The New York State Court of Appeals rules that State interests trump religious faith. The beginning of a very slippery slope (just imagine Quakers and the Amish marching off to war).

This follows along with rulings from the IRS as to what ministers may or may not preach, and other New York State rulings that could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

The ball is now in the Church’s court.

Will they shut down services and allow the state to pick-up the slack, hold their nose and provide coverage, privatize their outreach services spinning off hundreds of not-for-profits that will have to fend for themselves? There’s a hundred other iterations as to what could happen (imagine making people sign an election stating that they do not want the coverage – people would win any lawsuit filed based on such a measure) None of it clean, none of it good.

The Bishops of the Roman Church need to get on the same page and strategize. Otherwise you will see scandal caused by Bishops going in a hundred different directions in opposition to Church teaching.

Let the teachers teach.

From the Albany Times-Union: Court of Appeals defends health care law: Mandatory group insurance coverage of prescription contraceptives ruled constitutional:

ALBANY — The 2003 law requiring employers that provide group insurance coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for prescription contraceptives is constitutional, the state’s highest court ruled today.

The Court of Appeals rejected a request by Catholic Charities of Albany and others for an injunction that would have forced the state Insurance Department to allow them an exemption from the Women’s Health and Wellness Act, like other religious institutions whose employees all share the same faith.

“Plaintiffs believe contraception to be sinful, and assert that the challenged provisions of the WHWA compel them to violate their religious tenets by financing conduct that they condemn,” Associate Judge Robert S. Smith stated in an 18-page decision. “The sincerity of their beliefs, and the centrality of those beliefs to their faiths, are not in dispute.”

What is at issue, Smith said, is the balance between an interest in adhering to the tenets of the organizations’ faith and the state’s interest in “fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care.”

In the debate before the law was enacted, legislators found that granting a broad religious exemption like that which Catholics Charities sought would leave too many women outside the statute, Smith said, “a decision entitled to deference from the courts.”

“Of course, the Legislature might well have made another choice, but we cannot say the choice the Legislature made has been shown to be an unreasonable interference with plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion,” Smith wrote. “The Legislature’s choice is therefore not unconstitutional.”