The state attorney general’s office has been granted a continuance to prepare its defense in a recent lawsuit filed by Catholic Charities of Sacramento to block a state law that includes most religious institutions in a requirement that employers pay for contraceptives in prescription insurance plans.

James F. Sweeney, legal counsel for Catholic Charities of Sacramento, said a ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction barring the law’s enforcement has been postponed until Sept. 27, when it will be heard before Sacramento Superior Court Judge Joe Gray.

The motion asks the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the new law. This would permit Catholic Charities of Sacramento to maintain the status quo and be allowed to renew employee health benefits without complying with the mandate.

“We’re asking the court to evaluate whether or not this law has constitutional problems,” Sweeney said. “In order to do this, the court has to take the time to carefully consider the complex issues, while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of the Catholic Church.”

If Catholic Charities is granted a preliminary injunction, “the state of California should regard this as a serious omen that this law has problems, and that the long-term prospects for this law are not good,” he said.

Catholic Charities “is simply asking the court to clarify whether its religious rights have been trampled on,” according to Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference in Sacramento. Herald file photo

“Catholic Charities is prepared to pursue all legal avenues available to defend the religious freedom rights of the Catholic Church from this unlawful and unprecedented intrusion of the state into the internal affairs of the church,” Sweeney said.

The suit by Catholic Charities, filed in Sacramento Superior Court July 20, argues that the law, which took effect Jan. 1, violates the state Constitution as well as the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The law requires all employers in the state that provide workers with insurance for prescriptions to include contraceptives among covered pharmaceuticals. It is written so insurance companies are held responsible for including contraceptives in employer policies.

The law’s “conscience clause” allows organizations that fit a narrow definition of “religious employer” to be exempted from the requirement. But Catholic Charities and many other church-affiliated institutions in the state do not qualify for the exemption, the lawsuit notes.

The California Catholic Conference, which represents the state’s bishops in legislative matters and is assisting in the lawsuit, has said the contraceptive insurance law constitutes “an extraordinarily serious threat” to the religious freedom rights of the Roman Catholic Church in the state.

The conference is arguing that if the law is allowed to stand, it would set forth a precedent whereby the state defined what could or could not constitute what is or is not part of a church. The conference contends additionally it would allow the state to define a church’s mission and force members of a church to engage in behavior that runs counter to church teachings.

The conference said in a background statement that the law’s exemption clause was designed to exclude specific Catholic ministries, particularly its health care, social service and educational programs.

Sweeney said cases of such constitutional dimension as the current suit are usually decided in a court of appeal or by the state Supreme Court. “The state has an obligation under the Constitution to pursue an appeal when an act of the Legislature has been determined to be unconstitutional,” he noted.

“If enforcement of this law is enjoined, as we hope it will be, the Legislature should take this as a very serious wake-up call that this law is a violation of the religious freedom rights of the Catholic Church,” he said.

Sweeney called the contraceptive insurance law “a grave threat to the religious freedom rights of the church and the religious rights of Catholics in general.”

“This case has ramifications far broader than just health benefits,” he said. “It is about our precious First Amendment right to live according to our faith and define our church consistent with our own canons and traditions.”

Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said that if the threat to religious freedom posed by the current law is let stand, it could lead to more intrusive legislation in the future.

“We understand, but may not agree, that society is committed to providing contraceptive equity,” he said. “Our concern is about religious freedom and the state respecting that religious freedom. This is particularly egregious because it goes to the heart of whether as Catholics we can live out our institutional vision in the world.”

Catholic Charities “is simply asking the court to clarify whether its religious rights have been trampled on,” he noted. “We have chosen a strategy of litigation that is appropriate and respectful, because we feel that the Legislature by this law overstepped its bounds.”

Dolejsi said other religious denominations should be concerned about the implications of the law’s new definition of “religious employer.”

“Any denomination should be concerned that what this represents is the state stepping into internal church governance and imposing its own definition about what activities the state regards as ‘religious’ and those it regards as ‘secular,’” he said. “I think you’ll see other religious groups recognize that this is an issue of religious freedom.”

The state attorney general’s office did not return calls from The Herald for comment on the merits of Catholic Charities’ lawsuit.

Copyright © 2000 Diocese of Sacramento - All Rights Reserved

[Catholic Herald - This Issue]