Supreme Court: religious groups must offer employees birth control benefits

[Lanya]

 Religious groups must offer employees birth control: US Court

Mon Oct 1, 11:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid by Roman Catholic and Baptist groups to stop offering their employees birth-control benefits as part of their health insurance.


The case hinged on the organizations' right to place their own beliefs at the center of their employment practices, offering a new battle ground over the age-old state versus religion debate at the start of the court's new year.

The top court rejected a petition by the groups arguing that by being forced to offer contraception pills and equipment on their employee health-insurance plans, their First Amendment rights to free speech were violated.

The petition sought to overturn a New York state law that mandated that all employees of religious groups must have access to birth-control measures as part of their employer-provided health insurance.

The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is "intrinsically evil," eight Catholic organizations backed by a Baptist church had argued in their petition.

"In keeping with this teaching, church entities cannot facilitate or promote, directly or indirectly, the practice of contraception," they said.

The Supreme Court did not publish an explanation of its decision against the petition, which had also been supported by Orthodox Jewish and other religious groups in a brief to the court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071001/ts_alt_afp/usjusticereligionhealth_071001153818

[BT]

Your story is not quite accurate:


Among them was the dispute over a New York state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer their employees.

New York is one of 23 states that require employers offering prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well. 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 say 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. Religious groups argue that the beliefs of the employer must dominate; their opponents counter that the ethical beliefs of employees must be respected.

"Every state court that has heard this case has affirmed that the law helps to provide access to basic health care. Today's decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the case protects the religious freedom of women and families," said JoAnn M. Smith, president and CEO of Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

The New York law has an exemption for churches, and the plaintiffs in the Catholic Charities lawsuit included two Baptist churches. In 2004 before the arrival of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court declined to hear a similar case brought by Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Calif., which did not include any churches as plaintiffs.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_religious_cases;_ylt=AgXEsQRkR_S7mBUgRiTblWus0NUE

[Lanya]

The story's accurate, as far as I can tell.  If  religious-based social service agencies don't qualify as 'religious groups,' then, OK.  To me, they do.  They are not secular  groups.

[BT]

They are not secular  groups.

The NY decision which Scotus chose not to revisit was based on the fact that these social services groups serve a primarily secular purpose. If the served a [primaril religious purpose they would have been exempt.

That is why your story was inaccurate.

And I am surprised it was reported that way. Because if you think about it, Scotus choosing not to revisit the NY decision indicates they probably have no problems with faith based initiatives as long as they provide a secular service.