California recently became the tenth state to require that health insurance plans provide coverage for contraceptives. This legislation, which goes into effect on January 1, 2000, is a fundamental assault on religious liberty. If this situation does not change, many religious individuals and entities will be unable to faithfully discharge their religious obligations.

Background
 Mandating coverage for contraceptives is a legislative effort that is being sponsored by Planned Parenthood. The basic idea is to require health insurers that cover prescription drugs to also cover prescriptions for contraceptives. The California legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Davis on September 27, 1999, is called "The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act." Similar legislation was introduced in nearly every state in 1999 and the federal counterpart (the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act) is currently pending in Congress.

This mandate forces employers—even religious employers—to pay for such coverages, even when so doing violates the religious teachings of these entities. The California Act does provide for a religious exemption, but the exemption (which has been characterized as "narrow" by Planned Parenthood) is really a smokescreen.

The "Religious Exemption"
 The "religious exemption" only applies to "religious employers." "[A] 'religious employer' is an entity for which each of the following is true: (A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity. (B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. (C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. (D) The entity is a nonprofit organization…."

 It is quite clear that this exemption would cover very few—if any—Catholic organizations. For many of them, the purpose of the entity is not to inculcate religious values. Many of them do not employ or serve primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. Think about a hospital or a school, or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. Moreover, the exemption would be very difficult to administer. Is the Capuchin soup kitchen supposed to inquire whether the individuals it serves "share the religious tenets of the entity?"

 In addition, the exemption is only available to nonprofits. The clear message is that anyone else, e.g. the devout Catholic who runs her own business, forfeits her right to religious freedom in this part of her life. Religion is only acceptable when it doesn't matter, or at least doesn't matter very much. Religion, in this understanding, is treated as a hobby, as a Yale law professor once noted.

Solution
What is the solution to this dilemma? One possibility is a lawsuit based on federal or state constitutional or statutory law to protect the rights of those who have a religious objection to being forced to provide such coverages. Such a suit has some prospect for success.

 The far better alternative would be to enact a religious exemption worthy of the name. This would necessarily have to be of far broader scope, and might protect any conscientious objection to such mandated coverages. A state-by-state effort is a useful first step, although federal legislation would be preferable. The need for such protection of religious liberty is clear.