Pro-Life Group Defeats Blue State’s Bid to Make It Fund Abortions

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Oregon cannot force a leading pro-life organization to provide abortion coverage in its employees’ health insurance plans. That hands a victory to pro-life advocates who argue the state’s law violates religious freedom by compelling them to fund a practice they view as the taking of innocent human life. U.S. […]
--

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Oregon cannot force a leading pro-life organization to provide abortion coverage in its employees’ health insurance plans.

That hands a victory to pro-life advocates who argue the state’s law violates religious freedom by compelling them to fund a practice they view as the taking of innocent human life.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai announced from the bench in Eugene that Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act — which requires most employer health plans to cover abortions — is unconstitutional as applied to Oregon Right to Life.

The Keizer-based nonprofit, devoted to protecting unborn children, had challenged the 2017 law’s mandate on First Amendment grounds. Oregon Right to Life argued the law discriminates against its sincerely held religious beliefs by granting exemptions to some secular employers and to religious organizations meeting the state’s narrow definition of a “religious employer” — while denying relief to the pro-life group.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

The organization said this setup forces it to subsidize abortions, directly conflicting with its mission rooted in the belief in the sanctity of life from conception.

The ruling came immediately after oral arguments. The judge found the law is not neutral and threatens the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

He said he would issue a written opinion later, and attorneys were ordered to address the scope of relief.

The case drew on last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, which struck down a similar Wisconsin scheme for lacking religious neutrality. Oregon Right to Life contended that, just as in that case, the state’s selective exemptions favored certain religious views over others and secular interests over pro-life convictions.

James Bopp Jr., lead counsel for Oregon Right to Life from The Bopp Law Firm, welcomed the outcome.

“The First Amendment provides the plain guarantee that a state simply may not play favorites when it comes to religious organizations,” Bopp said. “It may not favor secular entities over entities with religious views and it may not favor one religious view over another. We are pleased that the court recognized these basic truths today, preventing Oregon from forcing ORTL to pay for the thing it is dedicated to fighting against.”

Lois Anderson, executive director of Oregon Right to Life, called the decision a broader win for pro-life Oregonians.

“The First Amendment protection of religious freedom is foundational to our understanding of freedom in our country,” Anderson said. “From the beginning, we have asserted that Oregon’s RHEA was unconstitutional and violated the rights of pro-life Oregonians. It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion — the very practice we are dedicated to opposing. Yesterday, the federal court agreed. This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians.”

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, survived earlier dismissal attempts after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found Oregon Right to Life’s beliefs about abortion to be religious and sincerely held, sending the case back for further review under the Supreme Court’s guidance on religious neutrality.

Oregon’s law was one of several Democratic-led state efforts to expand abortion access and insurance coverage following the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

State officials, including pro-abortion Gov. Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield, said they will appeal the ruling. The law remains in effect pending further proceedings.