Church gets another chance to challenge WA abortion coverage law
For more than six years, the
The church lost another round in its case in March, with a federal appeals panel issuing a 2-1 ruling that upheld a lower court decision siding with the state.
But on Tuesday, there was a new twist when the
The withdrawal comes after the
In a short, written order, the three-judge appeals court panel provided no explanation for taking back the March decision. The judges wrote that oral arguments would be rescheduled and they would issue another opinion "in due course."
The judges were appointed by Presidents
One of the church's attorneys said in a statement that "when an appellate panel vacates a decision and orders re-argument in response to a petition for rehearing en banc, that's presumably because two or more of the panel members now believe that the original decision contained errors."
"The
The case concerns a 2018 state law mandating employer insurance plans provide contraceptive and abortion coverage, if they cover maternity care. Democratic lawmakers passed the legislation, known as the Reproductive Parity Act, over concerns from religious groups that it would violate their constitutional rights.
The case has been moving through the courts ever since.
The state clarified that, under the new law, employees could get coverage for abortion services through their employer's insurance carrier, but their plan didn't have to include it. In line with that regulation,
The now-withdrawn majority opinion from the appeals court said, "Insurers could offer no-abortion health plans to employers both before and after passage of the Parity Act."
"Invalidation of the Parity Act â the relief that Plaintiff seeks â thus could not and would not force any insurer to offer a no-abortion plan to Plaintiff," it added.
At the time, an attorney for the church called the majority ruling "shocking," and suggested he would take the case to the
A spokesperson for the state attorney general's office said Wednesday "there is no way to tell for certain beyond what is stated in the order," why the appeals judges withdrew their opinion, but agreed it could be in response to the church's request for a new hearing.
"Sometimes when that happens, the panel of the Ninth Circuit that decided the case will withdraw the original opinion to address something raised in the petition for rehearing," spokesperson
"We remain confident the plaintiff lacks standing to bring this case and that



Reaction: SEC to Launch "Project Crypto"
AM Best Assigns Preliminary Credit Assessment to Sabal Specialty Insurance Company, Inc.
Advisor News
- OBBBA and New Year’s resolutions
- Do strong financial habits lead to better health?
- Winona County approves 11% tax levy increase
- Top firmsâ 2026 market forecasts every financial advisor should know
- Retirement optimism climbs, but emotion-driven investing threatens growth
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Judge denies new trial for Jeffrey Cutter on Advisors Act violation
- Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company Trademark Application for âEMPOWER BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICESâ Filed: Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
- 2025 Top 5 Annuity Stories: Lawsuits, layoffs and Brighthouse sale rumors
- An Application for the Trademark âDYNAMIC RETIREMENT MANAGERâ Has Been Filed by Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company: Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
- Product understanding will drive the future of insurance
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- AMO CALLS OUT REPUBLICANS' HEALTH CARE COST CRISIS
- With federal backing, Wyoming's catastrophic 'BearCare' health insurance plan could become reality
- Our View: Arizonaâs rural health plan deserves full funding â not federal neglect
- NEW YEAR, NEW LAWS: GOVERNOR HOCHUL ANNOUNCES AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE LAWS GOING INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1
- Thousands of Alaskans face health care âcliff in 2026
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News