A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that an Oregon law mandating health insurance coverage for abortions and contraception is unconstitutional, finding the requirement violates the religious freedom rights of an anti-abortion nonprofit.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai stated from the bench that the Oregon Reproductive Health Equity Act is not neutral and threatens the fundamental protection of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
The decision follows a 2023 lawsuit by Oregon Right to Life, which argued the 2017 law’s religious exemption was too narrow. Under the statute, an employer only qualifies for an exemption if its primary purpose is the “inculcation of religious values,” a definition the Keizer-based group said excluded it despite its board’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Attorneys for Oregon Right to Life successfully argued that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding a Catholic charity in Wisconsin reinforced their position that states cannot narrowly define what constitutes a religious organization.
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield vowed to challenge the ruling, with Rayfield stating the state would use “every tool available” to defend the law, including an appeal. Rayfield added that the state believes the current impact is limited to the single organization involved in the lawsuit.
“At a time when reproductive rights are under attack across the country, Oregon has been a leader and a safe harbor. We are not going to back down now,” Gov. Kotek said in a statement.
“At its core, this decision is about whether people can actually use their health insurance to get the care they need,” said Christopher Coburn, executive director of ‘pro-choice’ Planned Parenthood Action Oregon, who warned the ruling could create immediate barriers to care.
Judge Kasubhai has requested that attorneys for both the state and the nonprofit submit briefs by the end of the week regarding the specific relief to be granted. While the law was ruled unconstitutional, it remains in effect for now as the court has not yet issued an injunction to stop state enforcement.