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The now-withdrawn majority opinion from the appeals court said, "Insurers could offer no-abortion health plans to employers both before and after passage of the Parity Act."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 — the relief that Plaintiff seeks — 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



Lawmakers consider an only-in-Alaska flood insurance program
Department of Insurance expands coverage for Californians who need it most
Advisor News
- More than half of recent retirees regret how they saved
- Tech group seeks additional context addressing AI risks in CSF 2.0 draft profile connecting frameworks
- How to discuss higher deductibles without losing client trust
- Take advantage of the exploding $800B IRA rollover market
- Study finds more households move investable assets across firms
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Somerset Re Appoints New Chief Financial Officer and Chief Legal Officer as Firm Builds on Record-Setting Year
- Indexing the industry for IULs and annuities
- United Heritage Life Insurance Company goes live on Equisoft’s cloud-based policy administration system
- Court fines Cutter Financial $100,000, requires client notice of guilty verdict
- KBRA Releases Research – Private Credit: From Acquisitions to Partnerships—Asset Managers’ Growing Role With Life/Annuity Insurers
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION TAKES NEXT STEP IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION AGAINST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, FILES COMPLAINT WITH EEOC OVER PROHIBITION ON GENDER-AFFIRMING HEALTHCARE COVERAGE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
- Cost of health insurance got you down? Maybe run for school board
- St. Clare relocation part of La Crosse free health clinic's $3.2M expansion plan
- AI in life and health: Poised for a 2026 breakthrough?
- Close to Home: U.S. health care — it's déjà vu all over again
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News