Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case of Cedar Park Assembly v. Kreidler could have far-reaching consequences for religious liberty and conscience rights for churches opposing abortion.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Cedar Park Assembly of God in its challenge to a Washington State law mandating abortion coverage in health insurance plans that also offer maternity care.
In a 2-1 decision, the majority opinion held that the Pentecostal church lacked the necessary legal standing to challenge the law, citing the availability of insurance plans that exclude abortion coverage.
The lone dissent pointed out that this ruling overlooked the practical challenges that religious organizations face in securing such plans, especially in Washington State, where mainstream insurers are mandated to offer comprehensive coverage that includes abortion services.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between state regulations and religious freedoms, particularly concerning pro-life issues.
โThe majorityโs ruling is shocking,โ said Rory Gray, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the church. โWeโll be considering our legal options to keep this important case going because no church should be forced to fund abortions.โ
ADFโs Kristen Waggoner also condemned the ruling, calling it โabsurdโ that the court ruled the church had no standing in a case in which the law directly and adversely affects it.
โThe 9th Circuit is way out on a limb here. Every other court to consider a similar case in the pastโfrom district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court and even the 9th Circuit itself (as the dissenting judge noted)โhas granted standing,โ she said on X.
โTo reach its conclusion, the 9th Circuit argued that forcing employers to pay for abortion coverage doesnโt really harm their conscience . . .ย because employees can spend their paychecks on things that an employer doesnโt like anyway. (Hint: the difference lies in whose money it is!)โ
Waggoner also confirmed that the ADF will appeal the ruling. โChurches should never be forced to fund abortion. And they should always have the option to challenge such unjust laws in court,โ she concluded.
In 2018, Washington State enacted the Reproductive Parity Act, which requires health insurers providing maternity coverage to also include abortion services.
Cedar Park Assembly of God, located in Kirkland, a suburb of Seattle, objected to this mandate, arguing that it compels them to act against their religious and pro-life convictions by facilitating procedures they consider morally objectionable.
Church leaders contended that the law infringes upon their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by forcing them to subsidize abortions through their employee health plans. Cedar Park had health insurance without abortion coverage until 2019, when its provider informed them that all policies would now include abortion services.
Circuit Judge Susan Graber, who wrote the majority opinion, stated,
“Under the conscientious-objection statute and the Parity Act, employers with a religious objection need not purchase coverage for abortion services for their employees. Employees simply have the right to obtain such coverage through their insurers when their employers do not provide it. That distinction is not one of semantics, but of substance.”
Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, the only dissent, highlighted the predicament faced by Cedar Park. She noted that church leaders are caught in a situation where they must choose between violating their religious beliefs by providing abortion-inclusive coverage or foregoing employee health benefits altogether, which could have legal and ethical repercussions. She wrote,
“In the majorityโs view, Cedar Parkโs concern about facilitating access to abortion coverage amounts to ‘general disapproval of the actions that others might decide to take’ and is akin to a taxpayerโs concern with how money is spent. This is wrong…the thrust of Cedar Parkโs injury remains that it is actually ‘providing’ a health plan that covers abortion, contrary to its religious beliefs. In other words, the Parity Act requires that Cedar Park ‘arrange for such coverage.'”
There have already been notable cases where religious entities have sought exemptions from mandates that contradict their beliefs and won. For instance, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court recognized that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from regulations that violate their religious principles, specifically concerning contraceptive coverage.
In addition, the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious order, fought extensively against the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, arguing that it infringed upon their religious freedoms. These cases highlight the judiciary’s role in balancing state interests with constitutionally protected religious rights.
Those cases appear to have resolved nothing, however. The lawsuit brought by Cedar Park Assembly is part of a broader trend where religious organizations are being forced to go to court and argue for their God-given right to freely exercise their religious beliefs against increasingly onerous state and federal regulations.
For example, the Catholic Benefits Association representing 8,000 employers and the Catholic Diocese in Bismarck, North Dakota, was forced to file a lawsuit against a Biden-era rule adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Pregnancy Fairness Act that required them to give paid time-off to employees seeking abortions and fertility treatments.
The plaintiffs won, but they shouldn’t have even been in court, according to U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor, who admonished the government when he wrote that it โshould not take a legal challenge for the Agency to stop violating the constitutional rights of Americans.โ
The judge then blocked the government from enforcing the requirements โin a manner that would require [the plantiffs] to speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith” and further warned against โthe danger of government action that is clearly anti-religion.”
This ruling raises significant concerns about religious liberty in the face of state-imposed mandates, and we can only pray that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on this case.
Forcing religious organizations to act contrary to their convictions not only undermines their mission but also sets a concerning precedent for the erosion of conscience rights. The essence of religious freedom is the ability to operate under one’s beliefs without undue interference from the state.
These churches and other faith-based employers hold deeply held beliefs regarding the sanctity of unborn life. The Ninth Circuitโs ruling represents a direct challenge to Cedar Park’s ability to hold to those beliefs, compelling it and other churches to fund the destruction of unborn children. It is a sobering reminder that believers must remain steadfast in their convictions, even when faced with opposition from governing authorities.
The Bible affirms that human life is sacred from conception. Psalm 139:13-14 states, “For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my motherโs womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
This passage emphasizes that life is a divine creation uniquely crafted by God. Abortion is not merely a political issue; it is a direct affront to the Creator’s work. The Church must resist any policy that forces it to be complicit in ending innocent lives.
When faced with unjust laws contradicting biblical teachings, Christians must stand firm. Acts 5:29 declares, “We must obey God rather than men.”
In other words, when earthly authorities demand compliance with immoral mandates, the Christianโs ultimate allegiance is to Godโs higher law. Just as the early Church resisted governmental decrees that opposed their faith, we must reject any coercion to support abortion.
In response to this ruling, Christians should remain prayerful, seeking strength and wisdom for churches facing legal battles over pro-life convictions. Advocacy for religious liberty is essential, whether through contacting legislators or supporting organizations that defend pro-life causes and law firms that help churches defend their religious freedom and conscience rights in court.
Believers must refuse to compromise, ensuring churches and ministries remain steadfast in protecting the unborn. As the battle for life and religious freedom intensifies, let us be unwavering in our commitment to biblical truth, standing as a light in the darkness and a voice for the voiceless.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to todayโs politics and culture, consider making a donationย here.
