The "Women's Health and Wellness Act" (WHWA), requires health-insurance carriers to provide their insureds with an array of medical services, such as mammographies, cervical cytologies, bone density screenings. According to that same statute, if prescription drug coverage is supplied, "contraceptive drugs and devices" must be encompassed by that policy.
Interestingly, under the law, a "religious employer" may negotiate an insurance contract which excludes coverage for "contraceptive methods that are contrary to the religious employer's religious tenets." However, for the exemption to apply, a "religious employer" must meet each of the following elements:
- the entity's purpose is "the inculcation of religious values;"
- people sharing the identical religious tenets are employed by the entity;
- those served share the entity's religious tenets; and
- the entity is a nonprofit organization.
Ten "faith-based social service organizations" (which did not meet these criteria) filed suit alleging that the WHWA's "contraception coverage mandate" was unconstitutional.* Among other things, the lawsuit's proponents argued that since it is their view that contraception is "sinful," they could not be compelled to finance a procedure which their tenets condemned.
Interestingly, a loophole was available to these plaintiffs, according to the New York State Court of Appeals. The organizations were free to deny their employees prescription drug coverage in its entirety. As the court observed in its decision:
The burden the WHWA places on plaintiffs' religious practices is a serious one, but the WHWA does not literally compel them to purchase contraceptive coverage for their employees, in violation of their religious beliefs; it only requires that policies that provide prescription drug coverage include coverage for contraceptives. Plaintiffs are not required by law to purchase prescription drug coverage at all. They assert, unquestionably in good faith, that they feel obliged to do so because, as religious institutions, they must provide just wages and benefits to their employees. But it is surely not impossible, though it may be expensive or difficult, to compensate employees adequately without including prescription drugs in their group health care policies.
Additionally, since people of different religious beliefs were hired by the organizations, our state's highest appellate court was of of the opinion that these employers should have anticipated compliance with "neutral regulations" designed to protect their "employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit."**
Ultimately, WHWA was found to be "a neutral law of general applicability," and no constitutional infirmity could be discerned, particularly since the statute did not:
- "target" religious beliefs;
- "infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation;"
- interfere with plaintiffs' right to "communicate, or to refrain from communicating any message;" or
- "compel" or "prohibit" freedom of association.
Without a demonstration of government's unreasonable interference with a religious practice, the Court of Appeals refused to strike the legislation, noting that citizens are required to comply with "generally applicable and neutral laws, even ones offensive to their religious tenets."***
For a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, please click on the following link: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07517.htm
--------------------------
*None of the plaintiffs satisfied the law's "religious employer" exemption since "most" acknowledged employing "nonbelievers," and all provided "social and educational services" to people who did not share the same faith.
**Interestingly, the majority suggests that the outcome of the case might have been different "if plaintiffs had chosen to hire only people who share their belief in the sinfulness of contraception."
***This outcome begs the question: Will these social-service organizations now take prophylactic measures?