Hillary Clinton has emerged as an unequivocal critic of Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a similar measure in Arkansas, despite the potential awkwardness posed by her husband’s past support for a similar federal version of the law.
Indiana’s adoption of the RFRA last week sparked an outcry from individuals, corporations and other states that feared the law would enable businesses to cite religious grounds to deny services. The law did not include protections for gay and lesbian couples and others who might be discriminated against.
“Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today,” Clinton tweeted. “We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc [sic] of who they love.” Clinton echoed her remarks regarding a similar measure that moved to the governor’s desk in Arkansas.
But the RFRA has its roots in a law of the same name signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence defended Indiana’s RFRA by reasoning it “simply mirrors” the 1993 law.
“That may be true only if you’re using a Funhouse mirror,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, who helped author the 1993 measure, wrote on Facebook. “In reality, it is completely false, and a disingenuous argument to boot; they should cease and desist immediately comparing the federal RFRA of 1993 to their present, misguided law.”
Indeed, the laws bear similarities, but they also diverge in critical areas. The original RFRA focused on individuals whose religious beliefs ran afoul of government regulations, such as drug laws and zoning. The law was inspired by a Supreme Court ruling that confirmed Oregon’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to a Native American who was fired for using the drug peyote in a religious ritual.
Notably, the Indiana law added protections for corporations in addition to individuals, a response to the Supreme Court case that confirmed Hobby Lobby could forego providing contraceptives to employees on religious grounds.
That new language has sparked fears that a vendor could refuse to work a gay wedding, for example. Pence announced Tuesday that he would push the state legislature to issue a fix to prevent such discrimination, although he maintained that the law as written did not intend it.
For Clinton, opposing Indiana’s and Arkansas’ religious freedom measures was a political no-brainer, but Bill Clinton’s link to the seminal law threatened to prompt confusion and muddy the issue.
But Democrats say the differences between the 1993 law and the controversial Indiana one are great enough that Hillary Clinton can successfully oppose Indiana’s RFRA without appearing hypocritical.
“The bottom line is Indiana and Arkansas go way beyond protecting religious freedom, to endorsing discrimination,” said one senior Democratic operative. “Not a fair comparison.”
