Church hits wall in quest to undo Washington abortion coverage mandate

Seven years after challenging two Washington laws, the Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland has ended up back where it started.(CN) — A Washington state church hit a dead end in its quest to exclude abortion coverage from its employee insurance plans, after a Ninth Circuit panel determined Monday that the challenged state laws don’t specifically target religious conduct.“The Parity Act does not coerce plaintiff into providing coverage for abortion services in its group health plan,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee. “The reason for that conclusion is simple: the conscience statute’s plain text protects plaintiff from being required to ‘purchase coverage’ for any health care service to which it objects on religious grounds.”The Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland — a Christian church that provides health insurance to about 140 people on its staff — believes abortion is sinful. It sued the state in 2019, arguing the Washington Parity Act violated the First Amendment and calling it “the kind of deliberate religious persecution that our country was founded to prevent.”The Parity Act, or SB 6219, enacted in 2018, requires health plans to offer abortion coverage if maternity care is covered and cover contraceptives. Cedar Park claimed it hasn’t been able to find a health plan that excludes abortion coverage since the law went into effect.Also at issue is the state’s conscience statute, which was enacted more than three decades ago and shields entities from being forced to cover or provide health care services to which they object on religious or conscientious grounds.U.S. District Judge Ben Settle, a George W. Bush appointee, dismissed the suit, finding Cedar Park lacked standing because a different insurer had offered an abortion-free health plan, but a Ninth Circuit panel composed of three Bush-appointed judges overturned that ruling in 2021.Back in the lower court, Settle again ruled in favor of the state, finding the Parity Act didn’t favor secular conduct. The church challenged that ruling, landing before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in 2024. The panel — composed of Graber and U.S. Circuit Judges Lucy Koh, a Joe Biden appointee, and Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee — determined last year in a 2-1 ruling that the church lacked standing to sue.However, the panel withdrew its opinion four months later and scheduled a rehearing. On Monday, the same panel affirmed the lower court and agreed the state defendants deserved summary judgment.“We conclude that plaintiff has not shown that the challenged laws pressure it to provide insurance coverage for, or to pay for, abortion,” Graber wrote, joined in the majority opinion by Koh.The church argued the laws have forced it to offer a health plan that covers abortion in violation of its religious beliefs, but the panel was not convinced.“Plaintiff presents two theories of how the challenged laws have coerced it into doing so,” Graber wrote. “The record supports neither theory.”Cedar Park suggested it has been unable to obtain a health plan comparable to the one it had before the Parity Act took effect and that carriers refused to sell such plans to the church. The record, however, shows such health plans are available.The church also argued it was forced to pay for abortion services, but the panel again rejected the argument.“Plaintiff’s conjecture is premised on a plainly erroneous and ungrammatical reading of section four of the conscience statute,” Graber wrote.Cedar Park specifically desired to purchase a plan from Providence, a religiously sponsored health carrier, and the Ninth Circuit noted that nothing in the challenged laws themselves prevents the church from doing so.“The only reason why plaintiff cannot acquire a Providence health plan is that Providence has made the business decision, at least at this time, not to offer a plan in the counties in which plaintiff operates,” Graber wrote.The Ninth Circuit also noted Cedar Park has chosen to purchase a health plan that provides abortion coverage directly, despite having the opportunity to purchase plans from secular carriers that exclude abortion coverage.The challenged laws are both neutral and generally applicable, the panel determined.“Nothing in the Parity Act’s legislative history suggests that the legislature was motivated by hostility toward religion,” Graber wrote. Nor do the laws violate the church autonomy doctrine, as they don’t address employment at the church itself or matters of internal church governance.Partially dissenting, Callahan said the majority incorrectly found the state laws consistent with the Constitution.“In my view, Washington’s law burdens Cedar Park’s religious exercise, is neither neutral nor generally applicable, and cannot satisfy the high bar of strict scrutiny,” Callahan wrote. “The law thus runs afoul of the First Amendment.”The state did not respond to a request for comment by press time. But Rory Gray, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said by email the church is evaluating its options.“We are disappointed in the ruling today. While agreeing that Cedar Park has standing to sue, the court got it wrong by allowing the state of Washington to force Cedar Park to violate its faith by providing abortion coverage to its staff," Gray wrote. “Our client believes and teaches that every human life begins at conception and actively supports and promotes pro-life efforts in its community. No church should be forced to be complicit in abortion, but the state has gone out of its way to force churches to cover and pay for abortions through their employee insurance plans.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads