Oregon pro-life organization fights state law forcing them to fund the very abortions they morally oppose, arguing the government has arbitrarily granted exemptions to certain religious groups while denying others their First Amendment rights.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) is challenging a state mandate requiring employers to provide abortion coverage in health insurance plans, claiming it violates their religious freedom.
- The Reproductive Health Equity Act allows exemptions for certain religious employers but not for ORTL, which argues this selective exemption approach is unconstitutional.
- Attorney James Bopp Jr. argues that the government cannot force organizations to violate sincere religious beliefs while granting exemptions to others.
- ORTL’s appeal cites a recent Supreme Court decision that invalidated similar laws discriminating in religious exemptions.
- The case could set an important precedent for religious freedom protections for pro-life organizations nationwide.
Constitutional Rights at Stake
Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) has taken its fight against state-mandated abortion coverage to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging an Oregon law that requires nearly all employers to include abortion coverage in employee health insurance plans. The pro-life organization argues that being forced to fund a procedure they fundamentally oppose on religious grounds represents a clear violation of their First Amendment rights. The case highlights growing tensions between progressive state policies and religious liberty protections, particularly for organizations with deeply held moral convictions against abortion.
The legal battle centers on Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, which mandates abortion coverage but selectively exempts certain religious employers based on specific criteria. ORTL contends this selective approach arbitrarily discriminates against their organization while favoring others. A U.S. District Judge previously dismissed the case, suggesting the group lacked religious requirements for members or staff, effectively questioning the legitimacy of their religious objections—a determination ORTL argues the government has no authority to make.
Legal Arguments and Precedent
Attorney James Bopp Jr., representing ORTL, has built a compelling case based on recent Supreme Court precedents favoring religious liberty protections. The appeal references a significant Supreme Court ruling from June 2025 in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, which invalidated similar laws discriminating in religious exemptions. This precedent strengthens ORTL’s position that the state cannot pick which religious organizations deserve exemptions based on government-approved criteria.
“This case is saturated with examples of the exact things the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to favor secular organizations over religious ones. It does not permit the government to favor only the religious organizations of which it approves. It does not permit the government to draft laws in a way that achieves a religious gerrymander to ensure disfavored religious organizations cannot receive certain benefits. And it does not permit courts to second-guess whether an organization’s religious beliefs are, in fact, religious. The Ninth Circuit panel’s decision should be easy since the trial court disregarded the principles in so many ways,” Attorney Bopp.
During oral arguments, Bopp emphasized the fundamental constitutional issues at stake: “There are numerous assertions in the record by Oregon Right to Life that their belief in the sanctity of individual human life and opposition to abortion is based upon religious tenets,” and pointedly asked, “The question is: Can we distinguish between various types of religious organizations?” These questions strike at the heart of government overreach into religious matters and the state’s attempt to define what constitutes legitimate religious belief.
State Defense and ORTL’s Response
Oregon’s Assistant Attorney General Carson Whitehead defended the law, claiming, “Oregon Right to Life argues for an extraordinarily broad construction of the free exercise clause.” The state maintains that the law is neutral and generally applicable, arguing that ORTL simply doesn’t meet the requirements for a religious employer exemption. This position effectively puts the government in the position of determining which organizations are sufficiently religious to deserve constitutional protections—precisely the kind of government entanglement with religion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
“The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion—the precise human rights violation we are dedicated to opposing—is blatantly unconstitutional and unjust. Oregon Right to Life is exempt from the Mandate and well within our First Amendment rights to follow our sincerely held beliefs. We are confident that—with the help of our excellent legal team—our Constitutional rights will be recognized and upheld by the Ninth Circuit panel,” Lois Anderson.
ORTL Executive Director Lois Anderson has expressed confidence in their legal position, emphasizing the fundamental injustice of forcing a pro-life organization to secretly fund the very procedure they exist to oppose. The case highlights the Biden administration’s aggressive pro-abortion agenda being implemented at the state level, where liberal states are using regulatory power to undermine religious and moral objections to abortion. The Ninth Circuit panel has not yet indicated when it will rule on this critical case that could impact religious freedom protections nationwide.
