Yesterday in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, NY Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2006), New York's highest court upheld a provision in the state's Women's Health and Wellness Act (WHWA) that requires faith-based organization to include contraceptive coverage for women in any prescription plan that they offer employees. (See prior posting.) The statute includes an exemption for most churches and religious schools where contraception is contrary to the institution's religious tenets. However, the exemption does not cover religiously affiliated social service agencies or hospitals. In this case, a group of ten faith-based social service agencies claimed that the law requires them to violate their religious beliefs by supporting conduct they believe to be sinful. However the court rejected both federal and state constitutional challenges to the law.
The court held that a First Amendment free exercise challenge failed under the Smith test, since this was a neutral law of general applicability. The fact that it exempts a narrow group of religious institutions from its coverage does not make it non-neutral. The more important part of the decision was the court's creation of a new test for free exercise of religion claims under Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New York constitution-- a test that is more protective of religion than the U.S. Supreme Court's Smith decision, but less protective than a "strict scrutiny" rule.
The court held that when general legislation creates an incidental burden on the free exercise of religion, "substantial deference is due the Legislature, and ... the party claiming an exemption bears the burden of showing that the challenged legislation, as applied to that party, is an unreasonable interference with religious freedom." In the court's view, plaintiffs here failed to show that the WHWA imposed an unreasonable interference. The state has a substantial interest in providing women with health care and institutions could ultimately avoid violating their religious principles by not offering prescription drug coverage at all. The court said that it would be a more difficult case if these institutions only hired employees who shared their views on the sinfulness of contraception.
Today's New York Law Journal carries an extensive analysis of the case.
