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-Marts 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.
Re: your highlight - sounds fishy but PP would never engage in such a setup would they? /sarc
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.
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.
Pharmacists are middle men. Get another job. Enough of this. Keep your religious beliefs at church, not in medicine.
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.
“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..
I agree. I don’t want the Muslims demanding special on the job treatment for their beliefs.
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.
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?
Don't these guys ever watch funny movies or is it "Industrial Accidents" and "Hazmat Risks" all the way down.
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.
Total set up.
Take your filthy thoughts somewhere else.
Your point is totally irrelevant.
The prohibition is on EATING pork, not touching it!
Sounds like a set up to me. Why didn't the 'patient' pick up their own prescription?
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.
Should he?
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.
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.