But prison concerns stall religious-freedom bill.
Adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in the Senate continues to be delayed, the latest holdup owing to concerns that the legislation will wreak havoc in prisons and cost millions of dollars.
The proposed law says that federal and state governments must show a “compelling reason for restricting any religious practices by restoring the compelling interest test that the Supreme Court abandoned in 1990” when it ruled in the controversial Oregon Employment Division v. Smith case.
California State Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren says the proposed law should be amended to address the possible “detriment of security and order” that may be created with its implementation. Says Lungren, “If an inmate demands organically grown food washed in distilled water, the instruments of satanic ritual, illustrations and text urging racial hatred, conjugal visits, or chateaubriand, sherry, and marijuana—all subjects of actual, protracted litigation—prison administrators will not be able to justify denial of the requests under the new standard.”
In addition, Nevada State Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa believes that RFRA in its present form will increase “the need for evidentiary hearings [which] will severely tax government attorneys and personnel.” She opined that unamended, RFRA “will increase court costs—which can run as high as $10,000 a day—and increase prison costs. Transportation costs will also be increased by the additional trials. The lost work time for defendants is also a significant consideration.”
Long legislative road
RFRA has been stuck in Congress for two-and-a-half years. From the beginning, the bill has had the backing of a broad coalition of religious groups who believe the Supreme Court’s Smith decision in essence gutted the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. The ruling said states do not have to accommodate any religious beliefs that are burdened by a “reasonable” law that is generally applied to the public.
Initially, however, prolife and evangelical groups objected, fearing that the bill could be used to expand abortion rights. Those with concerns were ultimately mollified, with the U.S. Catholic Conference among the last groups to drop opposition on those grounds in March.
RFRA passed by a unanimous voice vote in the House of Representatives in May. The prison roadblock held up passage in the Senate all summer.
Proponent Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) says the suppositions by the state attorneys general are “far from the truth.” He says “courts have always dismissed frivolous claims and have recognized that serious prison security concerns are paramount.” Schumer says that “if Congress allowed frivolous objections to hold this bill hostage, it would never pass this or any other legislation.”
Prison amendment
“Religion entails highly private, individual belief,” says Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who introduced an amendment in July that would exempt prisons from RFRA enforcement. “The freedom to follow the practices and beliefs of any religion we choose was guaranteed to every citizen of the United States under the Constitution, and under no circumstances should these rights be eroded.”
Some evangelical groups have decried the prison amendment.
Rick Templeton, national director of Justice Fellowship, a branch of Prison Fellowship, says it is “setting a dangerous precedent in gerrymandering who you are going to give religious freedom to.” Forest Montgomery, public-affairs counsel for the National Association of Evangelicals, says the amendment “overlooks the fact that prisoners with legitimate free-exercise claims are going to be excluded from provisions originally intended in the First Amendment.”
The National Council of Churches (NCC) also supports an unamended version of RFRA. “It is important not to create a double standard of review for prisoners’ religious-liberty claims,” says Lisa Wright, NCC program assistant. “Congress should not be permitted to protect some religious claims and not others. Governmental institutions should accommodate all religious exercise unless there are compelling reasons not to.”
President Clinton has voiced his support for RFRA.
By Michele P. Tapp in Washington, D.C.
