Catholics foresee state's intrusion in Church matters

Since Jan. 1, 2003, many religious employers in New York State have been faced with a dilemma: Should they violate one tenet of their faith by covering birth control in their employees' insurance policies, or violate another by dropping prescription drug coverage entirely?

The dilemma stems from the passage of the Women's Health and Wellness Act, a state law that mandates contraception coverage by religious employers. According to the law, only seminaries, parish rectories and diocesan chanceries are exempt.

Church-run agencies like Catholic Charities -- the largest religious employer of the Albany Diocese -- are not considered "religious" at all, because they don't meet state criteria of mainly teaching religious values, and employing and serving mostly people of their own faith.

Fundamental issue

Underlying the specific changes mandated by the law is a larger and even more disturbing issue: The state, say Catholic officials, has essentially decided it can define what religion is -- and control how it's practiced.

A half-dozen plaintiffs of various faiths, led by Albany diocesan Catholic Charities, are appealing the law, which they say violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion. They have taken their case to the appellate division of the State Supreme Court, and expect it to eventually advance to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

They have also asked for an injunction to stop employers from being forced to cover contraception until the case is decided.

California case

However, a possible blow to their success came earlier this month: In a similar case, the Supreme Court of California ruled that Catholic Charities does not qualify for an exemption from covering contraception based on religious beliefs.

The California courts ruled that although Catholic Charities "considers itself obliged to follow the Roman Catholic Church's religious teachings," the very fact that it employs people of all faiths and turns away no one based on religion means that it isn't a religious employer.

Justice Janice Brown was among those dissenting from the California Supreme Court's decision. Under the narrow definition of religion prescribed by the state, she remarked, even the ministry of Jesus Christ would be considered a secular activity, since He reached out to more than just His fellow Jews.

"It's absurd to suggest Catholic Charities agencies would screen people at the door before serving them," added Kathleen Gallagher of the New York State Catholic Conference, which has been forcefully speaking out against the law on behalf of the state's bishops.

Insurance

Without an exemption from the law, religious employers, including those in New York, are left with a choice: cover contraception for their employees, which they're morally opposed to because of their beliefs about the sanctity of life; or avoid covering birth control by not covering any prescription drugs at all, thus violating their belief that employers have a moral obligation to offer employees just wages and benefits.

Sister Maureen Joyce, RSM, executive director of Albany diocesan Catholic Charities, said that her office has asked the many insurance companies it works with to exclude coverage of contraceptive costs in their policies, thus circumventing the law. Some have complied, but not all have, so the Diocese may have to turn to a self-insurance policy for prescription drug coverage.

But Catholic Conference executive director Richard Barnes noted that self-insurance isn't a viable choice, because it would probably be so expensive that the Diocese would have to offer less coverage in other areas for its employees.

Getting to issue

Catholic officials agree that the entire legal argument isn't really about contraception at all. Contraception was a convenient issue to argue, said Dennis Poust of the Catholic Conference, because many Catholics disagree with the Church's position on the use of birth control, and many non-Catholics ridicule it.

But regardless of whether members of a faith follow a certain teaching, he countered, religious leaders still have the right to teach what they choose to.

Mr. Barnes said the real motivation behind both passage of New York's Women's Health and Wellness Act, and the California decision was to satisfy pro-choice political constituents.

State intrusion

The state, he said, has "been put in the position of determining what type of religious employer is religious" and, consequently, what rights religious employers have.

"Once the principle is established, nothing prevents the state from [using] it on another issue, as long as they consider it politically viable," he noted.

For example, the officials said that losing this case could lead to Catholic hospitals' being forced to perform abortions or to participate in cloning or euthanasia, or religious employers' being required to provide insurance benefits to same-sex couples. Mr. Poust pointed out that the California Supreme Court has already ruled that Catholic hospitals are secular organizations, so nothing would stop an abortion mandate from being passed there.

"The legal precedent can open the door to unpredictable ends," Mr. Barnes stated. "If the state can define what acceptable religious practice is, what keeps the state from determining that 'Religion A' gets the full benefits of state law, and 'Religion B' does not -- [for example], the right of assembly, of free speech?"

Prognosis

Plaintiffs in the New York case believe they have a strong chance of winning, partially because there are so many of them. While Catholic Charities was the only plaintiff in California, religious employers fighting New York's law include Albany diocesan Catholic Charities, the bishops of New York State, Temple Baptist Church in Halfmoon, First Bible Baptist Church in Rochester, Delta Development of Western New York in Buffalo and the Servants of Relief for Incurable Cancer in Hawthorne.

It's impossible to say how much influence the California ruling will have on New York's lawmakers, Mr. Barnes said, but the judges are sure to read both the Supreme Court's decision and the dissenting opinion.

Sister Maureen called the California court's ruling "a terrible reflection of what society thinks." The First Amendment is clear on religious rights, she said, and those rights are being violated in New York by the Women's Health and Wellness Act.

"We should have the right to set up our organizations based on a set of values and principles," she said. "This law says we can't do that. It's a very dangerous precedent."

Says state's actions could boomerang

Ironically, the Women's Health and Wellness Act passed by New York State lawmakers could conceivably destroy a relationship vital to the functioning of the state.

According to Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference (the public-policy lobbying arm of the state's bishops), the state has long relied on religious non-profit organizations to provide services like housing, food and shelter for the needy.

The state benefits from that relationship because funding for religious non-profits comes not just from state monies, but also from private donations. Thus, more services are provided with less state aid.

To receive state funding, religious entities must fit criteria defined by the state, including serving all people. But under the state's new definition of "religious employers," the very organizations that fit those criteria are not considered religious -- and therefore have to cover contraception for employees under the Women's Health and Wellness Act.

"They are punishing us for following the rules they set down," said Catholic Conference lobbyists. "It's a double-cross." (KB)

(3/25/04) [[In-content Ad]]