New York Contraceptive Insurance Coverage Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it will not consider achallenge to a New York law that requires employers who offerprescription 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.
New York Health Insurance
Religiousor faith-based organizations can be exempted from offeringcontraceptive coverage under the regulation only if they primarilyemploy and serve members of that faith. The law does not exempt someRoman Catholic groups because their activities are not considered to bereligious. In December 2002, a coalition of Catholic and Protestantinstitutions in New York, including state Roman Catholic bishops, fileda 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 financeconduct that the church teaches is sinful." The attorneys said, "If thestate can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives inviolation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidizeabortions 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 tobe able to run its affairs and organize relationships with itsemployees in a way that's consistent with moral values and teachings"(Yost, AP/Google.com, 10/1).
"Every state court that has heardthis case has affirmed that the law helps to provide access to basichealth 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 considerthe 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 thatphysicians are not required to inform women seeking abortions that theprocedure would result in "killing an existing human being." The courtin July 2006 agreed to hear the appeal of a decision that a jury canconsider whether a doctor gave adequate medical information to a womanwho claims she was unable to give informed consent to undergo anabortion.
According to court papers, physician Sheldon Turkishin 1996 told Rosa Acuna, who was eight weeks pregnant, that she had toundergo an "immediate abortion" because her pregnancy was causingdamage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish "incorrectly told[her] ... that she was not aborting a human life" when she underwentthe procedure, adding that she has experienced psychological trauma,including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosexualdysfunction, as a result of the abortion.
A trial judgepreviously had dismissed the case, stating that the U.S. Supreme Courthas ruled that a "fetus is not a person," but an appellate court ruledthat Acuna could sue for damages involving "a question of medicalmalpractice." A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the NewJersey Superior Court in April dismissed the wrongful death claim inthe lawsuit but wrote that a jury could decide "[w]hat medicalinformation is material and must be disclosed by an obstetrician whenadvising a patient to terminate a pregnancy and what medicalinformation is material when the patient asks if the 'baby' is alreadythere." Justice Barry Albin in the state Supreme Court's opinion wrotethat it is established that a doctor must provide women informationabout the medical risks of undergoing an abortion; however, there is norequirement for a doctor to go further (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/13).
TheU.S. Supreme Court on Monday offered no reason why the justices deniedhearing the case. Attorneys involved in the lawsuit said the New JerseySupreme Court has not decided if it will rehear the case (Newark Star-Ledger, 10/2).
Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork.org. You can view theentire Kaiser DailyWomen's Health Policy Report, search the archives, and sign up for emaildelivery at kaisernetwork.org/email. The Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, afree service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2007 Advisory BoardCompany and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.