The California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Catholic Charities in California must pay for birth control for its employees. Catholic Charities had asked the court to call it a “religious employer,” which, under the terms of a 1999 state law known as the Women’s Contraception Equity Act, would have exempted it from the requirement. The court ruled six to one against the exemption.

The dissenter was Justice Janice Rogers Brown. “Despite the state’s argument that it has a compelling interest in ensuring that all working women who desire prescription contraceptive coverage have that option available, the mandate is imposed only on employers that provide prescription coverage. Thus, Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. (Catholic Charities) can choose either to provide contraceptives or not to provide prescription coverage to employees at all,” wrote Justice Brown, who has been nominated by President Bush to ride the District of Columbia Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals.

We’re not sure that the problems with the law rise to the level where a court should strike it down. In California — or New York, which has a similar law — we’d be receptive to an argument from lobbyists for Catholic Charities and other religious groups seeking an exemption from the law. This battle would be better fought and won by the Catholics and others religious groups in the legislature; that Catholic Charities couldn’t carry the argument in the legislature says much about the church’s political influence.

The broader and more significant point, though, applies to all such attempts to let legislators, rather than doctors and the free market, determine what should be covered by health insurance. The more things that lawmakers require coverage for — whether it be Viagra, extended hospital stays after childbirth, or chiropractics — the more expensive the insurance becomes and the fewer people who are likely actually to receive its benefits.