Agudath Israel of America is urging New Jersey residents to contact their state Assembly members and demand a “no” vote on A2218/S2260, a sweeping bill aimed at furthering demands of groups opposed to the Torah’s definition of gender and other family issues passed out of committee Monday that religious-liberty advocates say poses an existential threat to the ability of frum Jews to live, speak and raise children in accordance with their beliefs.

The bill, which the Assembly Appropriations Committee advanced on June 8 by a 9-to-4 vote, is framed by its sponsors as a “shield law,” but a close reading of its text reveals language so broad and ill-defined that it could expose rabbis, teachers, school principals, and even parents to civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution for expressing Torah views on gender.

“No one should face the threat of a lawsuit for offering religious counsel, parental guidance, or expressing deeply held convictions,” Agudath Israel stated in its action alert, calling the bill “a dangerous bill that could expose Rabbanim, educators, counselors, schools, and even parents to costly lawsuits and potential criminal penalties.”

The vote is expected to come before the full Assembly this Thursday, and Agudah is urging New Jersey residents to act immediately.

Under Section 6 of the legislation, any person can bring a civil action in Superior Court against an “actor” who “causes a reasonable person to suffer damage to the person’s business or personal reputation, financial harm, or pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm” based on the person seeking, receiving, or providing “reproductive health care services.”

The bill’s definition of “reproductive health care services” explicitly includes “all supplies, care, and services… to support a person’s alignment with their gender identity or expression.”

Critically, the bill mandates in Section 12 that its provisions “shall be liberally construed to effect the purpose thereof.” That clause – standard in progressive legislation but alarming in this context – means courts are directed to interpret ambiguous language in the broadest possible manner favoring plaintiffs (advocates of the aforementioned proponents of anti-Torah ideas).

The civil liability exposure is not the only danger. Section 5 creates a new criminal offense – “interference with reproductive health care services” – and includes within its scope any person who, “by force or threat of force,” intimidates, threatens, or coerces any person “in order to intimidate a person or entity, or a class of persons or entities, from becoming or remaining a patient, provider, volunteer, or assistant of reproductive health care services.”

Legal observers and community advocates have flagged a troubling gap between the bill’s stated intent and the reach of its language. The term “intimidate” is defined in the bill as placing a person “in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.” But the civil-suit provision does not require bodily harm – it requires only that someone “cause a reasonable person to suffer… pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm.”

A pointed analysis circulating in community channels asks: who is to say a left-leaning judge would not “interpret the term ‘threat of force’ broadly enough to criminalize a parent or grandparent threatening to expel his adult child from the home over seeking to violate Torah law as an ‘attempt to intimidate’?” The analysis further raises the specter of a principal or rebbe who issues an expulsion warning to a student being charged under the criminal statute, “given an explicit – or perhaps even implied threat – of expulsion from the school, or even just expulsion from the class.”

With the “liberally construed” mandate of Section 12 in place, this is not a far-fetched hypothetical. It is a realistic litigation risk.

Damages available to plaintiffs include not merely compensatory awards but punitive damages and attorney’s fees – a combination that functions as a potent deterrent against any speech or action that a litigant chooses to characterize as “interference.”

The Assembly Appropriations Committee voted 9-to-4 to advance the bill, with two members not voting. Among those who did not cast a vote was Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-36th District), the first Orthodox Jew ever elected to the New Jersey State Legislature and a representative whose district includes the city of Passaic, home to one of the largest and most vibrant frum communities in the state, as well as portions of southern Bergen County with significant Orthodox populations.

Schaer, who has served in the Assembly since 2006 and has been a longtime advocate for yeshivah funding and religious liberty causes, did not record a vote on the measure. His constituents in Passaic and surroundings – whose rabbis, schools, and parents could be directly affected by the bill’s provisions – have a particular stake in where he stands when the matter comes to the floor.

Agudath Israel’s action alert calls the bill’s undefined terms “vague and undefined” and warns that “such sweeping language invites litigation and creates a chilling effect on religious liberty, free speech, parental rights, and the ability of community leaders and educators to provide guidance consistent with their sincerely held beliefs, or to even simply talk about the subject.”

The organization’s suggested message to Assembly members reads: “I am your constituent and urge you to vote NO on A2218/S2260. This bill’s vague and overly broad language could expose religious leaders, educators, counselors, and parents to lawsuits based on subjective claims of emotional or reputational harm. The legislation threatens religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights. Please oppose A2218/S2260.”

New Jersey residents are urged to contact their Assembly members today. To find your representative, visit the New Jersey Legislature’s website at www.njleg.state.nj.us.