Ninth Circuit revives Oregon Right to Life suit over religious motivation dispute

Court House News ^ | October 31, 2025 | Edvard Pettersson

[Morgana]

(CN) — A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed that Oregon Right to Life had made a sufficient showing that its beliefs are religious and sincerely held to proceed with a lawsuit to avoid having to provide health insurance coverage to its employees for abortions and contraceptives.

In a split decision, the three-judge panel overturned a district judge’s dismissal last year of the anti-abortion organization’s complaint as well as her denial of the nonprofit’s request for a preliminary injunction.

“ORTL put forth significant evidence of its religiosity, and there was no conflicting evidence against ORTL’s claim that its views are religiously grounded,” Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the majority. “The district court therefore erred by failing to conclude at the motion to dismiss stage that ORTL actually holds the beliefs professed in the complaint and that ORTL’s opposition to abortion is genuinely religious.”

Oregon Right to Life sued Oregon’s Insurance Commissioner Andrew Stolfi in 2023, claiming the state’s Reproductive Health Equity Act violated its First Amendment right to religious liberty.

The 2017 law requires employers to cover abortion and contraceptive services, but allows religious organizations to choose plans excluding abortion coverage and includes an exemption to protect federal funding.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, a Bill Clinton appointee, declined to grant the group injunctive relief and dismissed the case last September, citing the group’s lack of religious requirements for members or staff.

“ There are numerous assertions in the record by Oregon Right to Life that their belief in the sanctity of individual human life and opposition to abortion is based upon religious tenets,” James Bopp, attorney representing the anti-abortion group, told the Ninth Circuit panel at the June 17 hearing on the organization’s appeal.

Oregon Right to Life cited its founding documents and statements affirming Judeo-Christian beliefs in the sanctity of life. But Oregon argued this didn’t prove the group was religious, noting its executive director admitted in a deposition he wasn’t sure the organization had ever described its anti-abortion stance as a religious belief before the lawsuit.

“But the fact that the executive director failed to remember particular instances in which ORTL had described a particular belief in a particular way is not evidence that ORTL never did so,” VanDyke said. “It’s just evidence that the executive director, when put on the spot, couldn’t recall whether and when ORTL did so. It certainly does not refute or weigh against the substantial evidence in the record that ORTL’s opposition to abortion is a religious belief.”

Circuit Judge John Owens, a Barack Obama appointee, joined VanDyke in the majority, while Senior Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder, a Jimmy Carter appointee, dissented.

“The majority appears to suggest that the plaintiff, Oregon Right to Life, may have been wrongfully denied an exemption as a religious employer under Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act,” Schroeder said. “Yet Oregon Right to Life never asked to be considered a religious employer.”

The judge noted Oregon Right to Life has about 25,000 members who pay $5 each to join and just 10 full-time employees, making it unclear whether members are motivated by religion, personal belief or family ties.

The appeals panel sent the case back for reconsideration in light of a recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that favored a Catholic nonprofit in Wisconsin.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote separately, saying the Catholic Charities ruling made clear Oregon Right to Life was entitled to a preliminary injunction exempting it from providing abortion and contraceptive coverage and that there was no need for the trial judge to decide this.

“It is worth pointing out that the unanimous Supreme Court emphasized that the issue in Catholic Charities (and a fortiori the issue here) was not a ‘hard call,’” he argued. “That was because the court was breaking no new ground. Since long before Catholic Charities, it has been black letter law that the Free Exercise Clause bars laws that discriminate against some or all religious beliefs.”

Attorneys for Oregon and for Oregon Right to Life didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

[Morgana]

Why is it that only Christians complain?

[Morgana]

Oregon ping

[jimtorr]

Muslim types don’t bother complaining, they just don’t comply, and nobody says boo. Muslims and some Christians are the only ones who seem to care.

Don’t worry about this divided panel ruling in favor of the lawsuit proceeding. If Oregon appeals to the full court, they will most likely overturn the panel. As per usual.

[Twotone]

If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Hurray.

Brought to you by this nice post-er.

Thanks Jim Robinson. T-JB

Praying for you daily at mass and in the cemetery/novina.

SO MUCH I take for granted.