Case Law

Ninth Circuit: Cedar Park Assembly Washington Abortion Mandate Upheld

United States·Briefly Analysis⏱️ 5 min read

Summary

  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Washington's Parity Act, which mandates abortion coverage in health plans offering maternity care, against a religious freedom challenge.
  • Cedar Park Assembly of God, a Christian church in Kirkland, had sued, arguing the law violated its First Amendment rights by forcing it to provide abortion coverage for its staff.
  • The court determined the state laws do not specifically target religious conduct and do not coerce the church into providing or paying for abortion services.
  • Judge Susan P. Graber's majority opinion clarified that Washington's conscience statute protects against being required to purchase objectionable coverage, but the church failed to demonstrate such a requirement.
  • The panel found that health plans excluding abortion coverage are available, refuting the church's claim of being unable to find suitable options.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Washington Abortion Mandate

The Ninth Circuit panel ultimately concluded that the state's laws do not specifically target religious conduct and do not compel the church to provide or pay for abortion coverage.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's decision, upholding Washington state laws that require health insurance plans covering maternity care to also include abortion services. This ruling marks the culmination of a seven-year legal battle initiated by Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, a Christian church that objects to abortion on religious grounds and provides health insurance to approximately 140 staff members. The church had challenged the Washington Parity Act, also known as SB 6219, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights by compelling them to offer coverage for procedures they consider sinful.

The federal appeals court panel ultimately concluded that the state's laws do not specifically target religious conduct and do not compel the church to provide or pay for abortion coverage. This decision grants summary judgment to the state defendants, effectively ending Cedar Park Assembly of God's quest to exclude abortion services from its employee health plans. The ruling reinforces the legal standing of Washington's mandate, which has been a point of contention for religious organizations seeking exemptions based on conscience.

The Washington Parity Act and Conscience Statute

At the heart of the dispute are two Washington state laws. The first, the Washington Parity Act (SB 6219), enacted in 2018, mandates that any health plan offering maternity care must also provide coverage for abortion services and contraceptives. This legislative requirement aims to ensure comprehensive reproductive healthcare access for individuals covered by such plans.

The second law in question is a state conscience statute, which predates the Parity Act by over three decades. This statute is designed to shield entities from being forced to cover or provide healthcare services to which they object on religious or conscientious grounds. Cedar Park Assembly of God contended that the Parity Act, by requiring abortion coverage, directly conflicted with the protections afforded by this conscience statute, thereby infringing upon their religious freedom health insurance mandate.

A Protracted Legal Journey

Cedar Park Assembly of God initiated its lawsuit in 2019, asserting that the Parity Act constituted "deliberate religious persecution" and violated the First Amendment. The case saw a complex trajectory through the federal court system. Initially, U.S. District Judge Ben Settle dismissed the suit, finding the church lacked standing because an abortion-free health plan was reportedly available. However, a Ninth Circuit panel composed of three Bush-appointed judges overturned this dismissal in 2021, sending the case back to the lower court.

Upon remand, Judge Settle again ruled in favor of the state, determining that the Parity Act did not favor secular conduct over religious practice. The church subsequently appealed this ruling, bringing the case back to the Ninth Circuit in 2024. Notably, a different three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Susan P. Graber, Lucy Koh, and Consuelo Callahan, had previously issued a 2-1 ruling in 2023 that the church lacked standing, but this opinion was withdrawn four months later, and a rehearing was scheduled, leading to the recent definitive decision.

Court's Rationale on Coercion and Conscience

In its final ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel, with Judge Graber writing the majority opinion joined by Judge Koh, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the church had not demonstrated that the challenged laws pressured it to provide insurance coverage for, or to pay for, abortion services. Judge Graber explicitly stated that the Parity Act does not coerce the plaintiff into providing such coverage, citing the plain text of the conscience statute, which protects entities from being required to 'purchase coverage' for religiously objectionable health care services.

The church had argued it was unable to find a health plan comparable to its previous one that excluded abortion coverage and that carriers refused to sell such plans. However, the court found that the record indicated such health plans were indeed available. Furthermore, the panel rejected the church's claim that it was forced to pay for abortion services, characterizing this argument as based on an "erroneous and ungrammatical reading" of the conscience statute. The court also noted that while Cedar Park desired to purchase a plan from Providence, a religiously sponsored health carrier, nothing in the state laws prevented this; the only reason the church could not acquire a Providence plan was that Providence itself does not offer plans excluding abortion coverage.

Practical Implications

This Ninth Circuit ruling confirms that Washington's Parity Act, requiring abortion coverage in health plans that cover maternity care, withstands religious freedom challenges. Lawyers advising employers, particularly religious organizations in Washington, must ensure compliance with this mandate and understand the limitations of conscience clauses when structuring employee health benefits.

Source

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service

Get Deeper AI analysis

How does this affect you?

Get an AI analysis of this article grounded in your jurisdictions, practice areas, and any policy documents you've uploaded to Wansom.

Finish Reading the Full Story and the Expert Analysis.

Get the latest legal & regulatory intelligence in United States

Instant access to full analysis, cited statutes & expert commentary
Customize your dashboard to track what matters to your business operations

Already have an account? Log in

Wansom is AI and can make mistakes.

Ninth Circuit: Cedar Park Assembly Washington Abortion Mandate Upheld | Briefly