Catholic Group Is Told to Pay for Birth Control

Tuesday, March 2, 2004
By Stephanie Strom

New York Times Writer

The State Supreme Court ruled that the organization (Catholic Charities of Sacramento) did not meet any of the criteria defining a religious employer under the law, which was passed in 1999. Under that definition, an employer must be primarily engaged in spreading religious values, employ mostly people who hold the religious beliefs of the organization, serve largely people with the same religious beliefs, and be a nonprofit religious organization as defined under the federal tax code. Mr. Dolejsi said the court had either ignored or misunderstood the relationship between Catholic Charities and the Roman Catholic Church.

NYT
he California Supreme Court ruled Monday that Catholic Charities must provide its employees in California with medical coverage for birth control, in spite of its religious objections to contraception.

The ruling has sweeping implications for religion-based nonprofit organizations and hospitals throughout the state and could influence decisions made in at least 20 other states that have similar laws requiring employers to provide contraception as part of employee health coverage, legal experts said. A similar case, brought by Catholic and Protestant organizations, is winding its way through the New York courts.

"There are other groups in similar situations in California, so it is quite significant in that way," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "And it probably will influence how the laws are interpreted in other states. It's an important ruling."

Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said the court's decision was a sign of the times.

"We're very disappointed in the ruling and sad that this is apparently an indication of where our society is at this time in terms of its respect for religious diversity," Mr. Dolejsi said.

The United States Supreme Court has narrowed its protection of religious practices, a move legal scholars attribute to its reluctance to force judges to weigh the relative merits of church and state interests.

"This is a shocking interference with internal church affairs, but it's the way the law has been headed broadly," said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Texas. "They shouldn't be able to do this, because as a matter of principle this is just wrong, but cases have been going this way."

(More: NYTimes.com / National)

2004 © The New York Times Company.

Dan