Oregon Right to Life wins appeal in case against state mandate requiring abortion insurance coverage

(Oregon Right to Life) —  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week handed Oregon Right to Life a significant victory, reinstating its lawsuit against the State of Oregon over a law that would force the pro-life organization to include abortion in its health insurance plans for employees. The decision marks a critical moment in Oregon Right to Life’s years-long legal challenge. The case has now been remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

On Friday, October 31, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released a 2-1 panel decision in Oregon Right to Life v. Stolfi, reversing a lower court’s decision to dismiss Oregon Right to Life’s case.

The move came after Oregon Right to Life, represented by the Bopp Law Firm, filed its lawsuit in 2023 arguing for an exception to Oregon’s 2017 pro-abortion Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA). The RHEA requires virtually all health insurance plans to include abortion and abortifacient birth control. The law includes a limited exception for religious employers, but Oregon Right to Life did not fit into the narrow definition.

Senior United States District Judge Ann Aiken had dismissed Oregon Right to Life’s claim in September 2024, prompting the Bopp Law Firm to file an appeal on ORTL’s behalf with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Friday appellate court decision reversed Aiken’s order, remanding the case back to the district court.

Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who wrote the majority opinion, also wrote a concurrence in which he argued that the RHEA is discriminatory and should be subject to “strict scrutiny” by the lower court. He called on the district court to grant Oregon Right to Life a preliminary injunction because of ORTL’s likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its First Amendment claim.

Report: Oregon sees 165% spike in late-term abortions in just one year

Revived by the appellate court, Oregon Right to Life’s case will now return to the district court, which has been instructed to reevaluate the pro-life group’s First Amendment complaint against Oregon.

In a press release put out shortly after the decision was handed down, The Bopp Law Firm argued that the narrowly defined “religious employer” exception provided under Oregon’s RHEA “infringes on bedrock First Amendment protections.”

“When the government gives a pass to some based on secular criteria, the Constitution prohibits it from requiring others to act in violation of their sincere religious beliefs,” the press release stated. “The same principles also prohibit the government from picking and choosing religious ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ by creating its own definition of ‘religious.’ 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.”

The Bopp Law Firm’s statement added that the district court that previously dismissed Oregon Right to Life’s complaint had “sidestepped these problems by declaring that there was doubt that ORTL’s pro-life beliefs were actually religious in the first place.” However, “As ORTL argued before the Ninth Circuit panel, that determination relied on a deeply flawed analysis that simply ignored voluminous, uncontested evidence.”

Disturbing Oregon data shows increase in later abortions and abortion tourism

In its Friday decision, the Ninth Circuit Court pointed out that “the religious motivation for ORTL’s beliefs is both abundantly clear and unrebutted, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise,” the Bopp Law Firm said.

Attorney James Bopp Jr., lead counsel for ORTL, emphasized the constitutional significance of Oregon Right to Life’s case.

“It is crucial for courts to take claims of religious belief seriously,” Bopp said in a statement. “The First Amendment would ring hollow if courts were allowed to simply declare that plainly religious beliefs are not religious after all and therefore do not merit constitutional protection. We are glad that the Ninth Circuit panel issued a decision that recognizes the essential nature of the constitution’s most foundational protections.”...

Read the entire article at Oregon Right to Life.