<< Maryland to reinstate Medicaid program for legal immigrant children, pregnant women | Wyo. Gubernatorial Candidate Hunkins will seek abortion ban if Roe overturned, mandate 25-year sentences for assaults on pregnant woman >>
Read in | English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Nederlands | Bahasa | Русский | Svenska | Polski

New York State Court of Appeals upholds contraceptive coverage law

Published on October 22, 2006 at 4:13 PM · No Comments

The New York State Court of Appeals on Thursday voted 6-0 to uphold rulings by the New York Supreme Court and the Appellate Division to leave intact a state law that requires employers -- including the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations -- who offer prescription drug plans to provide coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives for women, the New York Times reports (Lueck, New York Times, 10/20).

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in January voted 3-2 to uphold the Women's Health and Wellness Act -- which was signed by Gov. George Pataki (R) in September 2002 and took effect on Jan. 1, 2003 -- that also requires employers to expand coverage for screenings and treatments for breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis. Religious or faith-based organizations can be exempted from offering contraceptive coverage under the regulation only if they primarily employ and serve members of that faith. The law does not exempt some Roman Catholic groups because their activities are not considered to be religious. In December 2002, a coalition of Catholic and Protestant institutions in New York, including state Roman Catholic bishops, filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block the bill. The New York Supreme Court in Albany voted to uphold the law. The Appellate Court panel also upheld the law, saying that it does not violate state or federal constitutions (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/17).

Ruling Details

The plaintiffs "believe contraception to be sinful," the Court of Appeals said in its ruling, adding, "We must weigh against (their) interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith the state's substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care" (Gormley, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/19). In the 18-page decision, the judges also said that state legislators had intended the 2002 law to "advance both women's health and the equal treatment of men and women." They wrote that a study reviewed by the state Legislature had shown that compared with men, women paid 68% more out-of-pocket for health care, which primarily went to paying for reproductive health services, the Times reports. The court said that when the law was written, some legislators pushed for expanding the exemption for religious or faith-based organizations. However, "[t]hose favoring a narrower exemption asserted that the broader one would deprive tens of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated organizations of contraceptive coverage," the court said in its ruling.

Reaction, Next Steps

Comments
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.



  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading