This time out of California. In Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Catholic Charities, Inc. must include birth control in its health care plan. Before all y'all start railing about California liberalism, consider the following:

California enacted the Women's Contraception Equality Act (WCEA), which indicates when employers must cover prescription contraceptives. It was enacted "to eliminate gender discrimination in health care benefits and to improve access to prescription contraceptives," since women spend much more (68% more) in health care costs, due in large part to the cost of prescription contraceptives and other womanly stuff.

Catholic Charities, Inc. is a private institution that is affiliated with the Catholic Church. It is not compelled by anyone to provide prescription drug coverage; however, part of its employee health plan includes prescription drug coverage -- but not for oral contraceptives. The Catholic Church vehemently opposes contraception of any kind. Its official stance on the issue is that sex is for procreation only and that any use of contraception is a sin since it prevents the possibility of a human life being created. Okey-dokey.

So the Catholic Church doesn't have to provide contraception to its employees. What about Catholic Charities, Inc.? WCEA permits a "religious employer" to request exemption from providing contraceptives if such a thing runs contrary to that religious employer's religous beliefs. The California State Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities, Inc., though affiliated with the Catholic Church, is not itself a "religious employer." Why? WCEA lists the four criteria for being a religious employer:

(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious values of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a non-profit organization as described in Section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Next question: does it meet these criteria? It is a non-profit corporation. It readily admits, though, that (1) it is not devoted to the inculcation of religious values, (2) it does not primarily employ Roman-Catholics, and (3) a "significant majority" of the people it serves are not Catholic. Thus, it is not a "religious employer."

Yet, Catholic Charities would like to remain true to its Catholicism and not endorse contraception. The question here is who benefits, and why. A church is a group of people with similiar beliefs. The members of the Catholic church all hold the belief that contraception is a sin. Is Catholic Charities a church? No. It is a private organization affiliated with the Catholic church. The people who work for it may not necessarily be Catholic (which CCI admits); they do not hold common beliefs. A health care plan is in the interests of the employees. The case notes, "This case does not implicate internal church governance; it implicates the relationship between a nonprofit public benefit corporation and its employees, most of whom do not belong to the Catholic Church. Only those who join a church impliedly consent to its religious governance on matters of faith and discipline." This case quotes United States v. Lee (455 U.S. 252), which held that an Amish man who operated a business could not not pay into the Social Security system, even though "he believed that payment of the taxes and receipt of benefits would violate the Amish faith." Though he himself was Amish, his business was not an Amish "religious employer."

If this is appealed, I predict that the US Supreme Court will not grant a writ of certiorari, thus upholding the California decision.