New York's Abortion Coverage Rule Faces Fresh Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has stepped in to review a New York state rule that mandates employers to include abortion coverage in their health plans. This isn't the first time the court has weighed in on this issue. The court has asked a lower court to re-examine the case, considering a recent decision that favored religious groups in a similar dispute. The core of the debate is a 2017 New York regulation. This rule insists that employer-provided health insurance must cover abortions in specific cases, like rape or incest. However, the religious exemption is quite limited. It only applies to institutions, not to religious-affiliated groups that serve the broader public, such as those offering food to low-income individuals. Several religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, have challenged this rule. They argue that the exemption is too narrow and violates their constitutional right to freely practice their religion. This isn't just a Catholic issue. Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Baptist groups are also part of the legal battle. The legal teams for these religious groups point to recent Supreme Court rulings. They suggest that narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as having no exemption at all. They are pushing for the court to reconsider a 1990 precedent, known as Employment Division v. Smith. The New York case has been going on for years. It has already been to the Supreme Court once. Back then, the justices told the state court to re-evaluate an earlier ruling against the diocese. This followed a 2021 Supreme Court decision that sided with a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia. That group was barred from a city foster care program due to its stance on same-sex relationships. In another related case, the Supreme Court in 2020 supported a broad religious exemption. This exemption was to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control. The New York Court of Appeals, in May 2024, ruled in favor of the state. They stated that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the Free Exercise Clause. The state's lawyers have a different perspective. They argue that the religious exemption is fair and based on objective criteria. They believe the measure is a "generally applicable" law, as per the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent.