Catholic Charities must provide health care for contraceptives (reject, beliefs)

[Pah]

Supreme Court Rejects Catholic Charities' Appeal of District Court Ruling Upholding California Contraceptive Coverage Law
[Oct 05, 2004]
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected without comment Catholic Charities' challenge of a California law that requires employers -- including religiously affiliated organizations -- to cover contraceptives if they provide coverage for other prescriptions, the San Francisco Chronicle reports (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/5). Catholic Charities -- which employs 1,600 people in California -- in 2000 filed a challenge to the 1999 California law that mandates contraception coverage, saying that the law should be "set aside as a violation of religious freedom." However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals in July 2001 ruled that the law was "enacted to eliminate discriminatory insurance practices that had undermined the health and economic well-being of women" and "does not advance or inhibit religion." Although the law has an exemption for religious employers whose primary goal is to promote religious beliefs and that primarily employ and serve people of a certain religion, Catholic Charities legally is a secular organization that receives government funding. The California Supreme Court in March upheld the state law, saying that Catholic Charities cannot be exempt from the law because the organization is not a religious employer, provides services to people of various religions and does not directly preach Roman Catholic doctrine (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Reports, 6/3).

Reaction and the rest of the article here

-pah-

[linwood]

I`ve said it before and I`ll keep on saying it.

Thank you judicial branch!!!

[Rex]

this was bound to happen. Let the world evolve.

[Mister Emu]

Didn't notice tax status, if you read my old post please ignore it.
Thanks SOGFPP

[Scott1]

I personally don't have a problem with the decision. It seems the decision was based on factors such as non-Catholic employees, tax status, and specifically mentions that their intention was to not violate religious freedoms. Faithful Catholics will not be affected, so I don't mind this a bit.

Peace,
Scott

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Yay for oligarchial rule.

Boo personal freedoms, BOO!

Why should I be forced to pay for something that is against my religion?

Because Catholic Charities is not a religion and when it takes government funding it is an agent of the state.

Clergy has been expressly exempted from the law, I believe, as well the employees of the church itself.

-pah-

[Mister Emu]

Pah, I didn't notice that they recieved money from the government.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Pah, I didn't notice that they recieved money from the government.

From the article.

Catholic Charities legally is a secular organization that receives government funding.

A charity that is organized as a non-profit has a different legal status than a non-profit church. If Chatholic Charities owned property, it would be taxable. If it seeks and receives a government contract for performing social services it has to follow the laws applicable to awarding contracts.

-pah-

[Mister Emu]

I know, I didn't notice at first.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I know, I didn't notice at first.

Then forgive me giving old news.

-pah