Interesting points on this story from the Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/content/women/story/8396395p-9316740c.html
Werdegar's majority opinion listed a string of precedents in which the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have refused to carve exemptions for religious objectors into laws advancing critical governmental objectives. <like the draft...>
Catholic Charities, the church's social welfare arm, claims its religious rights are violated by the 4-year-old statute that's seen by proponents as a model for accommodating religious values, health-care concerns and the rights of women to make their own birth control decisions. The law exempts churches as well as nonprofits whose mission is religious and whose staff and clientele share the organization's religious tenets.
The test case was filed by Catholic Charities of Sacramento. The decision covers Catholic Charities organizations throughout California, their 4,100 employees, who include many non-Catholics, and other primarily secular enterprises such as church-affiliated hospitals.
Carol Hogan, communications director for the California Catholic Conference, said Catholic Charities affiliates in Sacramento and some other locations have been covering contraceptives "under duress" during the litigation because their insurers have complied with the statute. <in other words, the insurance companies have been covering it anyway>
