Cedar Park Assembly of God is a Christian church in Washington that provides health insurance to all of its employees. The issue that they faced was rooted in their powerful belief that abortion is sinful. They refuse to pay for any insurance plan that covers abortion. This is a problem, as Washington’s Reproductive Parity Act states that all health insurance plans that cover maternity care generally must also cover abortion. Does Washington’s law violate Cedar Park’s First Amendment right to freely exercise religion by indirectly connecting church to abortion? What happens when an employer’s religious beliefs conflict with employees' personal choices? Religious freedom protects a church from being forced to act against its faith, but does that protection extend to the choices of people who simply work for the church? This is the central issue in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kuderer, a recent Ninth Circuit case involving Washington’s controversial health insurance laws, religious freedom, and abortion.
At first, my mind immediately went to this being a Free Exercise issue. If a church believes abortion is morally wrong, forcing it to purchase a coverage plan that goes against its religious beliefs is wrong, right? Well, not exactly, because that’s not really what Washington’s law does.
Washington addresses this issue through a separate conscience statute that protects employers with religious or moral objections. This law allows Cedar Park to claim a religious exemption, allowing the church to opt out of purchasing the abortion coverage. The insurance company is able to offer the church a plan that excludes the abortion coverage. However, the insurance company must still inform employees that the services remain available separately and explain how to access them. This responsibility remains in the hands of the insurance company, not Cedar Park. This is where I had a paradigm shift.
Cedar Park argued that this still violates their beliefs and technically still requires their involvement in something they consider immoral. Even if the church does not directly purchase the specific coverage plan, its employees still have access and connections to abortion resources. In the eyes of Cedar Park, they are indirectly facilitating abortion.
The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled against Cedar Park. The majority believed Washington’s laws are neutral and generally applicable. They do not specifically or intentionally target religion and generally apply across the entire health insurance system. Because the laws were neutral, the court applied rational basis review, meaning Washington needed only a reasonable or legitimate reason for the law. Strict scrutiny, the much harder test requiring a compelling government interest and that the law be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, did not apply. Cedar Park agreed that the law could pass this test, so the court rejected its Free Exercise claim.
Judge Callahan strongly disagreed, arguing that the laws do burden Cedar Park’s religious exercise and are neither neutral nor generally applicable. She also believed the laws should have faced strict scrutiny instead. Her argument raises an important question: just because a law does not outwardly target religion, does that mean its effects on religion should be ignored?
Another important concern is how substantial the burden on Cedar Park actually is. Interestingly, the majority did not decide that Cedar Park faced no religious burden. Instead, it assumed that a burden focused more on whether the laws were neutral and generally applicable. The church believes that any connection to abortion goes against its moral beliefs, regardless of how indirect it is. Meanwhile, Washington attempts to separate the two by allowing the purchase of a plan excluding the abortion part. The state tried to balance the church’s religious objections while remaining accommodating to employees and their healthcare plan.
This disagreement aligns closely with Employment Division v. Smith, where the Supreme Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not typically receive strict scrutiny simply because they burden someone’s religious beliefs. This approach differs from Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Court protected the Amish from a generally applicable school attendance rule because it placed an immense burden on their religious practice. Together, these cases show how the Supreme Court’s approach to determining whether a law is neutral has shifted over time and why considering applicability matters.
I can absolutely understand how Cedar Park may believe the line was crossed here. If the church truly and deeply believes that assisting someone in the abortion process is morally incorrect, a court should be careful about deciding the church’s involvement is too indirect to matter. If the government could simply decide which parts of someone’s religious beliefs matter enough to respect, religion would mean less to people.
However, I still agree with the majority decision here. Cedar Park is not the only party whose freedom matters in this case. The employees have beliefs and personal choices as well, and those should not be diminished.
If Cedar Park could not only refuse abortion coverage but also had the power to refuse separate access, the religious exemption would hold a whole different level of power. This would allow Cedar Park not only to protect its own religious choice, but also to dictate its employees' healthcare choices. I believe that is the most crucial part of the entire case.
Religious freedom should protect Cedar Park’s ability to follow its beliefs, but should not give the church control over the independent choices of each person who works there. Washington’s law attempts to protect both sides, which is why I agree with the Ninth Circuit that Cedar Park’s Free Exercise rights were not violated.
I agree with you. I think that if the church is able to purchase insurance that does not include abortion coverage then their religious beliefs are being respected. I also do not think the insurance company giving employees information about how they can separately access abortion violates the church's religious freedom. The church is not being forced to pay for the abortion and if an employee chooses to get one that is their own personal choice. I understand why the church may still feel like they are indirectly connected to it, but I do not think their religious freedom should give them that much control over the personal choices of their employees.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your argument because I think Washington made a good effort to accommodate Cedar Park’s religious beliefs. What stood out to me the most was that the law does not require the church to provide abortion services or participate in an employee’s decision. I also think it's really important that an exemption for religion has some limits. If every indirect connection to something that has conflict with a religious belief was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, it would be very difficult for the government to create laws that are equal to everyone. I do understand Cedar Park’s concern, but I agree with the court that the law does not violate the church’s religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you argument that religious freedom should protect Cedar Park's ability to follow its beliefs without giving the church control over the personal healthcare decisions of its employees. I like how you explained Washington's law attempts to balance both sides by allowing the church to opt out of abortion coverage while assuring other employees have access to those services. Your point about the differences between indirectly facilitating something and directly participating in it very important as it shows why this case is more complicated than simply forcing a religion to go against their beliefs. But I do truly believe that protecting one person's or a group's religious freedom should not go against another person's ability to have their own autonomy and the ability to make their own decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument and the majority opinion. The law is neutral on its face, and as the court decided, also neutral in practice. One aspect of your post I find to be super interesting is how the burden that the law imposes upon church is evaluated. As you talk about, in past cases (namely Yoder), exceptions are granted or laws are appealed when the burden is deemed substantial. However, in this case, it is clear that there is a burden of some kind, but its severity does not constitute a breach of the Free Exercise clause. As we've discussed, proving something substantial versus insignificant is very difficult in the eyes of the law, but this is an example where the burden was not "substantial" enough for the church to see the results it maybe would have liked.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you explained the conflict in the Cedar Park case between religious freedom and the state’s interest in making sure employees can access certain healthcare services. What makes this case interesting is that Cedar Park is not saying its employees cannot make their own choices. Instead, the church argues it should not have to provide coverage for services that go against its religious beliefs. The Ninth Circuit decided that Washington’s laws were neutral and generally applicable, but one judge disagreed and thought the law put an unconstitutional burden on Cedar Park’s religious exercise.
ReplyDeleteYour post clearly shows why this is a Free Exercise issue. It raises an important question about how the government should balance employees’ access to healthcare with a religious organization’s right to follow its beliefs.
I agree. Cedar Park seems to be infringing on the issue of Free Exercise of their employees by trying to prevent them from receiving abortions, whether Cedar Park's insurance is paying for it or not. Although some workplaces have ideologies that they state their employees must abide by, I feel as though this becomes an issue when the employee's health and wellness is involved. Getting healthcare services outside of employer provided insurance, should not be a concern of the employer. I do think you pose an interesting question regarding how the government should go about navigating employee and employer relations especially when nuances of religion and beliefs are involved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that Washington’s accommodation tries to balance Cedar Park’s religious beliefs with employees’ ability to make their own healthcare decisions. What stood out to me is the distinction between the church directly paying for abortion coverage and the insurer separately providing information or access. That seems important because protecting religious freedom does not necessarily mean giving an employer control over every decision an employee makes outside the church.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view and the majority’s view. Specifically, I liked your assessment of Cedar Park gaining a lot of power over its members if it was given the “power to refuse separate access” to individuals. From this idea, I think there can also be an argument of religious overreach into a government sphere (Establishment Clause); the government should make sure that individuals can retain their individual autonomy, and a religious group overriding the government’s protections can be seen as entering a sphere which is slightly beyond their jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethink one of the most interesting parts of this case is how much influence an employer can have over an employee's personal decisions. Employees may work for a religious organization without sharing all of its beliefs, so I don't think their healthcare options should be determined just by their employer's religion. I also wonder how this situation would affect someone who cannot afford medical services on their own. Even if employees technically have access to these services, that does not necessarily mean they can afford them. This makes me wonder whether providing alternative access is enough to protect employees, or whether the government should also consider how realistically they can get the care they need
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your argument here. While I do not deny that a burden has been placed on Cedar Park, I think that the individual's rights matter too. I think the biggest thing for me is that Cedar Park is not being forced to pay for anything. While it might feel like they're indirectly aiding something that goes against their religion, the extent to which they are doing so, for me, does not outweigh the importance of giving their employees access to basic healthcare. I think the fact alone that Washington gives Cedar Park the ability to opt out of having abortion in their healthare plan is the most that Washington can do in order to make this as fair as possible for both sides.
ReplyDelete