Errata and Revisions
Religious Liberty in the States is committed to the highest established standards, principles, and responsibilities for research. RLS affirms the principles and responsibilities as outlined in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: (1) “Honesty in all aspects of research,” (2) “Accountability in the conduct of research,” (3) “Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others,” and (4) “Good stewardship of research on behalf of others.” Part of this commitment to research integrity involves responding appropriately to criticisms, concerns, and questions about research methodology and findings of research. For that reason, RLS promotes a culture of discourse consistent with The HxA Way. Errors of fact that are discovered in the RLS index are acknowledged, corrected, and noted in subsequent editions and on our website.
Each year, research assistants for Religious Liberty in the States revisit laws protecting religious liberty that we previously considered, search for new laws, and ensure that states have not passed protections they did not previously have. When we discover that we missed a protection that was in place or we gave credit to a state for a protection it does not have, we note such errors on this page and correct them in the database. However, we consider the final reports and state safeguard pages to be published and so do not revise them to reflect errors we discover later. Thus, when we write, for example, “Texas’s score increased by 9 percent,” we mean this with respect to last year’s reported RLS 2025 score, not with respect to what its score should have been.
2026
The following scoring changes were made for RLS 2026 and are reflected in all years since the law went into effect.
1. Abortion protections. Since its inception in 2022, RLS has considered whether states protect individuals and/or institutions (e.g., private individuals and private hospitals) from having to participate in abortions. See the Abortion Refusal Safeguard page for details.
Since Roe v. Wade (1973) was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), previously existing abortion bans went into effect or states have passed new laws banning abortion. As of January 1, 2026, thirteen states effectively ban all abortions (with a few exceptions, such as to save the life of a mother). A friendly critic pointed out that if abortion is completely illegal in a state, protections ensuring that individuals and institutions can’t be forced to perform them aren’t necessary (with the exception of performing an abortion to save the life of the mother). Some states that have banned abortions previously had protections in place to protect medical professionals from having to participate in abortions. Only bans that resulted in score changes are reported below.
Credit is now given to each state for the following abortion protections (indicated in the chart with a check mark):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Protection | ||||||||||
| Private Hospital | ||||||||||
| Public Hospital | ||||||||||
| Civil Liability | ||||||||||
| Criminal Liability | ||||||||||
| Government Consequences | ||||||||||
| Refusal in Emergency | ||||||||||
| Opt-out of disposing remains |
2. Alabama: general conscience protection. In the past, RLS gave Alabama credit for a general conscience protection, but the statute protects only individuals, not institutions. As well, it covers only abortion and sterilization, not contraception and other procedures (See https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-22/title-1/chapter-21b/section-22-21b-3/). Accordingly, for 2026 we have removed the state’s credit for a general conscience protection, but we have given the state credit for additional abortion protections because it bans abortion.
3. New Hampshire’s protection for public official nonparticipation in weddings score changed from 0 to 1 because the “other persons authorized by law” provision of § 457:37 covers public officials.
4. New Jersey’s public hospital protection for abortion refusal score was changed from 0 to 1 because § 2A:65A-2 is drafted broadly enough to cover both public and private hospitals.
5. Texas's protection against insurance companies denying access score was changed from 0 to 1 because TX Ins Code § 544.002 was discovered.
6. Pennsylvania’s consumption of alcohol for minors score was changed from 0 to 1 because the statute governing furnishing is written such that there is a legal presumption that the alcoholic beverage will be consumed by the minor.
7. Tennessee’s protection for clergy nonparticipation in weddings score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § § 36-3-301(m), which grants protection to clergy not to be forced to solemnize a wedding against their religious beliefs.
8. Tennessee’s protection for public official nonparticipation in weddings score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § § 36-3-301(m), which stipulates that no one may be forced to solemnize a wedding against their religious beliefs.
9. Oklahoma’s K–12 excused absence for religious observance score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of §70-10-105.
10. Nevada’s K–12 excused absence for religious observance score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of NRS § 392.118.
11. New Jersey’s excused absence for universities score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § 18A:3B-37.
12. Utah’s excused absence for universities score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § 53B-27-405.
13. Florida’s protection from criminal prosecution regarding abortion was changed from a 0 to 1 because §390.0111(8) is broad enough to prevent prosecution of a conscientious objector.
14. Vermont’s score for health insurance mandate (abortion) went from 1 to 0 because a law (§ 4099e) that went into effect in 2024 required insurance plans to cover abortion and did not provide exceptions.
15. Pennsylvania was given credit for seven additional health protections because § 448.901 is broad enough to protect individuals with objections to contraception, euthanasia, and counseling.
Code Change
RLS directors altered the General Conscience Protection code description:
Original text:
IV. General Conscience Protection
States safeguard health-care providers and/or health-care institutions in their right to refuse to provide medical care procedures based on conscience.
Federal Context: There is no analogous federal law.
Possible Scores
- 1 = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers (safeguard applies to individuals or individuals and institutions)
- 0 = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers
Revised text:
IV. General Conscience Protection
State safeguards health-care providers (individuals) and health-care institutions in their right to decline to provide medical care procedures based on conscience.
Possible Codes
- A = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions
- B = State provides a general conscience protection for health-care providers only
- C = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions
Possible Scores
- 1 = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (A)
- 0 = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (B, C)
Rationale:
We concluded that for a general conscience clause to be truly general it must protect both individuals and institutions, not individuals or institutions. We added codes to recognize that two states (Alabama and Pennsylvania) have clauses that provide broad protections for individuals but not institutions.
2025
The following errors involving scoring changes were discovered for RLS 2025 and are now corrected for all years since law went into effect.
1. New Mexico’s general conscience protection. New Mexico Code Ann. §§ 24-7A-7(E) and 24-7A-9 appeared to grant general protections to health-care workers, so RLS 2022, 2023, and 2024 gave the state credit for a robust general conscience protection that covered a host of more narrow protections regarding abortion and sterilization refusal. However, the context surrounding both statutes confines them in practice to advance directives and end-of-life health-care decisions. Accordingly, New Mexico is given credit for protecting health-care professionals from being forced to participate in euthanasia (added this year) but not a general conscience protection (and the narrow protections for abortion and sterilization that the general conscience clause was credited for protecting). Accordingly, its RLS 2024 safeguard score was reduced from 56.4 to 39.6 percent.
See Appendix A: New Mexico Memorandum for more details.
2. Washington’s general conscience protection. Earlier versions of RLS missed the fact that Washington’s general conscience protection, §48.43.065(2)(a) covers three contraception protections (individual, private hospital, and public hospital refusal). Once we corrected these errors, the state’s RLS score for 2024 increased from 58.8 to 62 percent.
3. Florida’s excused absence in universities score was changed from 0 to 1 following the discovery of Fla. Stat. §1006.53. Its 2024 score thus increased from 73.2 to 75 percent.
