High Court won't hear
church-state cases
By PETE YOST, AP from
yahoo.com on the Web, October 1, 2007
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.
|
