Topeka ? A bill making it easier for individuals and groups to challenge state or local laws for violating their religious freedoms won tentative House approval Wednesday.

The measure, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, advanced to final House action on a 65-58 vote. It would go next to the Senate.

Patterned on a federal law that was struck down in 1997, the bill provides that the state and local governments “shall not substantially burden a person’s or group’s exercise of religion” — even with a law unrelated to religion.

Exceptions would be allowed only for jails, prisons or other detention facilities — or when the government could show that a law or rule was the least-restrictive means of serving a “compelling government interest.” Anyone aggrieved by a law could challenge it in court.

Twelve states have adopted such statutes since the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the federal law in 1997, ruling that it unconstitutionally usurped the power of federal courts and the states.

During Wednesday’s House debate, some critics questioned the need for the bill and said such a law would probably be found unconstitutional. A few House members said the measure could make it harder to prosecute some cases of child abuse.

Supporters said fears that the bill would protect abusive clergy or church members were unfounded.

“This is a religious freedom bill,” said Rep. Dan Williams, R-Olathe. “I personally am a Christian. I would like my freedoms to be protected.”

To those wondering if the bill is necessary, Rep. Willa DeCastro pointed to a measure in the Senate that would require members of the clergy to report suspected child abuse. Priests would break the law if they refused to disclose information they heard in confession, said DeCastro, who is Roman Catholic.

“Today, it’s my church under prosecution,” said DeCastro, R-Wichita. “Tomorrow, it could be yours.”

But such arguments led House members like Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka, to worry that the bill would interfere with some child abuse investigations.

Critics also noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling that the federal religious freedom law violated the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

Rep. Frank Miller, R-Independence, responded by recalling the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which protected slavery before the Civil War.

“Just because they’ve ruled doesn’t mean it’s right,” Miller said.