Pro-life organization Oregon Right to Life (“ORTL”), represented by the Bopp Law Firm, PC, is asking a federal district court judge to block the government from forcing it pay for the very thing it is devoted to fighting against. An Oregon law (the “Mandate”) requires virtually all health insurance plans to cover abortion. Because ORTL does not qualify for the Mandate's narrow exceptions, this requires it to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion. ORTL objects to abortion on religious grounds, so this violates ORTL's religious liberty.

The district court judge previously refused to stop Oregon from forcing ORTL to pay for abortion in this way. ORTL has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, ORTL needs prompt relief without awaiting the final decision in the appellate court. It has therefore sought relief once more from the district court under a procedural rule requiring that requests for relief pending appeal be sought in the district court before the Court of Appeals will consider them.

ORTL argues in its motion that the district court overlooked several key factors in its original determination. For example, although ORTL provided ample evidence of its religious beliefs, including references to them in two of its governing documents, the district court said there was doubt as to the religious nature of ORTL's opposition to abortion.

Similarly, although the Mandate contains numerous secular exceptions—which means the government does not believe its requirements are so essential that they can brook no departures—the district court relied on the single religiously-oriented exemption (a minor exception for profoundly religious organizations like churches) to conclude that the law was, as a whole, favorable to religion. But the Supreme Court has instructed repeatedly that the state should not engage in weighing the substantiality of religious belief, so even the exception for churches (and not organizations that are religious, but not as pervasively religious) is itself suspect under the First Amendment. The district court also found that another exception that says nothing at all about religion, but instead focuses on coverage offered in 2017, is nonetheless a religious exception.

In light of these and many additional errors, ORTL has asked the district court to grant the relief it initially denied, for so long as the appeal is pending. However, should it decline once more, ORTL's path will be clear to turn to the Ninth Circuit for such relief.

James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, and counsel for ORTL, states, “The First Amendment does not permit a court to come up with reasons why a plainly religious organization is not ‘religious enough' to merit the Constitution's protection, nor does it permit the government to favor secular reasons over religious reasons for granting exemptions. If the district court does not recognize these fundamentals of the First Amendment, we are confident the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will.”

Read ORTL's motion and supporting memorandum here.