Iowa’s governor signed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law April 3, thrilling religious conservatives who claim it protects religious liberties while worrying liberals who fear it will be used to favor religious claims over other rights and open the door to discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bill at a private event hosted by The Family Leader, a politically active nonprofit that supported the bill and is part of a network of 40 state activist groups founded by Focus on the Family, which opposes same-sex marriage and transgender rights.
“Religious rights have increasingly come under attack,” Reynolds said. “Today, Iowa enacts a law to protect these unalienable rights.”
Iowa isn’t alone. State RFRA laws have been enacted recently in Nebraska, where the law includes provisions protecting the identity of nonprofit donors, as well as Utah, Idaho and West Virginia.
Source: Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
RFRA laws have a contentious 30-year history. In 1993, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed a federal RFRA bill into law with broad bipartisan support. Both conservative Christians and the American Civil Liberties Union supported the federal bill, which also was shepherded through Congress by Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Originally, RFRA was based on the idea that even though religion already is protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution, more protection was needed. The law said government actions and regulations should not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless there is “a compelling governmental interest” at play.
The Supreme Court later ruled that RFRA applied only to federal disputes, not state battles over religious liberty. As a result, today more than half of the 50 states have their own RFRA laws.
But complications arose after 2014, when the Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling involving Hobby Lobby Stores, which is owned by the billionaire Green family, who are evangelical Christians.
The company opposed federal requirements that it provide health insurance to its employees that included contraceptives and sued for relief. In a surprise decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby as a company was exempt from the federal requirements based on the religious beliefs of its owners.
The decision thrilled religious conservatives, but 19 members of Congress who had supported the federal RFRA in 1993 told the court they never would have passed the law if they knew the court would interpret it in such a broad manner.
The court’s decision led to a dimming of support by the ACLU and other progressive groups and a growing interest in RFRA from conservative Christian political and legal groups. In some states, RFRA laws have been cited to allow Christian-owned businesses to opt out of serving gay and lesbian customers seeking wedding cakes and photographic services for same-sex weddings.
RFRA laws also have been cited in cases of child abuse. One father charged with child abuse argued that aggressive corporal punishment was part of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
The new Iowa law says: “State action shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Democrats who opposed the Iowa RFRA introduced an amendment stating that RFRA provisions can’t be applied to protections against discrimination covered under laws such as the civil rights acts and the Americans with Disabilities Act, but Republicans voted down the amendment.
“This bill opens the door for a business to deny services to an LGBTQ patron, a landlord to evict a single mom because she’s not married, for a pharmacist to deny a birth control prescription on religious grounds,” said Democratic Representative Lindsay James.
“It’s no surprise the governor signed the bill behind closed doors with the biggest special interest group in Iowa.”
“It’s no surprise the governor signed the bill behind closed doors with the biggest special interest group in Iowa, an organization that wants to ban all abortions, ban gay marriage and ban books,” said James, according to a report by Iowa Public Radio.
Asked why the bill was needed in Iowa, one Republican representative cited COVID restrictions that prevented believers from attending church. But business groups opposed the bill, saying it would make the state less attractive to prospective employees.
The Focus on the Family-aligned Family Research Council argues that “groundless fears were stoked by the left that RFRA would sanction discrimination against those who identify as LGBT. However, RFRA’s long track record proves otherwise.”
But in Indiana and other states, RFRA laws have been promoted by Christian groups as a way to oppose same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.
In 2019, James Dobson and his James Dobson Family Institute cited RFRA in a judicial victory that freed JDFI from the requirement of providing contraceptives in their employee health plan. That case was argued with the help of the Focus-aligned legal group, Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Iowa RFRA bill also was supported by the Focus-aligned Alliance Defending Freedom, which previously described itself as a Christian legal group but now says it is “an alliance-building, nonprofit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights and the sanctity of life.”
Connie Ryan
The Freedom from Religion Foundation and other non-faith groups oppose RFRA laws, with FFRF claiming: “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a law that allows religious people, businesses, and/or corporations to violate generally applicable laws by claiming that the laws conflict with their religious beliefs. Essentially, RFRAs create a legal loophole for anyone who wishes to discriminate in the name of religion, allowing individuals and corporations to be free from following the laws everyone else must follow if they claim it would ‘burden’ their religion.”
Connie Ryan, executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, said the new bill “made it legal today for one Iowan to discriminate against another using religious freedom as justification. The religious exemptions legislation passed by Republicans in the Iowa Legislature and signed by Gov. Reynolds will harm the LGBTQ and many other marginalized communities in our state.
“The new law provides the opportunity for those who choose to discriminate based on their religious beliefs to seek refuge and protection from the courts, skirting any law that they do not want to follow. Religious exemptions tip the balance heavily in favor of someone’s personal religious beliefs, allowing them to discriminate against another person. The religious exemptions law weaponizes religious freedom, misusing it to take away the civil rights of another person.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal group that says it seeks to protect the free expression of all faiths, supports RFRA laws. A spokesman said he would try to answer questions for this article, but he quit responding after questions were submitted.