> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Ninth Circuit Upholds Washington’s Abortion-Coverage Law
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/state-news-washington-2026-09-15-a/
- Published: 2026-09-16T02:26:11.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-16T02:26:11.000Z
- Description: A divided federal appeals panel upheld Washington’s requirement that most state-regulated health plans covering maternity care also cover abortion, preserving the rule while a church weighs further legal options.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: State News, Washington

A divided federal appeals court has upheld Washington’s requirement that most state-regulated health plans that cover maternity care also cover abortion, leaving the rule in place after a Seattle-area church argued that it burdened religious exercise.

In a [2-1 decision issued September 14](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/23-35585.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for state officials in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kreidler. The majority concluded that Washington’s Reproductive Parity Act is neutral and generally applicable and therefore subject to rational-basis review, which it survived. The court also rejected the church’s separate church-autonomy claim.

The immediate consequence is continuity, not a new mandate. Washington’s statute already says a health plan issued or renewed in the state that includes maternity coverage must provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage. Under the [current text of RCW 48.43.073](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=48.43.073&ref=theamericanquorum.com), most plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2024, also may not impose cost sharing for abortion services, although the law contains exceptions tied to federal requirements and certain health savings account plans.

The Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner explains that the requirement applies to [state-regulated individual and employer health plans](https://www.insurance.wa.gov/insurance-resources/health-insurance/how-health-insurance-works/coverage-abortion-services?ref=theamericanquorum.com). That distinction matters for consumers and employers: federal law, rather than the state insurance code, generally governs self-funded employer plans. The agency advises residents to review plan documents or contact the insurer when determining whether a particular policy is state regulated.

Cedar Park challenged the law because its employee health plan covers maternity care and, the church said, it could not exclude abortion coverage consistent with its beliefs. The appellate panel first found the church had standing to pursue the case. On the merits, the majority reasoned that the statute regulates insurance coverage without singling out religious practice and that its exceptions do not create a comparable secular exemption that undermines the law’s stated purposes.

Judge Consuelo Callahan dissented in part. She agreed that the church had standing but would have allowed its Free Exercise claim to proceed under stricter scrutiny, arguing that the law’s structure and exceptions warranted closer constitutional review. The disagreement creates a clear path for the church to seek rehearing by a larger Ninth Circuit panel or petition the U.S. Supreme Court, but neither step automatically changes the present effect of the ruling.

[Reuters reported after the decision](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/washington-state-defeats-churchs-appeal-over-healthcare-coverage-abortion-2026-09-14/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) that the church was considering its options and that Washington’s attorney general welcomed the outcome. Unless a later court order intervenes, insurers, covered employers and policyholders should continue operating under the existing state coverage rules while any further appeal unfolds.

The ruling is binding within the federal case and directly preserves Washington’s law. It does not create a nationwide insurance mandate, and it does not settle how another court might evaluate a materially different statute or set of exemptions.