Hi everyone,
It’s been a little while since I posted here, so I wanted to take a minute to share some information on a piece of legislation I’ve been working on for nearly two years. Called the Do No Harm Act, we finally rolled it out earlier this summer with the support of over 40 leading civil rights and social justice groups. In a nutshell, the bill would amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to clarify that no one can seek religious exemption from laws that guarantee basic civil and human rights.
It comes in response to many things: the recent Zubik Supreme Court case regarding women’s access to contraceptive care; the various state-level ‘religious freedom’ efforts aimed at codifying prejudice against the LGBT community; and legislative proposals like two we saw in the House of Representatives this week — the so-called First Amendment Defense Act and Conscience Protection Act, both of which distort the American concept of religious liberty into a tool for discrimination and the imposition of one person’s religious beliefs on another.
I know this is a topic that this community has discussed in the past (David had a great piece on it last year) — so I wanted to make sure you were aware of our efforts in Washington.
I’ve pasted an opinion piece on the Do No Harm Act below, which I did with my good friend and LGBT rights champion Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. It details the bill and why I think it’s so important at this moment in time.
You can also watch my floor remarks during debate on the Conscience Protection Act by clicking here.
I’d love to get your thoughts and feedback. — Joe
No Exceptions To Equal Protection
By Rep. Joe Kennedy III and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney
One month after a deadly attack against the LGBT community in Orlando, Republican Leadership in the House of Representatives will mark this week’s anniversary in an ugly way: by considering a piece of legislation that would bar the federal government from taking action when individuals or businesses attempt to deny, discriminate against or otherwise dehumanize LGBT Americans.
Beneath the partisan politicking that will undoubtedly capture headlines as the so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is given a hearing this week, there is an eerily familiar argument: the religious beliefs of some can trump the basic civil rights of others. From race and gender to sexual orientation and gender identity, it is a dangerous road our country has traveled down before. Still, today we see efforts at every level of government to distort our country’s sacred promise of religious freedom and use it to codify laws that protect some Americans but not others.
As practicing Catholics in public service, we have watched these efforts with heavy hearts. As the first openly gay congressman from New York, one of us has felt them as a direct threat to his own family.
We believe religious liberty and equal protection are not mutually exclusive. In a nation built as a beacon for those facing religious persecution and state-sponsored discrimination, the American commitment to religious liberty was crafted, above all else, as a statement of tolerance. It is a promise to protect and accept the marginalized and the minority, the voiceless and the victimized
In order to keep that promise for every American, however, the First Amendment established a simple boundary: your rights extend so far as they don’t infringe on mine or cause me serious harm. My freedom of faith cannot be used to undermine yours.
A commitment to this basic balance has fueled a growing federal response to those attempting to justify — and codify — discrimination towards the LGBT community. Last year, the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges recognized same-sex marriage under federal law. The Equality Act would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act. The Obama administration’s new guidelines for public schools and health providers regarding transgender persons make it clear that there can be no exceptions to equal protection. Last month, the House of Representatives saw bipartisan support for the Maloney amendment, which would bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT Americans.
Still, a powerful obstacle remains. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act became federal law in 1993 with broad, bipartisan support. Crafted to protect religious minorities, it was a clear statement by the American people and their elected representatives that protection and recourse is needed when the law unintentionally infringes upon free exercise. Jewish children should be allowed to wear yarmulkes in public schools that otherwise prohibit headwear. Fire department restrictions on facial hair should contain exceptions for those of Muslim faith.
Over the past 23 years, however, RFRA has been contorted into a tool for employers to undermine basic workplace protections, organizations to stonewall child labor investigations, and health providers to deny needed care for victims of sexual abuse.
The Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores opened these floodgates even further, providing a path for corporations to cite faith in discriminating against employees.
Worse yet, where the Supreme Court led state and federal governments have followed. In Congress, over 170 Republican members have leant their name to FADA. In our states, more than 25 so-called “religious liberty” bills were introduced in 2015. These bills lay the groundwork for a pregnant worker to be fired because her employer doesn’t believe in premarital sex or for a transgender child to be refused health care because a provider doesn’t accept the child’s gender identity.
It is with these circumstances in mind that the Do No Harm Act was filed earlier this year in the House of Representatives, with Congressman Bobby Scott. This bill would preserve the original purpose of RFRA — to serve as a protective shield for religious minorities — and clarify that no one can claim religious exemption from laws that protect against discrimination, govern wages and collective bargaining, prohibit child labor and abuse, provide access to health care, regulate public accommodations, or provide social services through government contracts.
As men of faith, the ability to freely and fully exercise sincerely-held religious beliefs in this country is a liberty we cherish. Across the nation, religious principle inspires countless families, organizations and communities to champion economic justice, human dignity and common decency.
But there is a difference between exercising religious beliefs and imposing them on others. Our Constitution fiercely protects the former and expressly prohibits the latter.
The Do No Harm Act reestablishes that fundamental distinction and confirms what generations of civic history, constitutional law and American experience have proved true: if civil and legal rights exist only in the absence of a neighbor’s religious objection, then they are not rights but empty promises.
betsey says
Thanks for your hard work on this important legislation, Rep. Kennedy!
bostonshepherd says
This is terrible law, for structural and constitutional reason alone. I say this even though I want everyone who desires birth control to have access to it.
Rep. Kennedy’s proposal essentially vacuums the freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment and transfers its protections to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Let’s codify making the Little Sisters of The Poor pay for birth control and federally subsidized abortions.
It furthermore grants government the power to define administratively what constitutes “basic civil and human rights.” Even if I, personally, were granted sole and exclusive power to define these rights for the rest of our nation, I would still be against it.
What couldn’t or wouldn’t be considered such a right? Health insurance (it’s NOT, despite what progressives claim)? Abortions? Adultery? Internet access? Free beer? How about a house? Or a car?
It is easy to envision Chick-fil-A being forced to open their stores on Sundays because someone in Washington deems “working on Sundays” a basic civil and human right.
Some ultra-orthodox Jews disapprove of, and might possibly forbid use of, the internet. Are you going to force these households to install internet access? This could apply to stricter Amish communities, too.
How about bestiality? Why can’t sex with animals be deemed a basic civil and human right? (Don’t tell PETA.) If you think it is, then the Catholic Church could be forced to accept it as moral.
The right to possess and bear arms is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment and is as basic a civil and human right as exists in our Constitution. Could legislation proposed by Rep. Kennedy be applied to gun ownership?
Where’s it end?
johnk says
wow
Mark L. Bail says
Patrick says
It seems to create the outline of a state religion by broadly making particular religious beliefs impracticable. While JKIII prides himself on there being no exceptions, I find it highly unlikely that there will not be carve outs for minority faiths, such as native beliefs, ultra-orthodox, and as you mentioned the Amish. It also wouldn’t surprise me to see a carve out for non-Western faiths. All these carve-outs will mean that this law amounts to being punitively aimed at large “conservative” faiths such as Catholicism.
SomervilleTom says
Anyone can believe whatever they like. A person’s right to ACT ON their beliefs ends when those actions discriminate against the rest of us.
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by “carve outs”.
If somebody’s deity tells them that women and blacks are inferior and therefore may or even should be raped, killed, beaten, or discriminated against, then our law should protect the rest of us from the consequences of acting out those beliefs.
Please cite the specific aspects of Catholicism that you think this provision unfairly punishes.
Mark L. Bail says
for discrimination!
We should probably have one for wife-beating, stoning, adultery, and definitely slavery. We also need to claw back the rights of parents not to medicate their critically-ill children.
Don’t see what’s going to happen? Someone with a vagina could use the stall next to you in the bathroom! Someone with a penis could use the stall next to my wife! Can’t you see the problems this will cause? I sure as hell can’t.
While we’re at it, we ought to eliminate social change and progress. Conservatism is the art of trying develop a rationale for your prejudice.
sabutai says
The “Restoration Act” was meant to preserve the rights of minority religious groups after arbitrary harassment of some Native American groups by bullies. It’s since been perverted by those same bullies who believe that they should be able to impose their beliefs (often labeled “Christian”) on others. I’m thankful someone is showing courage in preserving the Founders’ view of our country as creating public space welcome to all, regardless of any religious beliefs.
Christopher says
…to the original understanding of free exercise. The generation that gave us the 1st Amendment were not that far removed from times and places where you literally could not worship publicly for fear of arrest. To them free exercise meant very specifically the freedom to erect and use houses of worship for the purpose of praying and conducting other rites of faith. It did not mean using your faith as an excuse to harm or harass others who don’t practice your faith or agree with you on such matters. The metaphor I have heard is that free exercise is a shield, not a sword.