<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>
<H1>Catholic charity loses birth control appeal</H1>
<H3></H3>
<P><SPAN class=cnnStoryTime><!-- date -->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript>
<!--
host = new String(location.hostname);
host = host.toLowerCase();
if ( host.indexOf("edition.") != -1 ) {
document.write('Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 1554 GMT (2354 HKT)');
}else {
document.write('Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 11:54 AM EDT (1554 GMT)');
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
<FONT size=1>Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 11:54 AM EDT (1554 GMT) <!-- /date --><BR></FONT></SPAN></P>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript
type=text/javascript>var clickExpire = "10/18/2004";</SCRIPT>
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->
<P><B style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Supreme Court Monday
let stand a ruling that a Catholic charity must include prescription
contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even though church teaching
condemns artificial birth control as sinful.</B></P>
<P>Without comment, the justices rejected an appeal by Catholic Charities of
Sacramento of what it called a precedent-setting ruling by the California
Supreme Court requiring that contraceptives be included in the prescription drug
plan provided to its employees.</P>
<P>The charity said the ruling marked the first time a court has upheld a law
forcing a religious institution to pay for conduct that conflicts with its
religious beliefs.</P>
<P>California is one of about 20 states that require contraceptive coverage if
the health plans have prescription drug benefits. The laws were adopted after
lawmakers found that private employee prescription plans without contraceptive
benefits discriminated against women.</P>
<P>The California Supreme Court ruled that the charity, incorporated separately
from the church, did not qualify as a "religious employer" that was exempt from
the law.</P>
<P>It said the charity offered secular services such as counseling, low-income
housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly
preaching Catholic values.</P>
<P>The law, adopted in 1999, defined a religious employer as one whose purpose
is to spread religious values, employs and serves mostly persons who share the
religious beliefs and is a nonprofit religious organization under the federal
tax code.</P>
<P>The charity could avoid any conflict with its religious values by not
offering its employees any prescription drug coverage at all, the court
said.</P><!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->
<P>Kevin Baine, an attorney representing the charity, said in the appeal that
the Supreme Court should clarify the limits on the state's power to force a
church institution to pay for conduct that it believes is sinful.</P>
<P>"The specific issues in this case as well as the broader principles at stake
are of interest to religious institutions across the country," he said.</P>
<P>Baine said the law will force Catholic Charities to sacrifice their religious
principles. He called it an "unprecedented intrusion upon the religious freedom
of Catholic Charities."</P>
<P>California Attorney General Bill Lockyer opposed the appeal and said it
presented no grounds justifying Supreme Court review.</P>
<P>He rejected the charity's argument that the law was unconstitutional under
the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion.
</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>