N.Y. court rejects challenge to contraception law

[Judi Lynn]

N.Y. court rejects challenge to contraception law

By The Associated Press
01.13.06
ALBANY, N.Y. — A New York appeals court yesterday rejected a constitutional challenge by Roman Catholic groups to a New York law requiring employers to offer prescription contraceptives.

The law, which went into effect three years ago, requires employers offering prescription-drug plans to provide coverage for contraceptives. Groups affiliated with the Catholic Church, which opposes contraceptives, in December 2003 lost their suit before a trial court. The groups had claimed the law intruded on the rights of some religious organizations.

They appealed, but lost yesterday in a 3-2 ruling by a panel of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, Justice Thomas Mercure rejected claims that the law violates the plaintiffs' rights under either the state or federal constitution.
(snip/...)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16311

[GrumpyGreg]

1. For God's sake--is the Catholic Church still on this anti-contraception

crap? It boggles the mind.

[meow2u3]

2. That's beside the point

The real point is that the court ruled it OK to force religious organizations who oppose contraception to provide prescription contraceptives, in violation of their religious beliefs. To me, it's a freedom of religion issue

[silverlib]

3. But would it not

be only an infringement of religious rights if the insured were forced to take the medication?

[JerseygirlCT]

14. That's what I think as well. nt

[rocktivity]

4. Their freedom not to offer contraception ends

where their employees' freedom to choose them begins.

:headbang:
rocknation

[GrumpyGreg]

5. Not to me---it's a health issue. Catholic Charities may not approve

of the homosexual lifestyle either but I certainly wouldn't want to see them allowed to discriminate against gays.

Why should they be able to make decisions about birth control?

[Mandate My Ass]

6. Not really...

The New York law does exempt churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion from complying with the prescription drug-coverage mandate. But groups such as Catholic Charities of Albany, which sought to overturn the law, were not exempted because their missions were not deemed to be religious.

[EST]

9. Well said.

These groups are meddling in secular law, politics and science education.They should tend to their own knitting and respect privacy.

[anotherdrew]

10. bullshit - their 'religion' forbids _them_ to _use_ it, not other people

They don't have the right to deny it to anyone but themselves. And far from all catholics even follow that asinine outdated dogma based nonsense anyway. They can't enforce it on their own members, much less poor people who have to work for them.

[mike_c]

13. do you believe that Chistian Identity chruches should be able...

...to cite "religious freedom" to discriminate against people of color? I think that "freedom of religion" should NEVER be a reasonable excuse to institutionalize denial of access to rights and services enjoyed by others. Religious practices should be PERSONAL, not institutional. In this instance, Catholic organizations should counsel their members to not seek contraception if doing so violates their religious views-- they are absolutely FREE to disseminate that philosophy, and their employees (or service beneficiaries) are ABSOLUTELY FREE to follow those tenents if they choose-- but they should not have the ability to DENY contraception to those who want it, thus imposing upon the individual freedoms of their employees or service beneficiaries.

[noonwitch]

11. My anti-catholic mom used to always say....

She always said that the Catholic church was opposed to contraception because they wanted more Catholics.

[Auntie Bush]

12. Especially when just as many Catholics practice contraception

as others. Notice Catholics don't have 6-10 kids anymore. That's proof. So why not make it legal...stop the charade and making all those good Catholics sinners.

[rodeodance]

7. safe till the next attach.

[Betty]

8. only a matter if time

once they get alito on the court. I wonder at what point the American public will have had enough? Once Roe V. Wade is overturned... or will it take losing our contraceptives? I sometimes think of that analogy of putting a live frog in water in a pot, and then turning up the heat gradually, so by the time it realizes how hot it is, it's too late.

[HockeyMom]

15. They would like to ban ALL contraceptives, condons, etc, etc.

Abstinence Only until Marriage and then Faithfulness in Marriage. Bush Doctrine. WHERE is the mention of birth control in either of those states?

Cross your legs if unmarried and cross your fingers if married?

I DON'T THINK SO.

[trogdor]

16. Maybe they'll start giving these out.