Kate Spota
Extract
This Note examines Petitioner’s constitutional argument in Catholic Charities v. Superior Court as applied to a California statute drafted with a narrowly drawn “conscience clause” exemption. First, this Note describes the background for Roman Catholic opposition to contraceptives, and contrasts the reasons behind women’s rights activists’ claim for equal access to contraception as a part of reproductive freedom. Second, this Note examines the preeminent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the California Supreme Court, as well as the relevant federal statutes and administrative decisions used by the California Court of Appeal in deciding Catholic Charities. Third, this Note describes in detail the arguments advanced by the Petitioner in Catholic Charities and the court’s resulting analysis. Concluding that the Court of Appeal of California correctly decided against the Petitioner in Catholic Charities, this Note examines the possible impacts of that decision on society’s view of women and on the Catholic health care system. Finally, this Note concludes that the California Supreme Court will affirm the appellate court’s decision and hold that the mandatory inclusion of prescription contraceptives in insurance plans, even for institutions whose religious beliefs are contrary to the mandate, does not violate the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the U.S. or California Constitutions.
Spota K. In Good Conscience: The Legal Trend to Include Prescription Contraceptives in Employer Insurance Plans and Catholic Charities’ “Conscience Clause” Objection. Cathol U Law Rev. 2003;52(4):1081-1113.