PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 2, 2015
Recognizes that blasphemy laws position governments as arbiters of truth or religious rightness as they empower officials to enforce particular religious views against individuals and minorities.
Calls on the President and the Department of State (Department) to make the repeal of blasphemy laws a priority in their relationships with countries that have such laws.
Encourages the President and the Department to oppose any efforts at the United Nations (U.N.) or other international or multilateral fora to create an international anti-blasphemy norm, or attempts to expand the international norm on incitement to include blasphemy or defamation of religions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Supports efforts at the U.N. to combat intolerance or violence against persons based on religion or belief without restricting expression.
Reaffirms the decision to designate Saudi Arabia as a "country of particular concern" for detaining and imprisoning people for blasphemy and for imposing torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, and limit the waiver on this designation to no more than 180 days.
Calls on the President and the Department to designate Pakistan and Egypt each as a "country of particular concern" for perpetrating and tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom, including abuses flowing from the enforcement of blasphemy laws and from vigilante violence around blasphemy allegations that takes place with impunity.
Urges the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries to amend or repeal their blasphemy laws as they provide a pretext for violence against religious minorities.
Urges those countries that have imprisoned people on charges of blasphemy to release them and ensure their safety and that of their families.
People & committees
Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.290 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.290 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.290 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.290 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.