Religious liberty curtailed

The Supreme Court this week rejected an appeal by Catholic Charities of the Albany Diocese and let stand a state Court of Appeals ruling that said Church agencies cannot be exempt from a law requiring coverage for contraceptives in drug benefits for employees.

The New York State Catholic Conference, which represents the state's bishops in public policy matters, said the bishops will consider what alternatives are left to them.

Those alternatives include "the painful possibility of a loss of prescription drug benefits in employee health plans," said the Conference's executive director, Richard E. Barnes.

'Sad day'

Bishop Howard J. Hubbard reacted to the Supreme Court's decision by saying, "This is a sad day for religious liberty in our state and nation."

The high court without comment let stand a state Court of Appeals ruling that said religious groups may not be exempt from provisions of the Women's Health and Wellness Act of 2002.

That law requires employers who offer prescription benefits to employees to include coverage for birth control pills. The law also requires health plans to cover other services for women including mammography, cervical cancer screening and bone density tests.

Argument

While emphasizing that they supported the latter coverage, the Catholic Conference and non-Catholic agencies argued that the law was an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom for religious employers who hold the tenet that contraception and abortion are immoral.

They argued that the law ceded to government the power to define religious faith and practice.

The law was challenged by a variety of Catholic and Protestant churches, schools, healthcare organizations and social service agencies.

Slippery slope

Church teaching holds that artificial contraception is sinful; prescription insurance coverage for all employees of Church institutions routinely exempts coverage for birth control pills, just as employee health insurance exempts coverage for abortion, sterilization and other procedures the Church considers immoral.

"The Church's unpopular teaching on contraception was an easy target for the Church's detractors," said Mr. Barnes. "But, as the state's attorneys have conceded in open court, the principle...would have been exactly the same if the issue was abortion rather than contraception."

Abortion next?

Mr. Barnes went on to say that "an abortion mandate will now become a front-burner issue for the same advocates who promoted the contraception bill."

In the last several sessions of the state Assembly, bills have been introduced that would mandate abortion coverage in all insurance plans, Mr. Barnes said.

Earlier this year, Gov. Eliot Spitzer offered his own legislation that would require all insurance plans to cover abortions and require religiously affiliated hospitals to allow abortions to be performed on their premises.

Next steps

In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected a similar appeal of a California court ruling that found Catholic Charities of the Sacramento Diocese must comply with that state's law requiring prescription coverage to include contraceptives.

Since then, Catholic institutions in that state have dealt with the requirement in a variety of ways, said Carol Hogan, director for communications of the California Catholic Conference. Some dioceses, for example, have gone to a self-insurance system that is not subject to the requirement about contraceptives.

For the immediate future, Bishop Hubbard said that the Albany Diocese will continue to provide contraception coverage under formal protest.

"In the meantime, along with the members of the New York State Catholic Conference and other faith groups, the Diocese will consider what alternatives the Legislature and the courts have left us."

(10/04/07)