"ORTL is suing to obtain an exemption from the insurance mandate in RHEA, as it violates ORTL’s right to offer benefits to employees that reflect organizational values as protected by the First Amendment."
As reported in the September 2023 issue of Life in Oregon, Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) filed a federal lawsuit requesting relief from the insurance mandate to cover abortion services in the Reproductive Health Equity Act.
Since filing the lawsuit in federal court, legal proceedings have been varied. Filings included a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, a verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, a motion for preliminary injunction and a supporting memorandum of law. These are the documents submitted to the court to make ORTL’s case and ask for the court’s response.
The first act on the part of the state of Oregon was to file a motion to dismiss the case alongside an argument against ORTL’s request for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a temporary relief that preserves the status quo until the courts decide on the merits of the case. ORTL’s Executive Director Lois Anderson was deposed by the Oregon Department of Justice at their request.
In spite of these efforts, the court has decided that the case will move forward. A hearing on our request for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for February 15.
FAQs
What does the Reproductive Health Equity Act do?
The Act requires any health benefit plan offered in the state of Oregon to provide coverage for abortion as well as for any abortifacient contraceptive drug, device or product approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Oregon Right to Life does not fall under the Reproductive Health Equity Act’s narrow religious exemption. As such, this law could easily force ORTL to fund the destruction of innocent unborn children — a direct assault on the organization’s mission and a violation of its conscience rights.
Why is this Law Unconstitutional?
ORTL is suing to obtain an exemption from the insurance mandate in RHEA, as it violates ORTL’s right to offer benefits to employees that reflect organizational values as protected by the First Amendment. ORTL’s lawsuit asserts that the organization is suffering irreparable harm to employees’ constitutional rights, with no adequate remedy, due to the Reproductive Health Equity Act’s abortion mandate.
Why is Oregon Right to Life challenging this law now?
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified religious liberty law in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Based on Fulton, two federal district courts in Foothill Church v. Watanabe and Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Cal. Dep’t of Managed Health Care held that organizations could not be forced to fund abortions in their employee health insurance plans against their religious beliefs, as protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
