Health Plans and Birth Control

'[I]t recognizes that it is wrong to discriminate against women,' said JoAnn M. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Family Planning Advocates of New York State. 'That was at the core of what brought the Legislature to work on the issue, what brought the advocates together to work on the legislation. To find that reflected in a decision of the Court of Appeals was most exciting, powerful and important, not only to every women in New York State, but to every woman and family in the United States.'

But Albany Law School Professor Vincent M. Bonventre said that 'anyone concerned about freedom of conscience and freedom to practice one's religion should be appalled' by the rule the court adopted.

Health-Related Evidence

Here, the court said the Legislature considered evidence that contraceptive services promote women's health. It cited a study indicating that unintended pregnancies are associated with delayed prenatal care and aggravation of such conditions as diabetes and arthritis. The court also noted children born of unintended pregnancies are more likely to suffer developmental problems, and that of the 3 million unintended pregnancies recorded annually in the United States about half end in abortion. With that evidence, the court said, the Legislature had clearly demonstrated a need for the bill that could not be overcome by the plaintiffs' religious considerations.

Richard E. Barnes, an attorney and executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said this ruling could have profound implications.

'In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies to be secular,' Barnes said. 'Worst of all, the New York state court system has now given lawmakers carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice. It should come as no surprise that legislation already has been introduced that would force Catholic entities to pay for employees' abortions. Could the Court of Appeals reject such a new law in light of today's decision?'

John Caher is a reporter for the New York Law Journal, a sister publication of this newsletter.

In last month's issue, we discussed the fact that the New York high court upheld a law requiring health plans to offer birth control. We discussed how non-believers are affected, and outlined defence to legislature. We continue this discussion below.

Contrasting Views

Women's rights groups praised the ruling, noting that thedecision marks the third time that a New York court has rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. They were especially heartened by the fact the court considered the reasonableness of the legislative enactment and recognized the state interest in promoting equal health care for women.

'[I]t recognizes that it is wrong to discriminate against women,' said JoAnn M. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Family Planning Advocates of New York State. 'That was at the core of what brought the Legislature to work on the issue, what brought the advocates together to work on the legislation. To find that reflected in a decision of the Court of Appeals was most exciting, powerful and important, not only to every women in New York State, but to every woman and family in the United States.'

But Albany Law School Professor Vincent M. Bonventre said that 'anyone concerned about freedom of conscience and freedom to practice one's religion should be appalled' by the rule the court adopted.

Health-Related Evidence

Here, the court said the Legislature considered evidence that contraceptive services promote women's health. It cited a study indicating that unintended pregnancies are associated with delayed prenatal care and aggravation of such conditions as diabetes and arthritis. The court also noted children born of unintended pregnancies are more likely to suffer developmental problems, and that of the 3 million unintended pregnancies recorded annually in the United States about half end in abortion. With that evidence, the court said, the Legislature had clearly demonstrated a need for the bill that could not be overcome by the plaintiffs' religious considerations.

Richard E. Barnes, an attorney and executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said this ruling could have profound implications.

'In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies to be secular,' Barnes said. 'Worst of all, the New York state court system has now given lawmakers carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice. It should come as no surprise that legislation already has been introduced that would force Catholic entities to pay for employees' abortions. Could the Court of Appeals reject such a new law in light of today's decision?'

John Caher is a reporter for the New York Law Journal, a sister publication of this newsletter.