Posted on 10/01/2007 1:21:03 PM PDT by processing please hold
(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday refusing to get involved in two church-state disputes - one over religious organizations paying for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, the other over an evangelical group's plea to hold religious services at a public library.
The birth-control benefits dispute was triggered by a New York state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.
New York is one of 23 states that require employers offering prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.
Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued that New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.
"If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well," the groups said in urging the court to take their case. "And if it can compel church entities to subsidize abortions, it can require hospitals owned by churches to provide them."
Other Catholic and Baptist organizations are part of the lawsuit. Seventh-Day Adventist and Orthodox Jewish groups signed onto a brief filed in support of Catholic Charities.
In the library case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled that public libraries can block religious groups like the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries from worshipping in public meeting rooms.
The Contra Costa library system in the San Francisco Bay area allows groups to use its facilities for educational, cultural and community-related programs.
"Although religious worship is an important institution in any community, we disagree that anything remotely community-related must therefore be granted access to the Antioch Library meeting room," the appeals court concluded in a 2-1 decision.
Allowing worship services would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religious exercises, argued the Contra Costa County, Calif., Library Board, which operated the facility in Antioch, Calif.
In the dispute over making religious organizations subsidize contraceptives, the court rejected a challenge to a similar law in California.
"A church ought to be able to run its affairs and organize relationships with its employees in a way that's consistent with moral values and teachings," said Kevin Baine, a partner at the Williams and Connolly law firm who represents the religious organizations.
The New York law contains an exemption for churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion. Catholic Charities and the other groups sought the exemption, but they hire and serve people of different faiths.
New York's highest court ruled last year that the groups had to comply with the law. The 6-0 decision by the state Court of Appeals hinged on the determination that the groups are essentially social service agencies, not churches.
According to Planned Parenthood, the other states with similar laws are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.
The birth-control benefits case is Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo, 06-1550. The library case is Faith Center Church v. Glover, 06-1633.
How about atheist meet-ups? Those are churches for the unchurched.
It was very dumb of the attorneys for the group to make that argument. Now by the court refusing to grant cert, they are effectively admitting that the state can, in fact, do those things under the same rationale that they used in regard to the prescriptions. In essence they have now signaled to the legislature that because they lost on this issue, that the legislature can now constitutionally require religious hospitals to provide abortions.
Making that argument in an attempt to get the Supreme Court to hear this case was a strategic blunder.
Actually, I know a couple of wealthy Jewish New Yorkers who have given large amounts of money to the Catholic parochial school system, because unlike the public schools they have a proven record of successfully educating black kids and sending them on to college.
So, I agree. Charity can do surprising things. But if the city leans on the system too hard, it will break, and there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it if they are determined enough.
Lots of wild, generalizations lacking coherency.
I’m sorry I don’t understand your post. I went back to the post number you replied to and I don’t understand.
To me, that was the essence of their argument. A Catholic hospital cannot according to their beliefs, offer abortions or birth control. It would go against their tenets.
This is quite disturbing. The First Amendment is all religious people have to protect their rights against bullying liberal secularists.
A great thing for them to do. But if the city leans on the system too hard, it will break, and there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it if they are determined enough.
I agree.
I agree that the attorney's have put religious hospitals in a bad position. However, religious hospitals can also require its patients to sign acknowledgements that the hospital will abide by its religious principles in such cases. They can have their board make such a matter of the bylaws and can broadcast it to the public.
The thing I find ridiculous is insisting that Catholic Charities is not Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities EASILY precedes any US government social department. The court should have taken that one.
Ping to read later
Except for God, of course.
Then if you follow that argument, then the fact that they lost on the prescription issue means that they have lost on the abortion issue as well. They have equated the requirement to provide birth control pills with a requirement that they be forced to provide abortions. Since they lost on the prescription issue, they can't now turn around and legitimately argue that just because the government can force an institution to provide birth control pills does not mean that they can force the same institution to provide therapeutic abortions.
There was no need to go that far. Obviously their argument was not convincing, so it did nothing except damage their credibility should they now attempt to argue that there is a difference between forcing an institution to provide birth control and forcing that same institution to provide abortions.
There was no need to go there. In essence they poisoned their own well.
I agree. And imho, it's getting whittled down.
Could they fire those lawyers and get a new team and maintain that the old team did not well represent them.
The problem, of course, is that Catholics do believe that contraception and abortion are of the same cloth. I see their point. Were I them, I would accept no patient who would not sign an acknowledgement of same and an acceptance that the hospital will act according to its beliefs.
.....hmmmmmmm.....and Hillary wants MANDATORY health care for all.....
something to think about all right.
Thank you.
When I used to go to church the preachers wife always played the piano. I never thought of her as an employee, just the preachers wife supporting her husbands calling.
Liberal "Christian" = member of a social club.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.