Supreme Court declines to consider challenge to New York contraceptive coverage law

Oct 2 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it will not consider a challenge to a New York law that requires employers who offer prescription drug plans to provide coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives for women, the New York Times reports (Greenhouse, New York Times, 10/2).

The Women's Health and Wellness Act -- which was signed by Gov. George Pataki (R) in September 2002 and took effect on Jan. 1, 2003 -- also requires employers to expand coverage for screenings and treatments for breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis.

Religious or faith-based organizations can be exempted from offering contraceptive coverage under the regulation only if they primarily employ and serve members of that faith. The law does not exempt some Roman Catholic groups because their activities are not considered to be religious. In December 2002, a coalition of Catholic and Protestant institutions in New York, including state Roman Catholic bishops, filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block the bill (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/20/06). The lawsuit was rejected by three levels of New York state courts (New York Times, 10/2).

Lawyers representing the religious organizations said that Catholic Charities USA, one of the groups in the lawsuit, should not be forced "to finance conduct that the church teaches is sinful." The attorneys said, "If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well" (Savage, Los Angeles Times, 10/2). Kevin Baine -- a partner at the law firm Williams and Connolly, which is representing the religious groups -- said, "A church ought to be able to run its affairs and organize relationships with its employees in a way that's consistent with moral values and teachings" (Yost, AP/Google.com, 10/1).

"Every state court that has heard this case has affirmed that the law helps to provide access to basic health care," JoAnn Smith, president and CEO of Family Planning Advocates of New York State, said, adding, "Today's decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the case protects the religious freedom of women and families" (Yost/Sherman, AP/Google.com, 10/1). The case is titled Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo (Yost, AP/Google.com, 10/1).

Court Denies Wrongful Death Claim in N. J. Abortion Case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday also declined hearing a wrongful death claim that is part of a New Jersey abortion case, the Newark Star-Ledger reports (Coscarelli, Newark Star-Ledger, 10/2).The New Jersey Supreme Court last month unanimously ruled that physicians are not required to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure would result in "killing an existing human being." The court in July 2006 agreed to hear the appeal of a decision that a jury can consider whether a doctor gave adequate medical information to a woman who claims she was unable to give informed consent to undergo an abortion.

According to court papers, physician Sheldon Turkish in 1996 told Rosa Acuna, who was eight weeks pregnant, that she had to undergo an "immediate abortion" because her pregnancy was causing damage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish "incorrectly told [her] ... that she was not aborting a human life" when she underwent the procedure, adding that she has experienced psychological trauma, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosexual dysfunction, as a result of the abortion.

A trial judge previously had dismissed the case, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a "fetus is not a person," but an appellate court ruled that Acuna could sue for damages involving "a question of medical malpractice." A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in April dismissed the wrongful death claim in the lawsuit but wrote that a jury could decide "[w]hat medical information is material and must be disclosed by an obstetrician when advising a patient to terminate a pregnancy and what medical information is material when the patient asks if the 'baby' is already there." Justice Barry Albin in the state Supreme Court's opinion wrote that it is established that a doctor must provide women information about the medical risks of undergoing an abortion; however, there is no requirement for a doctor to go further (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/13).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday offered no reason why the justices denied hearing the case. Attorneys involved in the lawsuit said the New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided if it will rehear the case (Newark Star-Ledger, 10/2).