FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT OREGON'S LAW REQUIRING ABORTION COVERAGE IN OREGON RIGHT TO LIFE'S EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN VIOLATES ORTL'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The following information was released by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC):

It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion the very practice we are dedicated to opposing,' Oregon Right to Life Executive Director Lois Anderson said. Yesterday, the federal court agreed. This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians.'

By Oregon Right to Life Staff

On Tuesday, Oregon Right to Life ("ORTL"), a pro-life organization, secured a victory in Oregon's federal district court. ORTL had challenged an Oregon law (the "Abortion Mandate") requiring employers, including ORTL, to pay for abortion coverage in employee health insurance plans.

Even though Oregon provided both secular exceptions and exceptions for other religious organizations that met the state's narrow definition of a "religious employer," it had refused to exempt ORTL, despite ORTL's religious objection to the Abortion Mandate.

Such a statutory scheme 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 same principles also prohibit the government from picking and choosing religious "winners" and "losers" by creating its own definition of "religious."

Accordingly, by exempting favored entities while requiring ORTL to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against based on its religious beliefs, the Abortion Mandate plainly violated ORTL's religious liberty.

ORTL argued that these First Amendment principles required the court to find the Abortion Mandate unconstitutional. In particular, ORTL noted that just last year the Supreme Court, in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, reaffirmed that the First Amendment provides protection in cases like this, finding that a Wisconsin law with a remarkably similar exemption for narrowly defined religious entities violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement of religious neutrality by government.

The court agreed. Immediately after counsel's presentation of oral arguments on Tuesday, the judge announced from the bench that he was going to rule in ORTL's favor that the Abortion Mandate is unconstitutional because it violates ORTL's religious freedom under the First Amendment.

James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, lead counsel for ORTL, stated

"The First Amendment provides the plain guarantee that a state simply may not play favorites when it comes to religious organizations. It may not favor secular entities over entities with religious views and it may not favor one religious view over another. We are pleased that the court recognized these basic truths today, preventing Oregon from forcing ORTL to pay for the thing it is dedicated to fighting against.

"The First Amendment protection of religious freedom is foundational to our understanding of freedom in our country," Oregon Right to Life Executive Director Lois Anderson said. "From the beginning, we have asserted that Oregon's RHEA was unconstitutional and violated the rights of pro-life Oregonians. It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion the very practice we are dedicated to opposing. Yesterday, the federal court agreed. This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians."