Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Department of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty

Church State Newsflash!!!
December 3, 2003

CALIFORNIA DREAMIN?!
SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENT IN CATHOLIC CHARITIES CASE

The Daily Journal, newspaper of record for the legal
community, began its coverage of yesterday’s proceedings in
the California Supreme Court:

”If the state can require a Catholic charity to provide
birth control to employees to advance women’s rights,
what’s next? Can the government force the Catholic Church
to hire female priests to remedy hundreds of years of
discrimination against women?"

The issue was whether the state could compel Catholic
Charities, and other Catholic ministries, to provide
insurance coverage for contraception, in violation of
church teachings.

The Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act, adopted by the
California legislature in 1999, exempts those religious
employers that primarily serve members of the faith, but
those ministries that primarily serve the general public
are treated as “secular,” and are not exempt.

Catholic Charities argued that this violates the
Establishment Clause prohibition on a state interfering
with the internal operations of a church, and unduly
entangles the state in determinations of what is or is not
the religious mission of the church, and what means should
be used to carry out that mission.

The legal issue that absorbed most of the Court’s attention
was whether the California Constitution protects the free
exercise of religion more vigorously than the First
Amendment. In a landmark 1990 case, the U.S. Supreme Court
reduced the free exercise clause to a mere shell. In 1996,
the California Supreme Court avoided the issue of whether
the California constitution should be given more vitality,
or should follow the US Constitution.

Yesterday, the California Court signaled that it would
finally answer that question, and that the answer was
likely to be yes, in favor of a vigorous state free
exercise clause.

If so, this would be a major victory for a large and
diverse coalition of faith groups that filed a brief urging
the Court to vigorously protect free exercise of religion
under the California Constitution. The brief, authored by
Professor Alan Brownstein, attorneys Fred Blum and Alan
Reinach, was filed on behalf of the California Interfaith
Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. Seventh-day
Adventists have played a major role both in organizing and
leading this Coalition.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, the battle for religious liberty
has shifted to the states. Our Coalition has been working
for more than six years to insure that free exercise of
religion is vigorously protected under state law.

The Justices questioned the state as to what compelling
interest it had to justify imposing this obligation on
Catholic Charities in violation of their religious beliefs.
The state insisted that the bill was a lawful means to
eradicate forty years of gender bias in employee benefits.
The Justices did not seem to be convinced. Justice Kennard
observed that if Catholic Charities pulled prescription
drug coverage for everyone, in order to avoid violating its
beliefs, then everyone would be treated equally, but no
women would be benefited by the Bill.

Jim Sweeney, attorney for Catholic Charities, fielded
questions about why the religious beliefs would be burdened
by offering a “cafeteria plan.” Jim answered that this
would still require the church to pay for services that
violated its beliefs, and that next, the church could be
required to pay for abortions under a cafeteria plan.

Seventh-day Adventist institutions, including Loma Linda
University and the Seventh-day Adventist Church State
Council, also filed a brief, separately, urging the court
to rule in favor of Catholic Charities. This brief argued
that the bill unconstitutionally targeted religious
organizations for discriminatory treatment, and violated
the right of religious organizations to autonomy in their
internal operations. It was authored by attorneys Jeff
Berman and Gene Schaerr, of Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood.
We appreciate their fine efforts.

If the state prevails in this case, it will send a strong
signal to legislatures everywhere that they can determine
which religious organizations are secular, particularly
healthcare, education and social services, and impose
whatever regulations upon they wish.

If the state does win, it may well be because the Court
views the employees as third parties whose rights and
interests take precedence over the religious freedom of the
charity. If instead, the Court views the employees as part
of the charity, and view the case as dealing with the
internal operations of a religious organization, Catholic
Charities is likely to win.

The Court is expected to issue its decision within 90 days.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For assistance with a religious liberty problem:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq., ajreinach@earthlink.net;
805-413-7396
Dr. Bradford Newton, bcnewton@pacbell.net; 916-446-2552.

More information about religious liberty issues can be
found at www.churchstate.org.

Donations to support religious liberty can be sent to:
Religious Liberty
P.O. Box 5005
Westlake Village, CA 91359



#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <churchstate-sda@churchstate.org>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <churchstate-sda-off@churchstate.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <churchstate-sda-digest@churchstate.org>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <churchstate-sda-index@churchstate.org>
Send administrative queries to  <churchstate-sda-request@churchstate.org>