Coerced contraceptive coverage.(Insider Report)

The California Supreme Court ruled on March 1 that Catholic Charities must provide its employees contraceptive coverage in its health-care plan even though the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception. The New York Times noted that "the ruling has sweeping implications for religion-based nonprofit organizations and hospitals throughout the state and could influence decisions made in at least 20 other states that have similar laws requiring employers to provide contraception as part of employee health coverage."

Understandably appalled with the court's decision, the California Catholic Conference (as paraphrased by the Associated Press) is fearful "it could open the door to mandated insurance coverage of abortion." Predictably, the ACLU cheered this raw display of judicial and legislative power, calling it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."

In the 6-1 ruling, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, writing for the majority opinion, stated that because Catholic Charities employs workers of different religions, it "serves people of all faith backgrounds, a significant majority of whom do not share its Roman Catholic faith." How the court determined that the church owes contraceptive benefits to people who work for one of its organizations, and who "do not share" the church's faith, is a torturing of law that perhaps only the likes of the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren could understand.

The court case is a result of a state law mandating that employer-provided health plans include contraceptive coverage. The law makes an exception for religious employers. But for the exception to ...