Oregon Right to Life case update

James Bopp, Jr.
Bopp Law Frim

Salem, Ore – A federal judge refused to stop Oregon from forcing Oregon Right to Life (“ORTL”), which opposes abortion on religious grounds, to pay for abortion in its employee health-insurance plan. Represented by the Bopp Law Firm, PC, ORTL had sued last year to seek relief from an Oregon law requiring virtually all health insurance plans to cover abortion (“the Mandate”). Because ORTL does not qualify for the Mandate’s narrow exceptions, this requires ORTL to purchase such plans for all of its employees, which violates ORTL’s religious liberty.

It is well-established that the First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring anyone to violate sincere religious beliefs without a “compelling” reason. Furthermore, the government may not pick and choose religious “winners” and “losers” by purporting to define what a “religious organization” is—and thus an organization worthy of exemption. But the Mandate does precisely that.

Although ORTL showed that Oregon did not and cannot provide any reason sufficient to justify the Mandate, the judge declined to recognize this showing. Instead, the judge made numerous factual and legal errors, leading to erroneous rulings. For example, although ORTL verified under penalty of perjury that the Board’s pro-life stance is a religious, Judeo-Christian belief, the judge incorrectly focused on the possibility that some ORTL members may not be religious in order to justify the baffling conclusion that ORTL’s convictions are not based in religious belief and thus should not be afforded First Amendment protection. Similarly, although the law’s exceptions are plainly secular on their face, the judge found that they did not favor secular organizations in violation of the Supreme Court’s clear guidance.

“This ruling will not dissuade ORTL from continuing to fight this unconstitutional Mandate—we plan to promptly appeal the decision,” states James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, and counsel for ORTL. “In addition, we plan on asking the judge to put a hold on Oregon’s Mandate pending that appeal. We are confident the court of appeals will agree that the Mandate should be put on hold.”

Lois Anderson, ORTL’s executive director, stated, “The state’s attempt to force Oregon Right to Life to violate our sincerely held beliefs is clearly unconstitutional and unjust. Regardless of where they stand on the abortion issue, I think most people would agree it’s absurd on its face to mandate that a pro-life organization pay for abortions—yet this is exactly what current Oregon law does. Because we’re committed to defending the vulnerable and pushing back against injustice, we’re not about to back down. We have an excellent legal team and the Constitution on our side, and I am confident we will prevail.”

James Bopp, Jr., additionally stated, “Reversing this unconstitutional decision is essential to ensuring that the government cannot target religious organizations for unequal treatment. Under the inverse logic of the decision, plainly religious beliefs and a plainly religious organization are deemed secular, while exemptions favoring secular organizations are deemed to favor religious organizations. Were this erroneous decision allowed to stand, its inverse logic could be extended to allow the government, unimpeded and consequence-free, to target any number of religious organizations and activities.”

Read the court’s opinion here.

 Print This Post  Email This Post