The Supreme Court has revived a legal challenge to a New York state regulation that requires employers to cover abortion services in employee health insurance plans. In a brief, unsigned order issued on June 17, the justices instructed a lower court to reconsider the case brought by a group of Catholic organizations, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. These groups argue that the state’s 2017 insurance mandate violates their religious freedom by forcing them to provide coverage for a procedure they oppose on moral grounds.
The case centers on a New York Department of Financial Services rule that requires most employer health plans to include abortion services, with limited exemptions for religious employers. The Catholic plaintiffs contend that the available exemption is too narrow, excluding faith-based nonprofits like schools and social service agencies. In 2021, a state court upheld the mandate, but the Supreme Court’s new order sends the case back to New York courts to reconsider it in light of a 2023 decision, Groff v. DeJoy, which broadened legal protections for religious accommodations in the workplace.
These types of legal challenges are part of a broader legal movement to expand religious exemptions, which critics argue could limit reproductive healthcare access. While the New York mandate was designed to ensure consistent access to abortion as essential healthcare, especially in a post-Dobbs landscape where state-level protections vary widely, lawsuits like this one highlight the increasing friction between individual rights and institutional religious objections.
Under the current framework, houses of worship may be exempt from the mandate, but affiliated institutions that serve broader, non-religious communities, such as Catholic schools or hospitals, are generally required to comply. The plaintiffs argue this distinction is unfair and unconstitutional, despite the state’s position that its rule strikes an appropriate balance between public health and religious liberty.
The case highlights a growing national trend of using religious liberty claims to restrict access to reproductive care. Although this specific legal battle focuses on insurance coverage, its implications are far-reaching. If successful, it could encourage similar challenges across the country, potentially allowing employers more leeway to deny reproductive healthcare under the guise of religious objection. This poses risks to health access, particularly for low-income women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people working for faith-affiliated institutions who may not share their employer’s beliefs.
As the legal process unfolds, the outcome will serve as an indicator of how the courts weigh competing claims of religious freedom and reproductive autonomy rights that, increasingly, are being pitted against each other in state and federal policy battles.
