PRESS RELEASE
July 7, 2026
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812-243-0825; Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; [email protected]

Federal Court Declares Oregon Law Requiring Employers to Provide Abortion Insurance Unconstitutional as Applied to Oregon Right to Life

On Wednesday, Oregon's federal district court issued an order that declared unconstitutional an Oregon law that would have forced Oregon Right to Life (“ORTL”), a pro-life organization that objects to abortion on religious grounds, to pay for abortion coverage in its employee health insurance plans. This comes after a long-fought legal battle in which ORTL originally challenged the Oregon law (the “Abortion Mandate”) in September 2023.

ORTL argued that the Abortion Mandate violated core First Amendment principles of religious neutrality. While the Abortion Mandate purported to generally require employers in Oregon to provide such insurance coverage, it contained a slew of exemptions. Those exemptions included both some secular employers and some religious employers favored by the state. The district court agreed with ORTL that because Oregon thereby explicitly provided preferential treatmentfor certain religious organizations over others, it violated the First Amendment.

The court noted the striking similarity between ORTL's challenge and a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. In Catholic Charities, the Supreme Court analyzed a Wisconsin law containing an exemption that had the same effect as the “religious employer” exemption contained in the Abortion Mandate, granting an exception to religious entities favored by the state. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Wisconsin law was subject to the most stringent form of judicial scrutiny due to its explicit differentiation between religions.

Oregon's district court found that the same was true of the Abortion Mandate. In turn, because Oregon did not explain how the Abortion Mandate's exemption could satisfy the requisite high level of judicial scrutiny, the Court declared that it was unconstitutional as applied to ORTL.

The district court's order makes clear that ORTL was entitled to judicial relief because of its particular characteristics—an entity with a religiously-motivated purpose that is directly at odds with the Abortion Mandate. Accordingly, the order provides a basis for entities with similar characteristics to seek an exemption—and, if necessary, further judicial relief—from the Abortion Mandate.

James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, lead counsel for ORTL, stated, “The district court correctly recognized what the United States Supreme Court has said repeatedly: states may not favor certain religious practices over others. The United States Supreme Court in Catholic Charities made it clear that states may not play fast-and-loose with that rule and avoid its grasp by simply adopting an arcane or hyper-specific redefinition of what it means to be religious. TheFirst Amendment means what it says, regardless of how state bureaucrats may attempt to change its meaning.”

Lois Anderson, ORTL's Executive Director, said, “Oregon's federal district court made the right decision. On its face, the attempt to force a pro-life organization to fund abortion is as ridiculous as it is unconstitutional. In his written opinion, Judge Kasubhai affirmed that our religious freedom to carry out our pro-life convictions is protected under the First Amendment. This decision is a huge win for our organization and for all our volunteers and supporters across thestate. It also sets a powerful precedent for other pro-life people and organizations here in Oregon, helping them stand up for their rights to live out their pro-life beliefs without state interference.”

Read the court's opinion here.