Pro-life group not exempt from Oregon's abortion coverage mandate, judge rules
A federal judge has rejected a pro-life organization's attempt to secure an order invalidating an Oregon law requiring most employers to include abortion coverage in their employer-sponsored healthcare plans for employees.
In an opinion published last week, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled against Oregon Right to Life's bid for a preliminary injunction invalidating Oregon's Reproductive Health Equity Act.
The judge reasoned that the organization doesn't qualify as a religious employer and doesn't meet the requirements to receive and exemption from the law.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
"Plaintiff is not affiliated with any religious practice or institution and does not have any religious requirement for being an employee or director," Aiken, a Clinton appointee, wrote.
Oregon law requires health insurance plans offered in the state to provide coverage for "abortion" and "any contraceptive drug, device or product approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration."
As Aiken noted, "[a] health benefit plan may not impose on an enrollee a deductible, coinsurance, copayment or any other cost-sharing requirement on the coverage" required by the law or "impose any restrictions or delays on the coverage."
The law declares that "A health benefit plan may not infringe upon an enrollee's choice of contraceptive drug, device or product and may not require prior authorization, step therapy or other utilization review techniques for medically appropriate covered contraceptive drugs, devices or other products approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration."
It provides an exemption for religious employers, allowing insurance companies to offer them plans that exclude "coverage for contraceptives or abortion."
However, the exemption is only offered if the insurer "notifies in writing all employees who may be enrolled in the health benefit plan of the contraceptives and procedures the employer refuses to cover for religious reasons."
Oregon Right to Life provides its employees with a health insurance plan from Providence Health Plans, which excludes abortion "unless there is a severe threat to the mother, or if the life of the fetus cannot be sustained."
Oregon Right to Life argued that the prospect of continuing a business relationship with Providence Health Plans is "unsuitable" due in part to differing philosophies when it comes to abortion and certain types of contraception. The pro-life organization seeks to provide a similar employer-sponsored healthcare package to its employees but is concerned that the state requirement that it offer abortion coverage in such plans will hinder it from doing so.
Aiken dismissed Oregon Right to Life's challenge to the Oregon Reproductive Health Equity Act as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"The 'specific purpose' and 'personal life perspectives' that Plaintiff's directors are required to subscribe to is free of any religious elements, requiring only that they subscribe to a belief in the importance of human life and oppose abortion, euthanasia and 'life destroying research,'" Aiken wrote in her opinion.
"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."
James Bopp, Jr. of the Bopp Law Firm, representing Oregon Right to Life in its ongoing litigation against Oregon, said in a statement that they "plan to promptly appeal the decision" to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bopp expressed confidence that "the court of appeals will agree that the Mandate should be put on hold."
"Reversing this unconstitutional decision is essential to ensuring that the government cannot target religious organizations for unequal treatment," Bopp asserted. "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," Bopp asserted.
ORTL Executive Director Lois Anderson offered a similar analysis of the path forward 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," Anderson said. "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."
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: [email protected]
