Catholic Charities Forced to Provide Birth Control (California)

AP | March 1, 2004 | AP

[technomage]

AP News Alert

03/01 1:22p CST SAN FRANCISCO (AP)

California Supreme Court rules 6-1 that Catholic Charities must provide birth control coverage in company health plans.

[technomage]

That is all we have so far.

[Bikers4Bush]

On to the real supreme court.

[DLfromthedesert]

And people expect them to overrule the mayor of San Fran?

[Howlin]

must provide birth control coverage in company health plans.

If I was in charge there, nobody would have health insurance starting tomorrow.

[cyborg]

If I work for a Catholic organization, I wouldn't expect them to pay for my BC.

[DLfromthedesert]

That's the ultimate goal. Keep mandating new coverage, and drive up the cost; then the government comes to the rescue of the problem they created in the first place.

[2banana]

This is not even a religious issue - since when do unelected judges have the power to tell a private business what they may or may not offer in a health plan or for a salary? By what authority? And since laws in California don't mean squat, why not just ignore the ruling...

[george wythe]

And people expect them to overrule the mayor of San Fran?

The California Supremes are "conservative" by California standards, similar to British conversatives.

[cyborg]

Yes then see people whine for real... What started out as a fringe benefit from employers to retain quality help has now become a right.

[bobo1]

OK, I can live with the ruling. Now it is time for the Catholics to unify and abort the Californication Supreme Court.

Blessings, Bobo

[Howlin]

How can they mandate new coverage? Nobody is required to offer health insurance.

[glock rocks]

In similar news, the California Supreme Court today ordered all delicatessins to serve bacon.

[george wythe]

Some background

On November 25, Catholic Charities, an organization sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church, offered legal arguments before the California Supreme Court challenging a state law which is at odds with the church’s doctrine. In 1999, the state legislature passed legislation requiring all employers, including religious organizations, to pay the costs of birth-control pills for all female employees. Unquestionably, this law directly contradicts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic Charities Initiates First Amendment Lawsuit

Immediately after the Catholic Charities of Sacramento learned that the new law would extend to all religious organizations, they pleaded with state officials to make exceptions for Catholic organizations. Despite the fact that the new regulation conflicts with the moral teachings of Catholicism, state officials ignored their requests to make an exception.

A lawsuit was then filed seeking a formal exemption, but the lower state courts have upheld the law, claiming that the law does not intrude upon the religious rights of the Catholic Charities. In the organization’s legal briefs, they have argued that the current law “is at odds with 2,000 years of Catholic theology, tradition, and canon law.” But, the state’s appeals court ruled that the law “does not advance or inhibit religion,” and, therefore, should not be subject to special exemptions for the Catholic Church.

However, it is unquestionable that the lower court’s ruliing blatantly ignored the teachings of Catholicism. Number 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads, “Every action… to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.”

Anti-faith, Pro-Abortion Advocates Join Fight against Catholic Efforts

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have vocally supported the state’s actions in forcing Catholic organizations to comply with this law. The ACLU has actually filed a brief with the California Supreme Court in opposition to the Catholic organization. Margaret Crosby, an attorney with the ACLU, believes that the state supreme court will uphold the lower court decision. “When you enter the secular world, you have to play by secular rules,” Crosby stated.

The Response of Both Sides

Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo), who served as an author to the legislation, dismissed the organization’s argument. Speier claimed, “Sometimes, in our zeal to protect the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, we allow organizations to not be subjected to the law.”

Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Catholic Charities of California, stated, “The bottom line is that this is not someplace the state ought to be taking jurisdiction. This isn’t the state’s job.”

[from occupied ga]

Catholic Charities USA collects about $ 1 billion annually of your tax dollars in the form of government grants. They aren't going to rock the boat too much by squawking because they're bought and paid for already.

[DLfromthedesert]

Doesn't matter. Arizona passed legislation that if companies offer health insurance, they have to offer certain benefits. Comes under the banner of "eQUALity" for women.

[Rutles4Ever]

Does this mean that orthodox Jewish charities will be required to provide ham in its lunch rooms?

[Iron Matron]

What happened to the "seperation between Church and State" that the dang dims keep frothing about!?

[Rutles4Ever]

However, federal and state governments are two very different things, as we've learned recently. I don't think the Feds care much whether Catholic Charities balks at the state of California, at this rate. They may grant them more money, in the end.

[nickcarraway]

What happened to equal protection?