New York’s Women’s Health and Wellness Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2003, makes preventive health care services and treatment more available women by requiring insurance plans to cover things like osteoporosis exams, prescription contraceptives, and breast and cervical cancer screenings.
According to Planned Parenthood of NYC the law “helps to end discrimination against women in insurance coverage by increasing access to reproductive health care including contraception. While birth control is the most widely used prescription drug for women of reproductive age, it was routinely excluded from insurance plans. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 49 percent of typical large-group insurance plans failed to routinely cover any reversible contraceptive method. Women of reproductive age were forced to pay as much as 68 percent more for out-of-pocket medical care than men.” (The Alan Guttmacher Institute provides an overview of this issue, with a state-by-state table, here.)
Ten religiously affiliated organizations brought the challenge against the Women’s Health and Wellness Act. The organizations include Catholic Charities of Albany and Ogdensburg and other Catholic and Baptist social service organizations.
A newspaper account of the dispute is availabe here. It states in pertinent part:
Legal experts say the range of state and federal constitutional issues at hand — particularly the freedom to express religion — makes the case fascinating to watch. The Court of Appeals will be looking at which, if any, protections have been violated. While Catholic Charities argues the religious exemption is drawn too narrowly to be constitutional, court watchers point to the length of time it took the Legislature to approve and enact the WHWA, intimating it was thoughtfully and carefully created.
In a split decision in January, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court voted 3-2 that the WHWA “does not offend the constitutional or statutory provisions invoked by plaintiffs.”
Finding that the law protects women’s health and rights, the majority appellate opinion, written by Associate Justice Thomas Mercure, held that the law’s “object — to increase women’s access to health care — does not target religious practices.”
It also said the law plays a critical role because “the record contains evidence that out-of-pocket costs for insured women were 68 percent higher than such costs for insured men.”
The case is Catholic Charities v. Serio. The previous opinion is available here.
