Religious-Liberty-Annual-Report

III – Religious Liberty and Congress

A. The State of Play on Religious Liberty in Con gress in 2023 The U.S. Congress was divided in 2023, with Dem ocrats holding a narrow majority in the Senate, and Republicans holding a small majority in the House of Representatives. The division of control between the two chambers made it difficult for Congress to pass legislation that affected religious liberty; whether for good or bad — the two chambers could rarely agree. It is unusual for legislation to be solely about re ligious liberty. Instead, the more common scenario is that a bill addresses a particular issue, such as abor tion or immigration, and one effect of the bill would be to protect or restrict the free exercise of religious beliefs about that issue. Because of the tendency to ward partisan division on subjects of religious belief, it is rare for such bills to have bipartisan support. Occasionally, however, there are bills that spe cifically address religious liberty. When Congress passed the landmark Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, all but three members of Con gress voted for it. The prime example of a current bill that focuses mainly on religious liberty is the Do No Harm Act, which has the express and sole purpose of reducing the protections for religious liberty secured by RFRA. The Do No Harm Act has 125 cosponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate, all Democrats, re flecting the increasing polarization around the topic of religious liberty. It is unusual for legislation to be solely about religious liberty. Instead, the more common scenario is that a bill addresses a particular issue, such as abortion or immigration, and one effect of the bill would be to protect or restrict the free exercise of religious beliefs about that issue.

B. Bills on Life Issues

1. The Equal Rights Amendment The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states:“Equal ity of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Congress sent the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972. Thirty-eight states are needed to ratify the ERA for it to be adopted, but by the time the thirty-eighth state ratified it in 2020, the deadline for ratification had long since passed (and five states that initially ratified it had since rescinded their ratification). Nonetheless, in April 2023, the Senate considered a resolution to declare the ERA to be ratified. The measure failed by a vote of 51 to 47. The simplicity of the ERA’s text, and the posi tive concept that it invokes of equality between the sexes, concealed a number of dire consequences its passage would have had. One consequence of the ERA would have been the likely requirement of federal funding for abortions. At least two states have construed their own equal rights amendments, with language anal ogous to that of the federal ERA, to require gov ernment funding of abortion. Both supporters and opponents of abortion believe that the federal ERA would have this effect, as well as restrain the abili ty of federal and state governments to enact other measures regulating abortion, such as third-tri mester or partial birth abortion bans, parental con sent, informed consent, conscience-related exemp tions, and other provisions. Advocates have also argued that laws forbid ding sex discrimination also forbid discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and other categories. To take one example, it is argued that bans on sex discrimination set out in the Affordable Care Act and Title VII, respectively, require health care professionals to perform, and secular and religious employers to cover, “gender

12