Skip to comments.Ill. Supreme Court: Pharmacists can go to court to object to dispensing 'morning-after' pill
Posted on 12/18/2008 8:51:16 PM PST by STARWISE
Illinois pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency contraception won another day in court to fight a rule they claim forces them to choose between their livelihood and conscience.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday said the circuit court must consider a lawsuit brought by two pharmacists who claim they should not be required to dispense emergency contraception because it violates their religious beliefs. Lower courts had dismissed those claims and refused to hear the case.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2005 issued a rule prohibiting pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraception, sometimes called the morning-after pill.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Boy, that Blago is something. I pray the IL pharamacists have a chance to hold to their principles.
This, however, is NOT encouraging news:
Emanuel's Brother Joins Obama Team; Is Ari next?
The brother of White House Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emanuel will also serve in the Obama administration. But it will be the bioethicist Emanuel joining his brother and not the fast-talking Hollywood agent Emanuel, who inspired the character "Ari" on the HBO hit "Entourage."
Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, will serve in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a counselor on health policy.
Emanuel will work with Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Tom Daschle to formulate national health insurance policy, the Wall Street Journal reported.
A M.D./PhD from Harvard University, Ezekiel Emanuel is the eldest of the three Emanuel brothers.
Blago wants pharmacists to find another profession, because the pharmacists don’t want to kill innocent lives.
That is demonic.
“But the opinion said Blagojevich’s public statements that pharmacists with moral objections “should find another profession” could be seen as a signal the state would allow no exceptions to the rule. That left the plaintiffs with no recourse but the courts.”
What a scumbag.
Since when does a private pharmacy have to carry every medication known to man? Apparently, they don’t mind losing the business to another pharmacy. Where’s the crime? Just like if you don’t want to sell birthday cakes that say “Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler”, you shouldn’t have to do that, either. It’s all up to the proprietor.
Pray for an end to abortion!
I was thinking not accepting insurance and then charge $1,000 per pill.
This may help
Bush institutes rule protecting workers’ “right of conscience”
Washington Post ^ | 12-18-08 | Rob Stein
Posted on 12/18/2008 11:50:55 PM PST by malkee
The Bush administration issued a sweeping regulation Thursday that protects a broad range of health care workers from doctors to janitors who refuse to participate in providing services they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.
The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor’s office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their “right of conscience.” It would apply to more than 584,000 health care facilities.
“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.
The regulation was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.
Women’s health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists, members of Congress and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create major obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.
The 127-page rule is the latest in a flurry of federal regulations the administration is implementing before President George W. Bush’s term ends.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Yes .. hopefully, so.
A little too late in his administration, sine the great O will probably rescind those laws!
A Chicago-sytle affirmative action administration: Man are we screwed.
I guess the ‘separation of church and state’ argument only goes one way.
Since Blago has no morals, he cannot understand the concept of moral objections.
—Since when does a private pharmacy have to carry every medication known to man?—
I make this reply with some apprehension, but, here goes:
It’s not a pharmacist’s job to make medical decisions. If a physician or other authorized healtch care provider writes a prescription for an FDA approved drug, it is the pharmacist’s job to fill that prescription upon receiving appropriate payment. And sure the woman needing “Plan B” could go to another pharmacy IF THERE IS ONE AVAILABLE. She might be in a rural area where there aren’t any nearby; car trouble, bad weather might all be issues, or maybe it’s the only pharmacy that accepts her drug plan. I’m sorry, but all this drug does is prevent a teeny-tiny blastocyst from implanting. Not in the same league as aborting a sentient fetus.
Until “FoCA” is passed,
then they will either dispense the abortion drug, or lose their license.
More and more people, I think, are actually starting to see that we are involved in a real spiritual good vs evil war.
And the left is on Satan’s side. And the nation just clearly chose evil.
I used the prissy porcelain circumlocution "innocent life form" so that the earlier stages of human development, including zygote,bmorula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, perinate, neonate, toddler, terrible-twosie and pre-K -through Phd and so forth, would all be included under the principle of "Equal Justice Under Law."
You can't fault that. Especially for somebody who holds to the principles of the Hippocratic Oath, which predates, and is foundational to, all other codes related to Medical Ethics.
Actually, it is. Few pharmacists are very inquisitive about all the drugs a person is taking, but if a pharmacist knows that a person is taking a drug that would interact badly with a prescription, a pharmacist is supposed to act upon that information.
Further, I see no reason that the owner of the business should not be entitled to decide what products will be sold there, and what products its employees will be required to handle. The state should not intervene to protect pharmacists who refuse to sell a legal product that their employer wants to offer, but nor should it insist that pharmacists must sell a product even if the store's owner would not so insist.
Let Blago be the one to find another profession.
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.