Skip to comments.9th Circuit: Pharmacists Must Dispense Mornin-After Pill
Posted on 07/11/2009 7:35:55 PM PDT by WhiteCastle
The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the Supreme Court to consider and likely soon. The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills, which causes the abortion of an embryo in the early days of a pregnancy. The pharmacy owners had objected, claiming that the law violated their religious practice:
This is further than any state provision has gone. States have allowed pharmacy owners to skirt the issue by not carrying the drug at all.
any OTHER state provision I mean.
What is it that makes Washington state so kooky.
If this precedent is allowed to stand, in the future pharmacies in Oregon will be forced to fill prescriptions for physician assisted suicides.
Murdering socialist bookmark.
The 9th. Circus strikes again. That court would be a joke if its consequences weren’t so serious.
The drugs ~ they’re at the end of the supply line so they get all the contaminated stuff.
**What is it that makes Washington state so kooky.**
they’re Downwind of San FranSicko???
I would bet that the supreme court will never look at the case. What is the constitutional question????
Forcinbg a business to sell a product? Why not force fast food outlets to sell it too?
Exactly. Under which constitutional authority does Kali or anyone have the right to demand anyone sell anything?
Geez just like the Mafia...Do like we say or will Bust up the place...I’m sure some of Barry’s ACORN thugs will be glad to do the grunt work........
To operate a pharmacy in Washington (or any state) you have to be licensed under state law. States can set conditions to obtaining those licenses — question here was, ‘was this a valid condition’. Very much like the implied consent all of us give to have our blood alcohol tested when we become licensed drivers — if we don’t want to agree to the terms of the license (pharmacy or vehicle operator), sell aspirin or take the bus.
You are correct, somo people like to fight the same fight over and over again.http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=139338
” States can set conditions to obtaining those licenses “
Yes, but regulation for the purpose of public safety is not the same as running a business to include all aspects of product offerings.
P.S. Your logic is flawed in that you assume the government can dictate anything. They have limited powers.
Before you crow victory too loudly for your death partners, keep in mind that most cases appealed from the 9th to the US Supreme Court are overturned. No other circuit has such an enviable record.
Of course, government can dictate all kinds of things — try carrying your 9mm into a federal courthouse or selling antibiotics out of the trunk of your car. I did not, however, say or imply that government can dictate everything. Of course it can’t. But the issue on the morning after pill is the tension between the government’s established authority to set terms and conditions for sale of pharmaceutical drugs through a licensed network of dealers (which is usually justified on grounds of public safety, incidentally) and the individual constitutional rights of the pharmacists. I don’t pretend to know what the Supreme Court will decide if it gets this case but it’s not simply a matter of pharmacists being able to tell the state ‘you’re not the boss of me’.
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.