New York Court of Appeals to hear arguments in abortion rights case
The Court of Appeals will hear arguments from those seeking to undo a state mandate that requires employers to offer workers health insurance that covers medically necessary abortions. Credit: AP/Hans Pennink
ALBANY — New York’s top court is set to weigh an important abortion rights lawsuit in a pivotal election year.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments by Roman Catholic dioceses and others seeking to undo a state mandate that requires employers to offer their workers health insurance that includes coverage for medically necessary abortions.
It’s a case seven years in the making, launched by an insurance regulation enacted long before the State Legislature approved a law codifying the regulation into state law and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, reinforcing it as a top-tier election issue.
The case centers on a 2017 regulation implemented by the state Department of Financial Services — backed by then-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.
It prohibited “health insurance policies issued or delivered in the state from excluding coverage for medically necessary abortions if they provide coverage for hospital, surgical or medical expenses,” according to court documents.
The state notes the regulation contains a provision allowing “religious employers” to obtain group policies “excluding coverage for medically necessary abortion services” — if they meet certain conditions.
The exemption applies, for example, to employers whose purpose is to promote religious values, employs people who share the employers’ religious tenets or qualifies for federal status as a religious nonprofit.
Further, the state argues this was the same exemption language used in a statute covering insurance coverage for contraceptives, which was upheld in a previous lawsuit known as Catholic Charities v. Serio.
The State Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul codified the insurance mandate under state law in 2022. But if the Court of Appeals throws out the 2017 regulation, it also could throw out the 2022 statute, lawyers on either side of the case have said.
The religious groups — including several individual Catholic dioceses, a Baptist church and a nursing home — say the exemption is too narrow.
“The abortion mandate contains a narrow religious exemption that covers certain religious organizations but not others — a form of religious discrimination and interference with religious autonomy that is in the heartland of the First Amendment’s concern,” the group’s attorney wrote in a brief submitted to the Court of Appeals.
Opponents counter that none of the plaintiffs filing suit even attempted to qualify for the religious exemption, nor have they shown in submissions to the court they are “sufficiently affiliated with a diocese, church or religious order so as to qualify.”
“Thus, the actual impact of the coverage requirement remains unclear,” Assistant Solicitor General Laura Etlinger wrote for the state.
State courts had dismissed the lawsuit in 2019. And the state’s midlevel appellate court agreed, upholding the New York insurance regulation in 2022.
But the U.S. Supreme Court directed New York to reevaluate the case in light of its 2021 decision in the case Fulton v. Philadelphia — in which that court ruled Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it declined to renew a foster care contract with a religious agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples.
The religious groups say that decision changes things.
Though the ruling is loaded with arcane legal phrases such as “general applicability” and “strict scrutiny,” the religious groups said in court briefs that it essentially negates the decision New York courts reached in the Serio case and means the insurance “abortion mandate” should be tossed.
In contrast, the New York Civil Liberties Union, filing a brief in support of the state regulation, said the religious groups are asking the courts to take an extraordinarily broad view of the Fulton decision — one that would have unforeseen impacts on an array of laws.
“Accepting appellants’ arguments would yield untenable results and open the door to challenges to all laws containing routine exemptions, triggering strict scrutiny whenever anyone claims a burden on religious exercise for an unprecedented class of laws,” the NYCLU wrote.
Some legal analysts have said the Supreme Court wrote the Fulton decision in very narrow terms, making it apply just to the Philadelphia contract.
ALBANY — New York’s top court is set to weigh an important abortion rights lawsuit in a pivotal election year.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments by Roman Catholic dioceses and others seeking to undo a state mandate that requires employers to offer their workers health insurance that includes coverage for medically necessary abortions.
It’s a case seven years in the making, launched by an insurance regulation enacted long before the State Legislature approved a law codifying the regulation into state law and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, reinforcing it as a top-tier election issue.
The case centers on a 2017 regulation implemented by the state Department of Financial Services — backed by then-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.
WHAT TO KNOW
- New York’s top court will hear oral arguments Tuesday by those seeking to undo a state mandate that requires employers to offer workers health insurance that includes coverage for medically necessary abortions.
- State courts had dismissed the lawsuit in 2019. And the state’s midlevel appellate court agreed, upholding the New York insurance regulation in 2022.
- But the U.S. Supreme Court directed New York to reevaluate the case in light of its 2021 decision in a case called Fulton v. Philadelphia.
It prohibited “health insurance policies issued or delivered in the state from excluding coverage for medically necessary abortions if they provide coverage for hospital, surgical or medical expenses,” according to court documents.
The state notes the regulation contains a provision allowing “religious employers” to obtain group policies “excluding coverage for medically necessary abortion services” — if they meet certain conditions.
The exemption applies, for example, to employers whose purpose is to promote religious values, employs people who share the employers’ religious tenets or qualifies for federal status as a religious nonprofit.
Further, the state argues this was the same exemption language used in a statute covering insurance coverage for contraceptives, which was upheld in a previous lawsuit known as Catholic Charities v. Serio.
The State Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul codified the insurance mandate under state law in 2022. But if the Court of Appeals throws out the 2017 regulation, it also could throw out the 2022 statute, lawyers on either side of the case have said.
The religious groups — including several individual Catholic dioceses, a Baptist church and a nursing home — say the exemption is too narrow.
“The abortion mandate contains a narrow religious exemption that covers certain religious organizations but not others — a form of religious discrimination and interference with religious autonomy that is in the heartland of the First Amendment’s concern,” the group’s attorney wrote in a brief submitted to the Court of Appeals.
Opponents counter that none of the plaintiffs filing suit even attempted to qualify for the religious exemption, nor have they shown in submissions to the court they are “sufficiently affiliated with a diocese, church or religious order so as to qualify.”
“Thus, the actual impact of the coverage requirement remains unclear,” Assistant Solicitor General Laura Etlinger wrote for the state.
State courts had dismissed the lawsuit in 2019. And the state’s midlevel appellate court agreed, upholding the New York insurance regulation in 2022.
But the U.S. Supreme Court directed New York to reevaluate the case in light of its 2021 decision in the case Fulton v. Philadelphia — in which that court ruled Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it declined to renew a foster care contract with a religious agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples.
The religious groups say that decision changes things.
Though the ruling is loaded with arcane legal phrases such as “general applicability” and “strict scrutiny,” the religious groups said in court briefs that it essentially negates the decision New York courts reached in the Serio case and means the insurance “abortion mandate” should be tossed.
In contrast, the New York Civil Liberties Union, filing a brief in support of the state regulation, said the religious groups are asking the courts to take an extraordinarily broad view of the Fulton decision — one that would have unforeseen impacts on an array of laws.
“Accepting appellants’ arguments would yield untenable results and open the door to challenges to all laws containing routine exemptions, triggering strict scrutiny whenever anyone claims a burden on religious exercise for an unprecedented class of laws,” the NYCLU wrote.
Some legal analysts have said the Supreme Court wrote the Fulton decision in very narrow terms, making it apply just to the Philadelphia contract.
'It's disappointing and it's unfortunate' Suffolk Police Officer David Mascarella is back on the job after causing a 2020 crash that severely injured Riordan Cavooris, then 2. NewsdayTV's Andrew Ehinger and Newsday investigative reporter Paul LaRocco have the story.
'It's disappointing and it's unfortunate' Suffolk Police Officer David Mascarella is back on the job after causing a 2020 crash that severely injured Riordan Cavooris, then 2. NewsdayTV's Andrew Ehinger and Newsday investigative reporter Paul LaRocco have the story.
