Posted on 09/23/2005 3:41:41 PM PDT by Crackingham
A Sangamon County judge Thursday refused to block a rule from Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring Illinois pharmacies to dispense emergency contraceptives. Judge John Belz denied the request for a temporary restraining order filed by two pharmacists who said they are morally opposed to dispensing the so-called "morning after" pill. Belz said the pharmacists failed to meet the legal standards for him to issue a restraining order, including that they had exhausted all other legal remedies.
"I believe the plaintiffs are here early," Belz said. "You may very well have your day in court. Today is not the day."
Edward Martin, an attorney for Americans United for Life, which is representing the pharmacists, said they will continue to fight the rule.
"We feel like this is a setback, and I'm sorry for my clients who have to now go back to living with this rule that's onerously put on them," Martin said. "A temporary restraining order is just one step, and we're very disappointed. But we will continue to battle in court."
The dispute involves a state administrative rule issued by Blagojevich in April requiring Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives to also fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, or "morning after" pills. The governor acted after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraceptives, viewing them as a form of abortion.
Essentially high-dosage birth control pills, emergency contraceptives can prevent pregnancy for up to 72 hours after sex. However, some pharmacists argue the contraceptives - marketed in the United States as Plan B - produce a chemical abortion and are dangerous to women.
"This comes right at the heart of a moral question for us as to whether or not I and my businesses can be involved in products that destroy life," said Luke Vander Bleek, a pharmacy owner from Morrison and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "I reject it. I answer on that question to a much higher authority."
The pharmacists were seeking a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the state from enforcing the rule until after courts have decided its validity.
Terence Corrigan of Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office argued that the pharmacists did not show that they were being harmed by the rule since they hadn't been asked to fill any prescriptions for emergency contraceptives.
"There must be some emergency that requires the court to act quickly," Corrigan said. "We've heard nothing to suggest there is any emergency."
The "emergency" is that the governor issued an executive order that is in direct contradiction to a statute that is on the books.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...as long as it supports the liberal agenda. Those who prefer to abstain from the deconstruction of America are NOT at liberty to follow their beliefs.
Question_Assumptions wrote: "Require pharmacies to post their poly with respect to these products near the entrance."
Not a bad point, but why force them to do anything? As long as they aren't selling illegal drugs or defrauding their customers, what justification does government have for forcing them to sell anything?
True freedom and liberty means letting other people do what they want even if you disagree with them. What amazes me is, the liberals who are so desperately in favor of a woman's right to free choice are absolutely opposed to anyone else's right to choose NOT to participate in an abortion. Certainly if one respects individual freedoms, like the rights to sodomy and abortion, one would respect the right to abstain from sodomy and abortion, right?
Vee Vill Get You and Vee Vill FORCE you to dispense these drugs...ANT Vee Vill take your job if you refuse!
"Require pharmacies to post their policy with respect to these products near their entrance. End of problem."
Excatly. Let the customers make an informed choice.
TS
(No, wait not "dem" schools. No, wait again, especially into "Dem" schools.)
Not a bad point, but why force them to do anything? As long as they aren't selling illegal drugs or defrauding their customers, what justification does government have for forcing them to sell anything?
The problem is that pharmacies, like other official health care outfits, have to be licensed, and have to agree to adhere to stardard medical practice. I don't like this "morning after" pill, but wouldn't want to find myself in an emergency situation where the available doctor would do anything except a blood transfusion - such practices do go against the religious practices of many people.
The pharmacist that feels oppressed for having to dispense with birth control, might be upset with HIS prescription for Viagra being denied because the medical doctor or pharmacist thought such drugs went against divine will...
The point being that many medical practices go against SOMEONE or other's beliefs. If you don't believe in life-saving organ transplants, or blood transfusions, or even giving anaesthesia during childbirth (the bible DOES state uncategorically, "In pain shall you bring forth children..") then you can't be a medical professional - or your responsibilities will necessarily be limited.
podkane wrote: "If you don't believe in life-saving organ transplants, or blood transfusions, or even giving anaesthesia during childbirth (the bible DOES state uncategorically, "In pain shall you bring forth children..") then you can't be a medical professional - or your responsibilities will necessarily be limited."
So, all doctors MUST perform abortions since abortion is considered a valid medical procedure by the AMA?
How can any merchant be required to stock a certain item (and only a certain item), made by only 2 manufacturers?
BTW, see what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are up to (a press release at the Christian Medical Association).http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=3159890675&CONTEXT=art&art=3083
or at my blog
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html
As a Family Physician, I have never been required to refer for elective procedures and do not believe that the law should be changed to require referral for this one elective procedure, out of all elective procedures.
I would never maintain the relationship necessary to refer my patients to a doctor that I believed made his living from unethical practices. Abortion is the height of unethical procedures, since it deprives a child of his or her life - by intention and intervention and, in the case of elective abortions, without a medical necessity on the mother's part.
Judicial prudence dictates that courts not decide cases that fail to come to them in the proper form, or in judicial lingo, are not justiciable. The justiciability requirement is a conservative value, and one Freepers should support. Elements of justiciability are standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and most importantly case and controversy.
This case was dismissed not on the substance of the claim brought forth, but for lack of ripeness. A court cannot render a verdict when the issues have not crystallized, when the issue has not matured to the point that it is appropriate for judicial action. Sometimes that means you must break the law and suffer the consequences before the case is ripe. Sometimes it means something else.
In this case, no one has been arrested for breaking the executive order. The request by the pharmacists was for a remedy under equity law, that someone be stopped before the harm is felt. The judge ruled that this was not the appropriate action by the court. A lawyer from IL will have to tell us if the judge was correct under IL law.
I am opposed to abortion, with the Reagan exception, and my wife is a pharmacist in IL
The difference is one is an actual life saving procedure (blood transfusions) and the other is not.
The charge is, "Heal when possible, but First, do no harm."
I don't do every medical procedure known to Medicine - should I be required to do so? Why carve out 2 medicines (and 2 manufacturers, and force unwilling men and women to choose between their business and their ethics.
There's a name for the use of force to impel one person to act against his will at the request of another: slavery.
Take a look at my # 11. The American College of Obstetricians is trying to get the Feds to pass just such a law.
I give you both my sympathies and congratulations, hocndoc. My sympathies, because I suspect you'll someday have to pay for your beliefs with your job. My congratulations, because I suspect you'll someday be considered worthy enough to suffer for your beliefs.
They executed Christ. Should we expect any different?
Well said brother at the bar. If we permit the irrationality of the madding crowd to direct the courts on what is or is not an issue ripe for justicability and who has standing to bring the issue to declaration, then the rules of procedure have no meaning. When the issue is ripe for adjudication, these guys will have their day in court but the rules of emergency equitable relief are clear and have withstood the assaults of time when others felt their issue was so critical that the sky would fall if they were not heard at once even as they avoid the nomal procedural demands. Every controverted, by definition, has at least one other side and most have more than one. All and very interest must be heard and the facts discovered so that the proper decision results. Rush to judgment is not merely a pleasant rubric to be disregarded because their may be a religious component to the dispute. Law and the rationality of its application within the court system trumps even the most desperately and truly held religious beliefs as they may--or may not--affect public policy. The mass of society is more important in the short term than any one person's religious reaction to a public policy.
I'm only a lowly political science professor who loves to teach constitutional law.
middle wrote: "If we permit the irrationality of the madding crowd to direct the courts on what is or is not an issue ripe for justicability and who has standing to bring the issue to declaration, then the rules of procedure have no meaning."
How insulting! So we are an irrational, madding crowd because we disagree with the public policy? Show me a single post in this forum that attacks the judge for not giving the plantiffs standing. Take a look and you'll see the "irrational" crowd in this case is protesting the public policy not the judge's rational.
Please forgive us for not being as enlightened as the honorable members of the bar!
About half the time I go to CVS to fill a prescription I am told it is not in stock and I have to wait 2 or 3 days to get it. Am I to understand I can go to court and force them to have it for me the morning after?
Casloy wrote: "Am I to understand I can go to court and force them to have it for me the morning after?"
Uh, it depends. If you want to have a chemical abortion, the answer is yes. If you want something else, say blood pressure medication, the answer is no.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.