ARTICLES

Occasion of Sin

Catholic Charities Loses Suit Against Anti-Catholic Law

By Eric Reslock

On July 2, a three-judge appellate panel rejected Catholic Charities' motion for an injunction against a California law that mandates coverage for prescription birth control for organizations that provide prescription drug coverage. In Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Department of Managed Health Care, the court ruled the religious freedom of Catholic Charities is not violated by the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act, which went into effect on January 1 of this year after it was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. Catholic Charities filed the lawsuit in July of last year, arguing the law should be set aside because it violates the group's religious freedom.

The presiding justice, Arthur Scotland, said Catholic Charities is not required to endorse the use of contraceptives, but "having chosen to provide employee health insurance coverage with prescription drug benefit, it simply is required to provide benefits that do not discriminate against women."

The court rejected Catholic Charities' argument that it cannot separate itself from the teachings of the Church and ruled that because 74 percent of Catholic Charities employees were non-Catholic, and the organization's primary aim was not religious, the narrowly worded religious exemption in the law did not apply to them. In its brief to the court of appeal, Catholic Charities argued that not only would it be contrary to Church teaching to provide contraceptive coverage, but it would also be immoral to drop prescription drug coverage for its employees. Ned Dolesji, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, when asked if these teachings were equivalent, said, "Of course they are not equal." Dolesji said that an appeal is "more than likely" but has to be filed by the middle of August.

The California Catholic Conference vigorously lobbied for a religious exemption when two bills mandating contraceptive coverage were moving through the legislature in 1999. One of the bills was authored by Assemblyman Herztberg (D-Sherman Oaks), the other by Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo). Both bills added a definition of religious employer to California law that forces religious institutions to divide themselves into separate parts, regardless of whether the churches make a distinction between, for instance, their religious and charitable missions. In court documents, Catholic Charities argued that both bills specifically targeted the Catholic Church. "Throughout the legislative history [of both bills], there is a recurring insinuation, asserted by the authors and sponsors, that Catholic religious teaching on contraception merits no legislative deference because it is, purportedly, widely ignored by Catholics, hypocritically disregarded by some Church institutions, and, apparently in the view of some legislators, generally unenlightened and archaic."

During last year's floor debate in the senate, Jackie Speier responded to Protestant legislators who stood up to defend the Catholic Church by saying, "...let me point out that 59 percent of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception. Eighty-eight percent of Catholics believe in a New York Times poll that someone who practices artificial birth control can still be a good Catholic. I agree with that. I think it is time to do the right thing." In the July 13 issue of the Catholic San Francisco, the pro-abortion Speier is identified as "an active Catholic and a member of the board at Seton Medical Center."

In documents submitted to the court, Catholic Charities wrote, "The prospect of Catholic Charities, a vital, ministerial organ of the Catholic Church, providing its employees, Catholic or otherwise, with coverage for prescription contraceptives is, from a Catholic perspective, morally unacceptable." However, the attorney for Catholic Charities, James Sweeney admitted on July 2 that Catholic Charities had "reluctantly" been providing contraceptive coverage to its employees since the law went into effect in January.

TOP