Religious Conscience Protections

“Religious conscience” refers to an individual’s internal sense of right and wrong, shaped by their religious beliefs and moral principles. It acts as a guide for behavior, influencing choices and actions based on one’s faith. Religious conscience serves as a moral compass, in a sense, guiding individuals in their daily lives and helping them make ethical choices that align with their religious values. A well-formed religious conscience is often seen as being informed by Scripture and the teachings of one’s religion, and it plays a crucial role in ethical decision-making.

Protected religious conscience rights include discrimination in service delivery by religious businesses, requests by professionals based on their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs to be excused or exempted from performing abortion or other duties, accommodation of employees’ sabbath or other religious exercise, and conscientious objection to military service

Freedom of conscience is found in the Constitution. In fact, we have our Founding Fathers to thank for the privilege of conscience rights. During the debate over what would become the First Amendment, many lawmakers proposed protecting the rights of conscience. James Madison called conscience “the most sacred of all property,” and Thomas Jefferson said that no “provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against” the government. This understanding shaped the First Amendment. While the First Amendment doesn’t include the word “conscience,” it does protect the freedom of conscience—the freedom to believe without coercion and to speak and act consistently with those beliefs—through religious freedom and free speech.

The government cannot force us to act contrary to our beliefs, believe what we otherwise wouldn’t, or to say things to which we object. We have the freedom to think, reason, speak, stay silent about, and hold certain beliefs without fearing government punishment.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) aims to protect religious freedom by preventing the government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Essentially, it requires the government to have a very strong reason and to use the least restrictive way possible before it can interfere with someone’s religious practices. RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which the Center and a wide spectrum of groups felt weakened religious freedom protections. RFRA sought to restore a higher level of protection for religious practices. The 103rd Congress passed RFRA 97-3 in Senate and by unanimous consent in the House. President Clinton signed it into law on November 16, 1993. The Center helped lead lobbying of Congress by a coalition of nearly 60 organizations from across the political and religious spectrum to get RFRA enacted.

Four years later, the Supreme Court, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), ruled that RFRA applies only against federal actors and federal law, not against state law and officials. In response, the Center initiated the movement to pass state RFRAs to prevent state and local officials from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. As of 2025, 30 states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.

“And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Colossians 3:17 (ESV)

Medical staff discussing at the table. Copy space.

The Center’s Work to Protect Religious Conscience Rights

CLS amicus curiae brief in Stormans v. Wiesman (U.S. Supreme Court cert. stage 2016).

The Center filed an amicus brief in support of Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College in their joint challenge (Wheaton College v. Sebelius) to the “HHS Mandate.” The HHS Mandate is a federal regulation that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for Plan B and ella, which many regard as abortion-inducing drugs. While the mandate exempts some “religious employers,” the exemption is so narrow that these religious colleges do not qualify as “religious employers.”

The Department of Health and Human Services explicitly broadened “preventive services” to include mandated coverage of contraceptives, including abortion inducing drugs on August 3, 2011. President Obama announced on February 10, 2012, that the Administration’s previous policy would be modified by issuance of some future regulations. CLS and 62 other religious organizations sent a letter to President Obama asking that the federal government re-think its inadequate exemption for religious employers in the new federal health insurance regulations. The definition failed to protect most faith-based ministries from having to provide insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs.

Letter from CLS to the House Judiciary Committee regarding health care workers’ rights of conscience.

CLS amicus curiae brief in Baxter v. Montana (Mont. Supreme Court) (2009).

Comments of CLS and Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants on the Department of Health & Human Services’ Provider Conscience Regulations, 73 Fed. Reg. 50274-50285 (September 25, 2008).

CLS amicus curiae brief in Stormans v. Selecky (9th Cir. 2008).

HHS Mandate

An Important Issue of religious freedom. On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, challenging the HHS Mandate. Read more here.