CONTRACEPTIVE INSURANCE MANDATES AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES V. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO: TOWARDS A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF WOMEN'S HEALTH

By Bailey, Maureen K. | Texas Review of Law & Politics, Spring 2005 | Go to article overview

CONTRACEPTIVE INSURANCE MANDATES AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES V. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO: TOWARDS A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF WOMEN'S HEALTH


Bailey, Maureen K., Texas Review of Law & Politics


I. INTRODUCTION

On October 4, 2004 the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento? thereby leaving intact an Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)-drafted2 religious exemption to California's contraceptive drug insurance mandate.3 The denial of certiorari was a significant victory for those seeking to require health care providers and payers4 to participate in the delivery of elective reproductive treatments and procedures, even if the provision of such procedures would require the providers and payers to violate their consciences. The denial left standing a California Supreme Court decision upholding a narrow exemption for religious employers and finding a compelling governmental interest in coverage of contraception as a means to eliminate sex discrimination.

However, the victory should not be regarded as a signal by legislatures to pass, and other courts to approve, laws mandating the inclusion of prescription contraceptives in employee prescription drug benefit plans. It ought not to be regarded as a signal because the court made mistakes in disposing of Catholic Charities' First Amendment claims and made false assumptions about women's health care that false assumption being that contraception is basic women's health care such that failure to provide coverage for it amounts to sex discrimination.

In part II of this article, I discuss the ACLU agenda behind the religious-exemption approved by the court. In part III, I discuss how the California contraceptive mandate embodied the ACLU view. In parts IV and V, I offer a critique of the California Supreme Court's decision approving that exemption, with a discussion of the First Amendment implications. In part VI, I challenge the court's assumption that laws requiring contraceptive coverage eliminate sex discrimination, and I conclude in part VII with a different vision of women's healthcare.

II. THE ACLU REPORT, "REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS REFUSALS"

On January 22, 2002,5 the ACLU released a policy guide entitled "Reproductive Rights and Religious Refusals,"6 setting forth its view of the proper balance between the rights of health care providers, and of employers in the context of employee health insurance benefit plans, to object to participating in controversial reproductive treatments and procedures and the rights of women to obtain those treatments and procedures.

The ACLU's report begins with a discussion of the issue by providing historical background on conscience clauses,7 enacted at the time of or immediately after the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade8 These clauses protect health care providers, both individual and institutional, from forced involvement in abortion. For years, the protection of these clauses remained largely unchallenged.9 Today, the ACLU notices a renewed interest in conscience protections which it says can be explained by three factors: (1) the expansion of religious health systems through mergers and acquisitions;10 (2) the growth of managed care with attendant interests in patients' access rights;11 and (3) the development of new reproductive technologies, such as emergency contraception.12

The ACLU then turns to the constitutional dimensions of the debate. The report rightly points out that the United States Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the question of the interaction between a woman's asserted interest in obtaining a reproductive treatment and a provider's asserted interest in objecting to the procedure.

As for the reproductive issues, the ACLU acknowledges that "although the U.S. Constitution protects reproductive rights, it does not ensure access to comprehensive reproductive health services or coverage."13 The ACLU then cites case law clarifying that the abortion right under federal abortion jurisprudence is a negative liberty-a right from governmental interference, not a right of positive access. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

CONTRACEPTIVE INSURANCE MANDATES AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES V. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO: TOWARDS A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.