Personally, I think the wording is an improvement. The intent of the bill is the same as the older one but it adds some clarification to the wording of it.

H.R. 1450
It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes the religious views, habits, or practices of one party upon another;

(2) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes meaningful harm, including dignitary harm, on a third party; and

(3) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption that permits discrimination against other persons, including persons who do not belong to the religion or adhere to the beliefs of those to whom the exemption is given.

This section is almost exactly that same as the older bill.
Section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“ Additional exception from application of Act where Federal law prevents harm to others.—This section does not apply—

“(1) to any provision of law or its implementation that provides for or requires—

“(A) protections against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, Executive Order 11246, the Violence Against Women Act, and Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (77 FR 5662);

“ employers to provide wages, other compensation, or benefits including leave, or standards protecting collective activity in the workplace;

“ protections against child labor, abuse, or exploitation; or

“ access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service;

“(2) to any term requiring goods, services, functions, or activities to be performed or provided to beneficiaries of a government contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other award; or

“(3) to the extent that application would result in denying a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, provided by the government.”.

Here is a short article about its reintroduction.
[nbcnews.com]

I went to the gov site: [congress.gov] to look up H.R> 1450. There is no text for this bill -- the athesits.org is commenting on nothing but a title which could end up meaning nothing. It is a good idea to continue to check on this item and see what it really is about.

Everyone is to be treated as equals. However, through various pieces of legislation, including charitable choice, religion is more than creeping into society, it is trampling on it. I signed!

[ssir.org]
Please note that in part 2 of this it discusses the amount that religious organizations utilize from their own coffers. This is misleading as there is a great amount of tax dollars being funnelled through various charities. Though it states that this is done without bias-this is not what I have found. Note also
First amendment analysis.
[washingtontimes.com]
Please note the end with regard to secular implementation of services!
An interesting read regarding skirting the courts.
[nytimes.com]

Thank you for this information. I've sent letters to my Texas representatives, for all the good it will do me..... At least they know people are paying attention to what is going on.

Think Do Not Harm would help climate change action? That's worldwide.

I have already signed the petition to my legislators. Yes, we do need to counter the slimy creep of religion in our secular system.