Planned Parenthood has seen an uptick in demand for abortions in states where they remain legal, like Oregon, since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe. v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court. A new ruling from a federal judge in Oregon calls into question the future of an Oregon law providing insurance coverage for abortion-related health care. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)
A federal judge in Oregon declared that a state law could not require the Keizer-based Oregon Right to Life organization to provide abortion insurance coverage for its employees, handing a seemingly narrow victory to the state’s leading anti-abortion advocacy group.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, a Biden appointee, ruled from the bench on Tuesday against the law and indicated that he would issue a written opinion in the coming weeks. The decision marks the latest win in federal court for social conservatives in Oregon, who in the past year have worked in federal court to strike down an Oregon foster policy requiring prospective parents to affirm a child’s LGBTQ+ identity and limit the scope of a state rule barring grant awards for youth services from discriminating on the basis of religion.
Oregon Right to Life sued state insurance regulators in 2023 over a 2017 Oregon law requiring that health benefit plans offered in the state provide coverage for abortion and contraceptive drugs, with an exception for religious employers. A different federal judge had dismissed the group’s case in 2024, but it was revived by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in October. In the latest ruling, Oregon Right to Life won its motion for the state to consider the group as a religious employer and direct health insurance plans to accommodate its beliefs against abortion coverage.
Oregon Right to Life Executive Director Lois Anderson said in a statement that “the First Amendment protection of religious freedom is foundational to our understanding of freedom in our country.” The anti-abortion group opposes the procedure at all stages of pregnancy and does not advocate for exemptions for cases of rape or incests. Its attorneys argued that the state’s definition for a religious employer was “overly narrow.”
“It was always absurd for Oregon to attempt to force Oregon Right to Life, as a pro-life organization, to fund abortion — the very practice we are dedicated to opposing. Yesterday, the federal court agreed,” Anderson said in a statement. “This is a win for Oregon Right to Life, but more than that, it is a victory for all pro-life Oregonians.”
Tuesday’s ruling, however, deals with an “as-applied” challenge in the case of the anti-abortion group Oregon Right to Life, rather than a broader legal challenge determining the entire statute is unconstitutional and must be overturned. Lawyers representing the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business services had argued that the organization is “an issue-advocacy corporation with no religious requirements for its members, employees, officers or directors.”
“We will know more when a written opinion is issued. At this time, we do believe the impact is limited, as this ruling addresses a specific religious exemption claim brought by one organization,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “Our office will use every tool available to the state to defend access to abortion and Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, including appealing this decision.”
Kasubhai ordered both sides in the case to submit information on what kind of relief they are seeking by Saturday, but it’s unclear the specific kind of relief or changes to state policy that his decision could bring about. His ruling doesn’t change existing law allowing abortions in Oregon regardless of the gestational duration or the requirements for state-regulated insurance plans to cover abortion care. Oregon lawmakers this past session also passed a law to strengthen protections for abortion providers against out-of-state investigations from law enforcement.
Gov. Tina Kotek, who was speaker of the Oregon House when the 2017 law was passed, called the law “a cornerstone of Oregon’s commitment to ensuring every Oregonian can access reproductive health care.” She said she would examine the ruling once a written decision was issued and work with Rayfield to pursue “every legal avenue available” to safeguard access to reproductive health care.
“I was proud to champion the Reproductive Health Equity Act because Oregonians believe health care decisions belong to individuals — not employers, not politicians, and not the courts,” she said in a statement. “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.”
Norman Williams, a professor of law at Willamette University, said he believed Kasubhai relied too much upon a June 2025 unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that found the state of Wisconsin violated the U.S. Constitution when it refused to grant an unemployment tax exemption to a Catholic social ministry group that Wisconsin offers to churches and religious schools. He said the government may regulate religiously-motivated conduct so long as it does not discriminate against different religions.
“There’s a huge difference between denying an arm of a church a religious exemption (Catholic Charities) versus denying one to a non-church-affiliated organization whose work and political action are motivated out of sincere religious beliefs (Oregon Right to Life),” he wrote in an email.
He added: “On the judge’s view, any organization, no matter how secular, that opposes paying for health insurance that includes abortion-related services on religious grounds would be entitled to a religious exemption — a view that could create enormous opportunities for for-profit companies who object to this mandate to now claim religious scruples for doing so.”
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.