Diocese of Albany v. Harris concerns the New York Department of Financial Services’ attempt to force religious charities to subsidize abortion in employee health insurance plans, via a state law requiring employers to offer “medically necessary” abortion coverage, with abortionists themselves allowed to determine what qualifies.
The law defines “medically necessary” as any abortion deemed “necessary to prevent, diagnose, correct, or cure conditions in the person that cause acute suffering, endanger life, result in illness or infirmity, interfere with a person’s capacity for normal activity, or threaten some significant handicap.”
Critics say the definition is so broad as to allow any abortion to be rationalized.
“If you primarily serve people of your own faith, then you can have an exception, but if you open your doors to all … (to) care for anyone regardless of your faith, if you’re out there offering a cup of soup to anyone who’s hungry, regardless of what their faith background is, then you lose your religious freedom protections, you lose your exemption under the statute, and you must also pay for abortions,” says Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Diocese of Albany against the mandate.
Catholic News Agency reports that among the groups involved in the fight are the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged & Infirm (which operates a nursing home), the First Bible Baptist Church, the Anglican Episcopal monastic order Sisterhood of St. Mary, and Catholic Charities.
The state is arguing that these and other affected religious entities did not qualify for an exemption, which would only be extended to employers whose primary purpose was to teach religion, or to hire and serve those of the same faith.
The groups’ petition to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that it is a “particularly pernicious form of discrimination under the First Amendment” for the government to decide which the particular activities of different religious organizations are, in effect, religious enough for their religious objections to be recognized and accommodated. That “places special burdens on religious traditions holding service of others to be a religious command,” according to the suit.
Calling the mandate “extreme,” Eric Baxter, Becket’s vice president and senior counsel, insisted that the justices “should exempt religious organizations once and for all so they can focus on caring for the most vulnerable.”
The nation’s highest court is slated to decide this fall whether to hear the case, which is one of several pertaining to life, religious liberty, and conscience rights that Becket is asking the justices to resolve.