Not-So-Catholic Charities

David Bernstein has an excellent analysis on NRO of yet another example of anti-discrimination law encroaching on religious liberty.

The California Supreme Court has just required Catholic Charities to provide contraceptives to its female employees as part of its health benefits. Although the underlying legislation exempted “religious employers” from this requirement, the court held that Catholic Charities “did not meet the statutory definition of ‘religious employer’ because it offers social services to the general public as part of a religious mission, rather than trying to directly inculcate religious values.”

Catholic Charities, and some Constitutional scholars such as Bernstein, might disagree with the court’s definition, but it seems to me that anyone who agrees with the court’s holding should have no objection to faith-based initiative federal funds flowing to Catholic Charities to assist it in its now officially-determined secular work.

Say What? (3)

  1. Nels Nelson March 3, 2004 at 6:28 pm | | Reply

    John, as I read the court’s decision, Catholic Charities “candidly acknowledges” that it meets none of the four legal criteria to be considered a “religious employer” under California law. Catholic Charities was asking the court to declare that law, passed in 1999 by a good margin in both the Assembly and Senate, unconstitutional.

    It seems to me the problem one should be having is with the legislature’s definition of “religious employer,” rather than with the court’s rather conservative ruling (deference to the legislature).

  2. John Rosenberg March 4, 2004 at 2:23 pm | | Reply

    Nels, I haven’t read the opinions, but from the commentary I have read I believe you’re absolutely right. Catholic Charities argued that the law impermissibly discriminated against it. Indeed, I believe it also argued that the law was written with it specifically in mind, that is, that it was singled out.

  3. Zach March 4, 2004 at 10:54 pm | | Reply

    Of course, if my understanding is correct, this is going to have the opposite effect as intended… I believe the ruling states that the insurance has to cover contraceptives IF PRESCRIPTIONS ARE COVERED

    Say goodbye to prescription coverage…

    (I don’t know this for fact, but it seems the next logical step…)

Say What?