Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illinois Pharmacist Wins Battle vs. Wal-Mart in Morning After Pill Lawsuit
LifeNews.com ^ | August 3, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 08/04/2007 7:33:41 PM PDT by monomaniac

Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- An Illinois pharmacist has won the first battle against Wal-Mart over whether he has to be forced to distribute the morning after pill, which can cause an abortion in limited circumstances. Beardstown pharmacist Ethan Vandersand rejected a request to fill a prescription for the drug last year.

That refusal led to disciplinary action from Wal-Mart and a civil rights lawsuit from Vandersand.

Vandersand was the only pharmacist on duty at the Wal-Mart store when a Planned Parenthood staff member seeking the Plan B drugs presented the script. The staffer eventually went to another pharmacy in town.

The lawsuit has gone before U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott and she issued a statement this week saying that state pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense the Plan B drug on moral or religious grounds.

She also denied a request by Wal-Mart to dismiss the lawsuit. Scott also said she agreed with Vandersand that he is legally protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which protects the conscience rights of medical professionals.

“The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience," she wrote in opposition to Wal-Mart, which argued that the law doesn't apply to pharmacists.

“Providing medication ... constitutes health-care services. Any person, including Vandersand, who refuses to participate in any way in providing medication because of his conscience is protected by the Right of Conscience Act," Scott added.

However, the statement isn't her final ruling in the case and it won't affect an executive order from Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2005 that requires all pharmacists to fill any prescription for a legal, drug, including any drug that could cause an abortion.

Francis Manion, a pro-life attorney with the ACLJ who is representing Vandersand in the case, talked with the Springfield Journal-Register about the case.

He said the initial ruling “is a huge step forward in the ongoing struggle to ensure legal recognition of pharmacists’ right to practice their chosen profession without violating their moral and professional integrity.”

“Wal-Mart’s arguments, now soundly rejected by this court, may no longer be used by corporate or governmental officials to squeeze out of the profession pharmacists with a high regard for the sanctity of all human life,” Manion added.

But Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley told the newspaper that “The facts of the case haven't even been heard yet" and said the initial ruling wasn't a setback.

Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council complained about the ruling to the newspaper and Susan Hofer, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said officials there would review the ruling.

Vandersand is asking for loss of pay and monetary damages in the case.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: abortion; freedomofconscience; plannedparenthood; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2007 7:33:43 PM PDT by monomaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

Re: your highlight - sounds fishy but PP would never engage in such a setup would they? /sarc


2 posted on 08/04/2007 7:37:34 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

It’s not about Wal-mart. If Wal-mart wasn’t there it would be the next largest pharmacy.

This is good news but I don’t expect much more news on the positive side coming out of Illinois.


3 posted on 08/04/2007 7:38:06 PM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
it won't affect an executive order from Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2005 that requires all pharmacists to fill any prescription for a legal, drug, including any drug that could cause an abortion.

I tell you what, if Gov. Blagos##t was half as concerned about the economy of this state as he is about promoting abortions, we'd be a heck of a lot better off.

4 posted on 08/04/2007 7:43:02 PM PDT by Marathoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

Pharmacists are middle men. Get another job. Enough of this. Keep your religious beliefs at church, not in medicine.


5 posted on 08/04/2007 7:43:42 PM PDT by mefistofelerevised
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mefistofelerevised

Spend 100k on an education, get the license, open your own pharmacy, and then decide how you want to practice. Dont tell me how to live.


6 posted on 08/04/2007 7:46:06 PM PDT by ToastedHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

“the morning after pill, which can cause an abortion in limited circumstances”

The whole purpose of the drug is to cause death every time it is used...Not in limited circumstances..


7 posted on 08/04/2007 7:46:33 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (Taz Struck By Lightning Faces Battery Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mefistofelerevised

I agree. I don’t want the Muslims demanding special on the job treatment for their beliefs.


8 posted on 08/04/2007 7:50:51 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Although I am as pro-life as they come, I don’t agree with this judge’s ruling (except that there is a law that she cites that sounds like it’s provides protection for this pharmacist). This is the same logic as the Muslims use when they don’t want to handle pork at a cash register due to “moral and/or religious” prohibitions. I think, though, that Wal-Mart is taking a chance at pi$$ing off its main consumer base as a lot of liberals won’t shop there anyways due to their ongoing fight with organized labor.

However, as a libertarian (with a small L), I don't believe it's an employee's right, and especially not the government's role, to tell a private employer what he will sell, or not sell. If that pharmacist doesn't want to sell that pill, then he needs to find employment at a pharmacy that refuses to carry that pill, or better yet, open his own pharmacy.

9 posted on 08/04/2007 7:52:00 PM PDT by BKerr (Thompson 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ToastedHead

What happened to the “do no harm” oath?

Too many think that excludes God’s creations. What if their mothers ‘excluded’ them around the time of their births?


10 posted on 08/04/2007 7:55:02 PM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Wal-Mart's lawyer sounds remarkably like the Black Knight in Monte Python and the Holy Grail.

Don't these guys ever watch funny movies or is it "Industrial Accidents" and "Hazmat Risks" all the way down.

11 posted on 08/04/2007 7:57:08 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

I’m with Wal-Mart on this one. It’s up to the business owner to decide what the business sells. It’s up to the employee to sell the merchandise. If the employee doesn’t like it, he can get another job or, better yet start his own business where he makes the decisions.


12 posted on 08/04/2007 7:57:57 PM PDT by Huntress (Those who surrender liberty for security will have neither. --- Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
Planned Parenthood gals CAN'T get pregnant ~ not even at a sperm bank.

Total set up.

13 posted on 08/04/2007 7:59:11 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mefistofelerevised
There's no reason whatsoever for any of us to become observant of your theological beliefs.

Take your filthy thoughts somewhere else.

14 posted on 08/04/2007 7:59:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Look, you can't be serious that any Moslem would refuse to kill someone. It's their religion's biggest item ~ that you should die for not bowing down to their beliefs.

Your point is totally irrelevant.

15 posted on 08/04/2007 8:02:10 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BKerr
Not all Moslems refuse to handle pork. There are, for instance, more than a few current and past NFL players who are Moslems and they handled the pigskin quite readily.

The prohibition is on EATING pork, not touching it!

16 posted on 08/04/2007 8:04:34 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Vandersand was the only pharmacist on duty at the Wal-Mart store when a Planned Parenthood staff member seeking the Plan B drugs presented the script. The staffer eventually went to another pharmacy in town.

Sounds like a set up to me. Why didn't the 'patient' pick up their own prescription?

17 posted on 08/04/2007 8:05:15 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

I’m a pharmacist, and I am 30 weeks pregnant with my first baby. I can feel it kick while I fill prescriptions, and I am in awe at the power of God to create life while I go about my day.


18 posted on 08/04/2007 8:05:43 PM PDT by ToastedHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huntress
Wal-Mart's owners are stockholders. I own a few shares (through a fund that I have stock in). I think the President of the company should sit down to urinate.

Should he?

19 posted on 08/04/2007 8:09:28 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
it won't affect an executive order from Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2005 that requires all pharmacists to fill any prescription for a legal, drug, including any drug that could cause an abortion

Of course not. Liberals get to decide YOUR CHOICE, if it's not the same as theirs!

"US Representative Rod Blagojevich voted three times against bills that would require notice to a parent or guardian before an abortion could be performed on a minor."

He voted to support public funding to groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.

On September 25th, Blagojevich voted No on HR-4691, a bill that would protect medical personnel, hospitals, insurance companies and health maintenance organizations from being forced to perform abortions, fund abortions, or refer for abortions under the "conscience" clauses.

20 posted on 08/04/2007 8:12:33 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson