ALBANY, N.Y., November 1 – In a 6-0 decision, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Womens Health and Wellness Act (WHWA). Judge Eugene Pigott did not participate.

In Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 10 religious institutions, affiliated with the Roman Catholic and Baptist churches, brought an action challenging the WHWA requirement that employers that provide group insurance coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for prescription contraceptives.

They challenged only the contraceptive mandate, claiming it conflicted with their beliefs. They argued that the WHWA coerces church entities to subsidize private conduct that the churches teach is morally wrong. Government in this country has historically respected the right of organized religions to practice what they preach, and refrain from financing private conduct that they condemn. By departing from this historical practice, the WHWA has placed the State of New York in opposition to the most fundamental values that underlie both state and federal constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, finding the contraceptive coverage requirement did not violate the plaintiffs freedom of religion or free speech rights under the state or federal constitutions.

It said, in part, Even if it were determined that WHWA imposes a substantial burden upon the plaintiffs religions, the states compelling interests are sufficient to uphold the WHWAs constitutionality.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed, in a 3-2 decision, that the contraceptive coverage mandate burdens plaintiffs right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. However, despite these burdens, our review of the WHWA and its exemption for religious employers lead us to the conclusion that the WHWA does not offend constitutional or statutory provisions invoked by plaintiffs.

In affirming the lower court decisions, Judge Robert S. Smith declared that none of the plaintiffs qualify as a religious employer under the WHWA. This is essentially because they are not, or are not only, churches ministering to the faithful, but providers of social and educational services. Each asserts that its purpose is not, or is not only, the inculcation of religious values; most acknowledge that they employ many people not of their faiths. All serve people not of their faiths; and only three plaintiffs are exempt from filing tax returns under Internal Revenue code Section 6033 ((a) (2) (A i or ii, provisions applicable to churches and religious orders).