Federal appeals court won't yet overturn "Plan B" ruling

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | May 1, 2008 | Gina Keating

[goodnesswins]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday left in place a lower court's ruling that allowed Washington state pharmacists to refuse to sell emergency contraceptive "morning after" pills on religious grounds.

A federal judge in Seattle suspended state rules that required pharmacies to dispense "Plan B" and other emergency contraceptives that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, which some people believe is the same as abortion.The case was brought by Stormans Inc, doing business as Ralph's Thriftway, and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen.

[goodnesswins]

Didn't see this posted......excerpted

[American Quilter]

Good. It’s stunning that the government would even consider forcing pharmacists to sell abortion drugs.

[Always Right]

Bravo for the courts. A lot of Freepers though think the states should force Pharmacists to fill abortion prescriptions.

[Abathar]

Good news, someone with a stronger constitution than I have should jump over to the DUmp and see if any heads are exploding over this.

They sure went into a tizzy when the law was first enacted IIRC.

[SO RIGHT]

some think giving easy abortion,reduces the population of “victims” at the teat,malingerers and “at risk” who need the proceeds of those who get up and go to work, study hard and succeed.in other words the end justifies the ugly means, we don’t seem to be successful any other way!let’s face it the socialists are winning the battle of wealth redistribution, and presently placing more power behind it.

[goodnesswins]

Yes, it’s our QUEEN Christine (Gregoire) who forced the Pharmacy Board into this....the Board had previously decided that pharmacists could make the decision...but, NOOOO....the QUEEN decided that she knew better. Amazing that the 9th Circuit overthrew her decision....and she has to be licking wounds today.

[goodnesswins]

WA ping

[goodnesswins]

You first....(to DU)....LOL....I don’t think I’ve ever braved that he** hole

[sionnsar]

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton found that the state rules force pharmacists into an unconstitutional choice between their religious beliefs and their work.

Thanks to goodnesswins for the ping.

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[Abathar]

I have, and to be honest I am literally shocked every time I visit with the hatred and animosity they believe in there.

[Paperdoll]

Thanks for the ping, sionnsar. Good news is always welcome in my house. :)

The death cultists among us may be stirred up over this, but anytime government uses the law to separate moral values in order to force it’s leftist power over the private sector, it is time for Constitutional judges to overturn those laws.

God bless U.S. District Judge Leighton for his ruling.

[BlackElk]

While this decision is preliminary rather than final, it ought to be noted that it is a preliminary ruling of the infamous Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, the nation’s worst circuit by far. If the Ninth won’t allow pro-abort tyranny against pro-life pharmacists, no other circuit is likely to do so. It gives us hope in Illinois that our latest criminal governor’s executive order requiring pharmacists to cooperate in babykilling will also be overturned.

[Alberta's Child]

Bravo for the courts. A lot of Freepers though think the states should force Pharmacists to fill abortion prescriptions.

Over the years there have been two different issues here. They are as follows:

1. Whether or not a state government or oversight board could require the sale of these drugs as a condition of licensing a company to conduct business as a pharmacy.

2. Whether or not a pharmacy could fire an employee who refused to sell such drugs to their customers.

It's possible for someone to take a consistent approach AGAINST the state's actions in Case #1 and IN SUPPORT OF the pharmacy's actions in Case #2.

It appears that the case in question involves Case #1 (a state law under which pharmacies would be obligated to sell these drugs in order to stay in business), not Case #2.

[Always Right]

It appears that the case in question involves Case #1 (a state law under which pharmacies would be obligated to sell these drugs in order to stay in business), not Case #2.

Most of the stories posted have involved Case #1.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe so. For the life of me, I don’t remember a single post here on FreeRepublic that supported a government that was trying to legislate this kind of nonsense.

[4woodenboats]

In a split decision, the appeals court denied that request. finding that the state and the women did not show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction stays in place pending the appeal

Yep, all they had to do is go to any one of thousands of other pharmacies.... or use this brand new miraculoius device called a telephone to see if the most convenienent pharmacy on the way home from the "courtship" happened to carry them.

Even the 9th circus refused to label the slim possibility of a minor inconvenience "irreparable harm", and hey, that's gotta tell you something.

All this was about was Christank Gregoire flexing her socialist muscle(s?). She immediately threatened to not complete the annual certifications (in effect, decertify)for every pharmacist who didn't kiss her ring on this issue, merits be damned.

This bitch is out of control and if our state GOP had the gonads they were born with, they'd make hay with this in a big way, but nope...nothing to see here, everyone Move On...

Thanks for posting this, goodnesswins.