Supreme Court rejects religious groups' challenge of New York abortion rule

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday kicked back to the lower courts a bid by religious organizations in New York who challenged a state regulation requiring employer health insurance plans to cover abortions.

In a brief order, the high court tossed out a state court ruling upholding the rule and sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration in light of its decision in a religious freedom case involving Catholic Social Services, a foster care agency, last term. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the charities' appeal.

The dispute was brought by a number of religious organizations, led by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, against the state of New York over the 2017 regulation that mandates group health insurance plans cover abortions that are "medically necessary," which includes at least abortions in cases of rape, incest or fetal malformation. While the rule provides an exemption for certain religious organizations, those that serve a broader mission, such as serving the poor, are required to adhere to the mandate.

The organizations filed suit in New York state court to block the abortion mandate, arguing it forces them to violate the First Amendment and state laws. But the state's top court upheld the regulation, finding it is a "neutral and generally applicable" law under Supreme Court precedent.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-religious-groups-142238530.html

[malthaussen]

1. Interesting that only Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito wanted to hear the case...

... and not Kavanaugh or Barrett.

-- Mal

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. Don't understand why this is a religious freedom case.

Is the religion being forced to provide health care insurance plan?

[Irish_Dem]

3. They want the freedom to force their religious views on everyone.

[Igel]

7. Perhaps.

But for the most part if employees want to pay for these parts of the insurance on their own, the employer typically doesn't know or much care.

It's less forcing their views on their employees and more not being compelled to pay for something they object to. (We could argue taxes, but in this case it's not the government doing the spending, but the government coercing others to spend.)

[soldierant]

4. I doubt it

I know catholic parish priest file taxes as self-employed, so they are not gettin any employer health benefits. Staff hired by Diocesan offices might however, so it's not impossible.

[wnylib]

5. The Catholic Church runs several

schools, hospitals, and nursing homes that provide health care plans for their employees. NY law requires the employee insurance plans to include coverage for abortions.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Self insurance seems to be available...pay the costs of employee benefits by employer.

Cut out the middleman and stop clogging up the courts.

[wnylib]

10. Not sure I understand the point you

were making. Looks like you were blaming employees for clogging up the courts with lawsuits instead of just getting their own private insurance. But it is actually the other way around. The law in NY requires insurance plans to cover abortions. The Catholic Church went to court seeking a religious exemption from the law for all of its institutions and employees.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. Thinking raise salaries equal to insured medical benefits and dump employee insurance plans.

Then no mandate to concern about, no need to go to the courts.

So where is the forced to do anything if that is an option?

Just my thought probably a hole or two in it. Lol

[wnylib]

13. Single payer, universal health care,

would eliminate these kinds of problems by making health coverage for everyone independent of employers.

[soldierant]

14. That would likely not covert he cost of a comparable plan -

if you are buying your own you are not getting a group rate as a rule.

And if you do set up a group to qualify for a group rate on your own, youwill likely have expenses in connection with that. Not that I've ever tried it.

[ShazzieB]

6. Remember Burwell v. Hobby Lobby? Little Sisters of the Poor v. PA?

Those were "religious freedom" cases where an employer didn't want to include birth control coverage in their workers' health insurance because that would supposedly violate their religious beliefs. So there is definitely precedent for this.

It's not that they don't want to provide health insurance. They want to provide it, but don't want to cover certain things that they disapprove of.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. There was a parallel "religious" case here in Philly (not for abortion but LGBT discrimination)

Fulton v. Philadelphia (PDF)

Supreme Court Rules Catholic Group Doesn't Have To Consider LGBTQ Foster Parents

Updated June 17, 2021 5:04 PM ET
Nina Totenberg


The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Catholic Social Services in a battle that pitted religious freedom against anti-discrimination laws in Philadelphia and across the country. The court declared that the private Catholic agency was entitled to renewal of its contract with the city for screening foster parents, even though the agency violated city law by refusing to consider married LGBTQ couples. At issue was a decision by the city of Philadelphia to end its contract with Catholic Social Services for screening potential foster care parents. CSS challenged the termination in court, citing its religious belief that same-sex marriage is wrong, and maintaining that ending the contract violated its First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The court agreed unanimously that the city violated the Catholic groups' rights. But the justices divided 6-to-3 on the reasoning with the majority limiting the reach of its decision. "It's certainly a loss," said Richard Dearing, chief of the Appeals Division for the New York City Law Department, who filed a brief for local governments in support of Philadelphia. "It's a narrower one than some might have feared, so I think in that sense it's not exactly a bullet dodge."But "there will be additional cases," said Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "Our opponents are constantly looking for opportunities to challenge our rights. So this is not the end of the story."

The reason for all this equivocating on Thursday's decision is that the case brought by Catholic Social Services was aimed squarely at overturning a 1990 Supreme Court decision, called Employment Division versus Smith. Smith was authored by the iconic conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, himself a devout Catholic. He wrote that when the government has a "generally applicable" law or regulation and enforces the law neutrally, the government's action is presumptively legitimate, even if it has some "incidental" adverse impact on a religious group or person. But the court majority, while siding with CSS in the case, specifically refused to overturn Smith, at least for now.

(snip)

The city of Philadelphia, which has custody of about 5,000 abused and neglected children, contracts with 30 private agencies to provide foster care in group homes and for certification, placement and care of children in individual private foster care homes. The city's contracts ban discrimination against LGBTQ couples in the screening of foster parents, but Catholic Social Services, citing religious grounds, has a policy of refusing to consider and certify same-sex couples. When the CSS policy was disclosed in press reports, the city ended its contract with CSS for those services in the future. CSS sued, arguing that the city's position violated its constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

(snip)

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/996670391/supreme-court-rules-for-a-catholic-group-in-a-case-involving-gay-rights-foster-c

[olegramps]

11. This is why there are millions and millions of ex-Catholics.

There teachings are unacceptable to the majority of society. Their sexual teachings are straight out of the Dark Ages. If they had their way they would include all forms of contraception. Their sexual teaching are that any engagement of any use of the sexual faculties outside of marriage are seriously sinful and must maintain possibility of procreation in marriage. These teaching can cause serious mental trauma especially for children and adolescents. The quicker they are relegated to the dust bin of history, the better.

[BlueWavePsych]

15. K&R