Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065 (2026)

Right of individuals to receive services—Right of providers, carriers, and facilities to refuse to participate in or pay for services for reason of conscience or religion—Requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislature recognizes that every individual possesses a fundamental right to exercise their religious beliefs and conscience. The legislature further recognizes that in developing public policy, conflicting religious and moral beliefs must be respected. Therefore, while recognizing the right of conscientious objection to participating in specific health services, the state shall also recognize the right of individuals enrolled with plans containing the basic health plan services to receive the full range of services covered under the plan.
(2)(a) No individual health care provider, religiously sponsored health carrier, or health care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to so doing for reason of conscience or religion. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of such objection.
(b) The provisions of this section are not intended to result in an enrollee being denied timely access to any service included in the basic health plan services. Each health carrier shall:
(i) Provide written notice to enrollees, upon enrollment with the plan, listing services that the carrier refuses to cover for reason of conscience or religion;
(ii) Provide written information describing how an enrollee may directly access services in an expeditious manner; and
(iii) Ensure that enrollees refused services under this section have prompt access to the information developed pursuant to (b)(ii) of this subsection.
(c) The insurance commissioner shall establish by rule a mechanism or mechanisms to recognize the right to exercise conscience while ensuring enrollees timely access to services and to assure prompt payment to service providers.
(3)(a) No individual or organization with a religious or moral tenet opposed to a specific service may be required to purchase coverage for that service or services if they object to doing so for reason of conscience or religion.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not result in an enrollee being denied coverage of, and timely access to, any service or services excluded from their benefits package as a result of their employer's or another individual's exercise of the conscience clause in (a) of this subsection.
(c) The insurance commissioner shall define by rule the process through which health carriers may offer the basic health plan services to individuals and organizations identified in (a) and (b) of this subsection in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2)(c) of this section.
(4) Nothing in this section requires a health carrier, health care facility, or health care provider to provide any health care services without appropriate payment of premium or fee.
[ 1995 c 265 s 25.]

Notes:

Captions not law—Effective dates—Savings—Severability—1995 c 265: See notes following RCW 70.47.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Myron Kreidler, 130 F.4th 757 (9th Cir. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Myron Kreidler, 130 F.4th 757 (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 10× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065 (3)(a). At the same time, the statute mandates that enrollees in insurance plans be able to access those services that their plan’s provider—such as an employer— find objectionable.”
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 48.43.065. III. Development of Regulations.”
Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2012). · cites it 3× “§ 48.43.065). Fifteen of the state’s Catholic hospitals also contain an outpatient, or retail, pharmacy.”
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 854 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “RCW 48.43.065(l)-(2)(a); see also RCW 70.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 21× “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 9× “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 8× “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 7× “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “Defendants argue that “both 10 Religion Clauses underlie the religious autonomy doctrine” and that Cedar Park 11 acknowledged as much in its complaint.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God v. Myron Kreidler (9th Cir. 2021). “To the extent the conscience objection statute treats religious organizations like Cedar Park differently than individual health care providers, religiously sponsored health carriers, and health care facilities (collectively, “providers”), see Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(2)(a) — 5 cases
Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “§ 48.43.065). Fifteen of the state’s Catholic hospitals also contain an outpatient, or retail, pharmacy.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(2)(b) — 2 cases
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(3) — 2 cases
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(3)(a) — 5 cases
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Myron Kreidler, 130 F.4th 757 (9th Cir. 2025). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065 (3)(a). At the same time, the statute mandates that enrollees in insurance plans be able to access those services that their plan’s provider—such as an employer— find objectionable.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(3)(b) — 4 cases
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(4) — 4 cases
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2019). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties appear to disagree on 15 whether SB 6219, in conjunction with Washington’s conscience statute, RCW 48.43.065, 16 require religious organizations to “facilitate access to” or provide health insurance 17 coverage for abortion services.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The parties, and the Court, refer to the 6 entirety of RCW 48.43.065 as the “conscience statute.”
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” 16 In 2002, the Washington Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”) issued an 17 advisory opinion interpreting RCW 48.43.065 in response to an inquiry from the 18 Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“OIC”), setting forth its opinion in 19 relevant part that “[t]he…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.43.065(l) — 1 case
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 854 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wash. 2012). “RCW 48.43.065(l)-(2)(a); see also RCW 70.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.