Federal Court Refuses To Halt Enforcement of Mississippi's "Religious Liberty" Bill

A federal court in Mississippi has refused to halt enforcement of HB 1523, the Mississippi law passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding marriage equality last year. The bill is apparently the brainchild of a Religious Right organization that has litigated denial-of-service cases across the country.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of The 2016 State Sessions, Part 2: The Bad And The Ugly

In part 1, we recapped the good— the harmful bills that were stopped. In today’s post, we cover the bad and the ugly of the 2016 state legislative sessions. 

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of The 2016 State Sessions, Part 1: The Good

Over the next two days, we will be reviewing the good, the bad, and the ugly of the 2016 state sessions. Today’s post will cover the good— harmful bills that were stopped. 

Birth Control Battles: The Theocrats’ Long War On Contraceptive Access

Yesterday marked the 51st anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, a landmark Supreme Court decision that broadened access to contraception. In a 7-2 decision, the nation’s highest court found that the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879, which banned contraceptives, violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy.

Off-Base Bishop: Catholic Leader Complains Of ‘Bloodless Persecution’

A powerful Roman Catholic official is so upset about marriage equality and the Obama administration’s efforts to include birth control access in healthcare plans that he’s decided to label them examples of “Christian persecution.”

Arizona's Largest Women's Health Network Obstructs Abortion Access Due To Religious Beliefs

Nicole Knight Shine wrote a fascinating investigative piece for Rewire about MomDoc, a Mormon-owned women's health network in Arizona that uses religion to deny women the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare.

Pay No Attention to Those Tens of Thousands of Women Affected by the Contraception Litigation

AU Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Lipper elaborates on Linda Greenhouse's The New York Times column about Zubik v. Burwell and the damaging focus on the Little Sisters of the Poor at the expense of tens of thousands of women.

"Groundbreaking Victory" In Landmark Ruling Over Unconstitutional Public Funding Of New Jersey Religious Institutions

A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that Governor Chris Christie's administration violated the New Jersey Constitution in granting public funds to two religious institutions that discriminate on the basis of religion and sex. Americans United, together with the ACLU of New Jersey and the national ACLU, collaboratively brought the case and called this ruling a "groundbreaking victory" in a joint statement today. 

Despite Best Efforts, House NDAA Still Sanctions Taxpayer-Funded Discrimination

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA).  In the lead-up to passage, though, a routine procedural vote transformed into an impassioned plea for equality.

First, Do No Harm: How to Restore A Federal Religious Freedom Law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was born of good intentions: to protect the fundamental American value of religious freedom.

AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett speaks at a press conference unveiling the Do No Harm Act flanked by Reps. Kennedy (l) and Scott.

AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett speaks at a press conference unveiling the Do No Harm Act flanked by Reps. Kennedy (l) and Scott.

In the two decades since, however, many have misconstrued and exploited the law in ways that would result in harm to others. We can’t stand by and watch the corruption of the noble concept of freedom of religion and belief. RFRA should be restored to its original purpose so that the law, once again, can be a shield to protect religious freedom and not a sword to harm others.

In a 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court changed the rules for how religious freedom cases would be judged and effectively lessened constitutional protections for rights of conscience. In Smith, the Court held that neutral and generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, the State of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits for two Native American men who were fired for using peyote – an illegal substance – even though they used it as part of a religious ritual.

After Smith, a broad coalition of religious and public policy groups on all points of the political spectrum, including Americans United, formed to support the passage of RFRA. We believed it was a reasonable response to the Supreme Court decision because it ensured heightened protections for religious exercise. In 1993, Congress passed RFRA and President Bill Clinton signed it in to law.

It is important to remember that the three years of discussion and debate on RFRA centered on how to protect minority religious practice from government proscription, such as ensuring Jewish children could wear yarmulkes in public schools or Muslim firefighters could wear beards. Had anyone argued that RFRA was designed to allow some to run roughshod over the rights of others, the broad coalition would have splintered.

But somewhere along the way, an unexpected and unfortunate thing happened. Although RFRA certainly provided key protections for religious exercise, some also began to use it in ways that harmed and denied the rights of others.

At first, landlords who refused to rent apartments to unmarried couples on religious grounds brought lawsuits, in some cases under RFRA, to obtain exemptions from laws prohibiting housing discrimination. Since then, individuals, religiously affiliated federal contractors and even for-profit businesses have attempted to exploit RFRA to trump non-discrimination, health and safety laws. The most notorious example is Hobby Lobby, a national craft store chain with tens of thousands of employees, that used RFRA to refuse to provide its workers insurance coverage for contraception.

RFRA, of course, was never intended to do any of these things. It was conceived as a way to protect an individual’s right to religious freedom; it was never meant to be a mechanism for controlling what others do or taking away their rights.

As someone who worked on RFRA’s passage, I am deeply disappointed that the law is being misused in these ways. We should not allow people to engage in discrimination or the denial of services under the guise of religious liberty. Such an outcome both harms others and ultimately deteriorates this fundamental freedom. I believe it’s past time to get back to the original understanding of RFRA and indeed, real religious liberty.

Today, U.S. Reps. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.) and Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) introduced legislation to do just that. The Do No Harm Act would restore RFRA by preserving its power to protect religious liberty but also clarifying that it may not be used to harm others.

The bill simply says that RFRA shouldn’t be used to create religious exemptions to laws that are designed to protect our neighbors, like those prohibiting discrimination, requiring equal pay and protecting children’s welfare.  It also says government officials and employees can’t use RFRA to refuse to provide services to the public; we all deserve to be treated equally by our government.

At the same time, this bill ensures that RFRA will remain a vital way to protect religious exercise, such as for Sikh soldiers barred by Army regulations from serving their country while wearing their articles of faith or Native Americans prohibited from using eagle feathers in their religious ceremonies.

The Do No Harm Act furthers religious freedom. We are free to believe or not, as we see fit, and to practice our faith – but we may not act in a way that causes harm to others. This understanding of religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And fundamentally, this is a basic tenet we all understand: We should treat others fairly, as we would like to be treated.

The Do No Harm Act honors this.

Barry W. Lynn is the Executive Director of Americans United. Follow him online at @barrywlynn 

What to Expect When You’re Expecting at Least Another Year of Contraception Litigation

In his final post on Zubik v. Burwell, Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Lipper debriefs us on the Supreme Court's opinion and what that means for women. 

ACA’s Section 1557 Rule Protects Against Discrimination In Healthcare

The Department of Education and Department of Justice weren’t the only agencies to release important guidance today.

Last Week In Review: April 18–22

Here is some of the big legislative news from last week and some bills to watch for the week ahead. 

 

United Methodist Church Ministers Condemn Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Law

Over 30 ministers of the United Methodist Church's Mississippi Annual Conference released a statement on Monday condemning Mississippi's HB 1523 and legislation that legalizes discrimination in the name of religion.

The Zubik Supplemental Briefs: The Objectors Push for Second-Class Coverage, With a Smile

AU Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Lipper analyzes the supplemental briefs for Zubik v. Burwell.

Ninety-Five Mississippi Writers Sign Letter Opposing HB 1523

On Monday, 95 Mississippi writers co-signed a letter in response to HB 1523, a bill signed into law last week which could allow a range of individuals, corporations, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations—including those that receive taxpayer funding to perform social services—to refuse to provide goods and services to same sex couples, single mothers, divorcees, and anyone who has had sex outside of marriage and their families.

Last Week in Review: April 4–8

Here is some of the big state legislative news that occurred last week and what we expect to see moving this week.

 

Musician Bryan Adams Cancels Mississippi Show Over Anti-LGBT Bill

In a decision that probably cuts like a knife to rock fans in Mississippi, Canadian musician Bryan Adams has cancelled his April 14 show in Biloxi