court decision where the court ruled that it violates RFRA for the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to require religious business owners to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for their employees.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation pointed this out in their endorsement of the legislation.

“The Do No Harm Act would limit which laws RFRA applies to. For instance, RFRA would no longer allow believers to be exempt from the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act, or laws that require coverage for any health care item. The bill, if enacted, could undo some of the damage caused by the Hobby Lobby decision,” the group said in a statement….

Rev. Frank A. Pavone of Priests for Life told the Boston Herald that Kennedy’s bill in one way “is right.” He said, “It makes sense to say that I can exercise my religious freedom, but in doing so I cannot take away the fundamental rights of someone else.”

But he added that the bill is the wrong way to address that issue, because courts can’t be the judge of individuals’ faith.

“When it comes to the matter of religious freedom, we are going to the core of the human conscience, the human soul,” Pavone said. “How are you going to dispute that?” (Excerpts from Lauretta Brown  article on CNS News)