Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Appeals court says "health coverage" beats free exercise of religion
A New York law passed in 2002 requires employers' insurance plans to cover prescription contraceptives. "Religious employers" are exempt—but it's the law's definition of a religious employer that's the trouble. The only groups that qualify under the "Women's Health and Wellness Act" are those where "(1) the inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity; (2) the entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity; (3) the entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity."

In other words, if you're a church, you're fine. If you're a parachurch ministry, you almost certainly don't qualify. It's not terribly surprising, then, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany (qualifies), which runs Catholic Charities (doesn't qualify), fought the law and sued over it when it was implemented. Perhaps more surprising is that the Catholics were joined by Baptist churches that don't oppose artificial contraception. They're concerned that the law lays the groundwork for requiring religious organizations to pay for abortion.

Yesterday, a New York appeals court ruled 3-2 in favor of the law, and against the religious organizations. The law indeed burdens the churches' right to the free exercise of religion, the court said, but giving them an exemption "may ultimately cause a greater number of women employed by nonexempt religious organizations to be without adequate health coverage."

The Christian groups had argued that funding artificial contraception would also create the impression that they supported such contraception. The court told them, in essence, that they should just preach louder to counter such impression. When words conflict with actions, the court suggested, words win out. (Parishioners, the court confidently said, would see the funding as "compliance under protest.")

That's baloney, said the two dissenting judges: "It is the fact that their opposition is so public and widespread which makes the Catholic plaintiffs, in particular, more susceptible to charges of hypocrisy, especially since, as has been emphasized, these plaintiffs could avoid supporting contraceptive use by choosing not to provide any prescription coverage to their employees."

The dissenters also criticized the majority and the New York legislature for making pronouncements about what groups are "religious" and what groups are "secular."

"We fail to see where the record establishes that an organization is automatically secular and not religious in nature if it employs or serves persons of different faiths or engages in the provision of charitable or social services," wrote Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona. "Nor do we see that making such assumptions and engaging in the formulation of 'religious tests' is an appropriate area of inquiry for the Legislature or the courts. … We have great difficulty with a statutory scheme which explicitly dissects the laudable activities of a given religious organization into two unequal parts, i.e., secular and ecclesiastical, and affords only the ecclesiastical portion an exemption from mandated conduct which the entire organization deems objectionable."

The New York State Catholic Conference has vowed to appeal.

"This case is not about the right to contraception," executive director Richard E. Barnes said in a press release. "We have never challenged employees' right to use contraception. We have simply maintained that our religious beliefs prevent us from paying for something we teach is sinful. We believe that the advocates of this legislation have their sights set on mandating coverage for abortion, in an attempt to destroy the Church's network of social services, hospitals, nursing homes and schools, which serve millions of New Yorkers every year."

next page... |  1 of 5

January (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50