Oregon abortion foe loses challenge to insurance coverage mandate

EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal court struck down an Oregon anti-abortion group’s challenge to a state law requiring businesses to offer abortion coverage in its employee health insurance plans.

In an opinion issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, a Bill Clinton appointee, declined to grant Oregon Right to Life injunctive relief, finding that the group was unsuccessful in claiming its religious liberties were violated given the group’s lack of religious requirements of its members or staff.

“Plaintiff is not affiliated with any religious practice or institution and does not have any religious requirement for being an employee or director,” Aiken wrote.

Oregon Right to Life, a state offshoot of the National Right to Life Committee, sued Andrew Stolfi, Oregon’s insurance commissioner, a year ago accusing the state of violating its First Amendment right to religious liberty by enforcing the state’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, enacted in 2017.

Under the Reproductive Health Equity Act, employers are required to provide abortion and contraceptive coverage. The act allows religious employers to choose health benefit plans that do not include coverage for abortion procedures and has a federal funding exception, which allows an exemption if enforcement would jeopardize federal funds.

Oregon Right to Life argued the law violated its free exercise rights based on its “Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.” Stolfi argued the group’s opposition to abortion is not a religious belief.

Aiken acknowledged the court “does not weigh the truth or falsity of those beliefs,” but relied on the group’s articles of incorporation to determine whether the beliefs are sincerely held and whether they are religious.

A primary factor in Aiken’s opinion was the testimony of Lois Catherine Anderson, the group’s executive director, who told the court that members and staff are not required to subscribe to any particular beliefs beyond agreeing with the organization’s missions and policy positions, which lack religious affiliation.

“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,” Aiken wrote.

Aiken wrote that while the court was not required to conclusively determine whether the group’s beliefs are religious, the group’s organization documents and requirements for membership (a $5 fee and nothing else), “cast doubt on whether plaintiff’s opposition is genuinely religious in nature.”

Oregon Right to Life also argued that the insurance law treated secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. Aiken pointed to two health plans that qualified under the law’s “legacy exception” to accommodate existing restrictions.

“This is rather the opposite of privileging secular activity that undermines the purpose of the statute,” Aiken wrote.

The federal judge also rejected the argument that the law should undergo strict scrutiny because it imposes restrictions on the exercise of religious practices and instead found the law to be entitled to a rational basis review as a neutral and generally applicable law.

“Far from demonstrating hostility to religious beliefs, the structure of the RHEA indicates the Legislature’s desire to accommodate religious beliefs without creating a system of individualized exceptions that would render the statute not generally applicable,” Aiken wrote.

To satisfy the standard for a preliminary injunction, Oregon Right to Life had to show it was likely to suffer irreparable harm and that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. Aiken did not find either to be the case.

Since 2015, Oregon Right to Life has been enrolled in a health plan that provides coverage for abortions “beyond imminent danger to the mother’s life” and contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which it opposes. The group didn’t seek an exception as a religious employer and was unsuccessful in seeking a federal funding exception.

The group argued that some of its members and directors might step away from the group if it was required to comply with the law, but Aiken turned to the group’s insurance history to settle that claim.

“This argument is undermined by the fact that plaintiff maintained a health benefit plan from Providence Health Plans, which included contraceptive coverage, for years prior to the passage of the RHEA and continued to maintain it in the years since the passage of the RHEA,” the judge wrote.

Oregon Right to Life declined to comment and Stolfi’s office did not respond before press time.