The panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the law, saying it doesn’t target religious conduct or show hostility toward religion, reports Reuters. Meanwhile, the Parity Act requires insurers who have employee health plans that provide maternity coverage to also provide abortion coverage.
According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Graber said the Parity Act doesn’t coerce Cedar Park Assembly of God, a Seattle-area church, into providing abortion coverage as the conscience statute protects them from “purchasing coverage” that goes against their religious beliefs.
Cedar Park provides health insurance to 140 people on its staff and has a conflict with its insurance carrier.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represents Cedar Park, says the insurance carrier added surgical abortion coverage after the law went into effect, and they would remove it for the church if they obtained an exemption, which they haven’t yet.
Billy Graham Evangelist Association says denying mother’s maternity care is against the church’s beliefs. Now the Washington law leaves them no insurance option they qualify for that excludes abortion coverage, CNS reports.
Kavin Theriot, senior counsel at ADF, was a part of the legal team for the church. He tells “Washington Watch” that Washington state doesn’t comprehend that churches should operate according to their religious conviction without government threats.
Coercing churches like Cedar Park to violate their pro-life convictions in order to provide health insurance to their staff members, he says, is a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause and other First Amendment rights.
“Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit panel didn't see it that way. We think that the dissenting judge, Judge Callahan, got it right, and we're hopeful that on further appeal that will be rectified,” Theriot says.
As of now, Theriot says they are assessing their appellate options, but they could decide to take this case to the Supreme Court, pointing out how this discriminates specifically against churches as other entities can exclude abortion coverage.
The limitations for health plans as observed by Washington lawmakers include abortions that might be unlawful under the state code, multistate plans that do not provide abortion coverage and health plans that are not compliant with federal-funding requirements.
Theriot says, the Parity Act is not neutral or generally applicable.
“There's definitely evidence of hostility in the record. The primary sponsor of this bill in the legislature said, ‘Look, even though there were attempts to amend the law to include a robust religious exemption, they were rejected.’ They said, ‘Hey, if you have a problem, you can file a lawsuit,’” Theriot states.
The Supreme Court has found this hostility toward religion to be problematic, he says.
One would think that a church would have the same right, if not more, to decline funding abortion, but unfortunately, Theriot says that’s not how this law works.
“Even if there weren't exceptions, I think most people would understand that you can't force somebody to fund something that violates their fundamental rights, especially a church when it comes to a constitutional and a very controversial issue like abortion,” Theriot says.
