An Oregon judge ruled September 30 that Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) must continue to provide its employees with health insurance that pays for abortions.
Passed in 2017, Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act mandates that employers offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans. Though it does offer exemptions for religious employers, ORTL was excluded from this exemption because it serves people who are not religious, and therefore did not fit the extremely narrow definition provided by the state.
ORTL filed its lawsuit against the mandate in 2023, arguing the law violated its First Amendment rights.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken maintained that the pro-life organization is not religious and does not qualify for any exemption, despite ORTL’s testimony that its anti-abortion views are grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs.
“Other than a fleeting reference to ‘Judeo-Christian ethics,’ there is nothing in the articles of incorporation that would suggest any religious element in plaintiff’s organization,” Aiken wrote.
READ: Oregon county forced to pay for employee abortions with taxpayer dollars
Lois Anderson, ORTL’s executive director, released a statement following Aiken’s ruling.
“The state’s attempt to force Oregon Right to Life to violate our sincerely held beliefs is clearly unconstitutional and unjust. Regardless of where they stand on the abortion issue, I think most people would agree it’s absurd on its face to mandate that a pro-life organization pay for abortions — yet this is exactly what current Oregon law does,” said Anderson. “Because we’re committed to defending the vulnerable and pushing back against injustice, we’re not about to back down. We have an excellent legal team and the Constitution on our side, and I am confident we will prevail.”
James Bopp, Jr., counsel for ORTL, added, “Reversing this unconstitutional decision is essential to ensuring that the government cannot target religious organizations for unequal treatment. Under the inverse logic of the decision, plainly religious beliefs and a plainly religious organization are deemed secular, while exemptions favoring secular organizations are deemed to favor religious organizations. Were this erroneous decision allowed to stand, its inverse logic could be extended to allow the government, unimpeded and consequence-free, to target any number of religious organizations and activities.”
ORTL has indicated it will appeal the ruling and ask for an injunction to be placed on the mandate pending the appeal.
