Can a state force all workers at a Ford plant to purchase Toyotas? Can Republicans be forced to donate to Democrats? Can vegetarians be forced to buy meat and eat it? Are bureaucrats allowed to coerce a Muslim to fund a Christian event?
Silly questions to be sure. But none of them less than what the state of Oregon has done, and has prompted the question before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Can those with religious objections to abortion be forced by the state to pay for abortion?
It was James Bopp Jr., of the Bopp Law Firm, who argued before the court that it should overrule a lower court’s claim that Oregon can require Oregon Right to Life, a pro-life group, to pay for abortion.
“This case is saturated with examples of the exact things the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to favor secular organizations over religious ones. It does not permit the government to favor only the religious organizations of which it approves. It does not permit the government to draft laws in a way that achieves a religious gerrymander to ensure disfavored religious organizations cannot receive certain benefits. And it does not permit courts to second guess whether an organization’s religious beliefs are, in fact, religious. The Ninth Circuit panel’s decision should be easy since the trial court disregarded the principles in so many ways,” Bopp said.
At issue is a mandate from the state of Oregon, that demands health insurance plans pay for abortion.
“Even though ORTL objects to abortion on religious grounds, Oregon declined to provide an exception that would cover ORTL—all while the state did include both secular exceptions and exceptions for other religious organizations in the Mandate. Accordingly, in plain violation of ORTL’s religious liberty, the Mandate requires ORTL to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against,” the law firm’s report said.
It is uncertain exactly when the 9th Circuit will issue an opinion on the fight.
Bopp told the court the lower court judge “overlooked several key factors in its determination. For example, although ORTL had provided ample evidence of its religious beliefs, the trial court doubted ORTL’s religiosity. Similarly, although the Mandate contains numerous secular exceptions, the district court relied on the single religiously-oriented exception (a minor exception which only gave an exemption to churches) to conclude that the law was favorable to religion. The district court even found that another exception that says nothing at all about religion, but instead focuses on coverage offered in 2017, is nonetheless a religious exception.”
The legal team explained, “The government may not require anyone to do something that violates sincere religious belief all while giving others a pass based on secular criteria. Furthermore, the government may not pick and choose religious ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ by creating its own definition of ‘religious.’”
Lois Anderson, of ORTL, said, “The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion—the precise human rights violation we are dedicated to opposing—is blatantly unconstitutional and obviously unjust.”
The post Appeals court asked to overturn ruling forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions appeared first on WND News Center.
This post originally appeared on WND News Center.
