| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr Dave W" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2003 12:21:05 AM |
| Object: |
Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws |
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_CONTRACEPTIVES?
SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Nov 29, 8:36 PM EST
Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If you don't believe in the law, do you have to
follow it?
That's the question before courts in New York and California, which are
being asked to exempt branches of the Catholic Church from state laws
requiring contraceptives be included in employee prescription drug plans.
Under church doctrine, contraception is a sin.
"The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that artificial contraception is
morally unacceptable and, if knowingly and freely engaged in, sinful,"
Catholic Charities of Sacramento attorney James Sweeney said.
After California's law was enacted in 2000, the group unsuccessfully
sought a court ruling to bar the law from being enforced on the church's
charity outreach programs. A state appeals court also denied the church
relief. Now the California Supreme Court is set to hear the case Dec. 2.
Versions of the law have been adopted in 20 states after lawmakers
concluded private employee prescription plans without contraceptive
benefits discriminated against women. Lawyers closely following the
debate said the only other legal challenge is in the lower courts of New
York, before a judge of the Supreme Court of Albany County.
California's case is years ahead of the New York litigation, and civil
rights groups, health care companies and Catholic organizations have
filed extensive position papers with the court.
"It certainly could be very persuasive on other courts," said Rebekah
Diller, a New York Civil Liberties Union director who is following the
litigation.
At issue is a collision of the right of a religion to practice what it
preaches and the newly acquired rights of thousands of women employed by
church-affiliated groups to be insured for contraceptives.
Catholic Charities directly employs more than 1,000 workers in California
and New York, but a ruling favoring the charity could also prevent more
than 100,000 employees at 77 church-affiliated hospitals in California
and New York from benefiting from the laws.
State regulators point to U.S. Supreme Court rulings in favor of a ban on
polygamy, despite objections from Mormons, and against Native Americans
who were denied unemployment insurance after being fired for using peyote
during religious ceremonies.
"The church's claim that it is coerced into violating its religious
beliefs by a state law requiring health insurance plans and disability
policies to include prescription contraceptive coverage is nonsense,"
said California Deputy Attorney General Meg Hollaran.
The two states note that churches are exempt from having to provide
contraception coverage for employees who work inside parishes and houses
of worship. That is known as the "religious employer exemption" because
the parishes generally serve worshippers and employ those with similar
religious views.
Several states have no such exemptions for religious entities. Other
versions exempt church groups and "qualified church-controlled
organizations."
Catholic Charities had a $76 million budget in California alone last year
and provided social services to persons of any religion or background. It
does not demand that its workers are Catholic or share the church's
philosophy.
The organization, however, says it is carrying out the work of Jesus, and
by the law's definition, "Mother Teresa would be forced to offer
contraceptives," said Carol Hogan, a spokeswoman for the California
Catholic Conference.
Sweeney added that the law is "un-American and disturbing" because of its
"disrespect of religious, moral views."
Sweeney pointed out that even the nation's military allows for the
religious views of conscientious objectors by keeping them off the front
lines, and that laws demanding certain traffic-safety markings on Amish
horsecarts have been nullified because they treaded on the Amish
lifestyle.
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that siding
with the Catholics would, in essence, impose the church's doctrine on
thousands of non-Catholic women who work at the church's hospitals or
social-service agencies.
"Catholic Charities' noncompliance with California law would injure three
fundamental rights of the people who work for the social services agency:
gender equality, reproductive autonomy and religious freedom," attorney
Margaret Crosby told California's high court in briefs.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists views the dispute
as a health issue. Contraception gives women a chance to plan for a
pregnancy, which the groups say makes for healthier mothers and babies.
"To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to say that the
alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is
medically acceptable," said Catherine Hanson, the groups' attorney.
The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for
prescription contraceptives include Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws |
30 Nov 2003 06:00:24 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9442E3578A846ou812@199.45.49.11>,
askme@formyaddy.comINVALID says...
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_CONTRACEPTIVES?
SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Nov 29, 8:36 PM EST
Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If you don't believe in the law, do you have to
follow it?
Gee, it wouldn't be much of a law if anybody who didn't like it was
exempt from following it. What if your religion teaches that black
people are the children of Ham and should be treated as racially
inferior? Does that mean that churches should be able to practice racial
discrimination too? It sounds like this kind of an exemption could open
the door for all kinds of religious-based nonsense as an excuse to
disobey the law.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws |
30 Nov 2003 06:08:58 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@atyahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1a34327187516f459896db@news.cis.dfn.de:
In article <Xns9442E3578A846ou812@199.45.49.11>,
askme@formyaddy.comINVALID says...
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_CONTRACEPTIVES?
SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Nov 29, 8:36 PM EST
Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If you don't believe in the law, do you have to
follow it?
Gee, it wouldn't be much of a law if anybody who didn't like it was
exempt from following it. What if your religion teaches that black
people are the children of Ham and should be treated as racially
inferior? Does that mean that churches should be able to practice
racial discrimination too? It sounds like this kind of an exemption
could open the door for all kinds of religious-based nonsense as an
excuse to disobey the law.
I don't know, I think it is kinda fun when the pharmacist chases me down
in the store and puts a condom on me... I hate it when he is in a
"diaphram mood". I don't think they're supposed to go *there*.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Courts to Examine State Contraceptive Laws |
30 Nov 2003 09:03:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:21:05 GMT, Dr Dave W
<askme@formyaddy.comINVALID> posted in alt.atheism:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If you don't believe in the law, do you have to
follow it?
That's the question before courts in New York and California, which are
being asked to exempt branches of the Catholic Church from state laws
requiring contraceptives be included in employee prescription drug plans.
Under church doctrine, contraception is a sin.
So if I don't believe that women should get medical treatment, I can
exclude female employees from coverage?
If I don't believe that blacks should get medical treatment, I can
exclude black employees from coverage?
Only if those are allowed should the Church be allowed to exclude
specific treatment from medical coverage.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
