- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Oregon Right to Life’s lawsuit challenging Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, which mandates abortion coverage in employee health plans — including Oregon Right to Life’s.
- Oregon Right to Life argues that forcing it to fund abortion coverage violates its First Amendment rights and religious freedom.
- A lower court had dismissed the case in 2024, ruling that the group did not qualify as a “religious employer” that is exempt from the law.
- Judge Lawrence VanDyke, concurring with the appeals ruling, argued the law discriminates against religious groups and urged strict scrutiny and a preliminary injunction.
A federal appeals court recently ruled that a district court must hear Oregon Right to Life’s lawsuit over a mandate that requires the pro-life organization’s health insurance plan to cover abortions.
Oregon Right to Life stated in a news release that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Oct. 31 decision is a significant milestone in the pro-life organization’s lawsuit, which has lasted years. As CatholicVote previously reported, the organization sued Oregon’s insurance commissioner in 2023 to challenge the state’s Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), which requires employers to cover abortions and contraceptives for their employees with very few exceptions. Oregon Right to Life argues that it is a religious organization and should be exempted from the law.
A district court ruled in September 2024 that Oregon Right to Life could not be exempted from RHEA because it is not a “religious employer,” a title designated for organizations that mainly or exclusively serve individuals of the same religion. The court dismissed the lawsuit, but Oregon Right to Life appealed. The latest ruling reinstates the lawsuit and remands it to the district court for further proceedings.
According to the release, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke said in his concurrence with the majority ruling that RHEA is discriminatory and called for the district court to subject the law to “strict scrutiny.” He also urged the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction that would effectively grant Oregon Right to Life an exemption from RHEA, saying that the pro-life organization has strong arguments that its First Amendment rights are being violated.
According to Oregon Right to Life, the Bopp Law Firm, which represents the pro-life organization, explained that the Constitution bans the government from “picking and choosing religious ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ by creating its own definition of ‘religious.’”
The firm added, “Accordingly, the Mandate’s requirement that ORTL purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against based on religious beliefs, was in plain violation of ORTL’s religious liberty.”
Oregon Right to Life Executive Director Lois Anderson stated in the release that “it is absurd on its face that Oregon Right to Life — a pro-life organization dedicated to opposing abortion — should be forced to provide insurance for abortions.”
“As our case now heads back to the district court, we look forward to continuing to defend our conscience rights,” she continued. “The strength of our arguments, along with the skill and commitment of our legal team, give us good reason to hope for a final ruling that fully affirms our right to an exemption from funding abortion.”
The post Appeals court reinstates Oregon Right to Life’s lawsuit challenging pro-abortion law appeared first on CatholicVote org.