Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 07/08/2010 9:49:39 AM PDT by NYer
This afternoon, less than two weeks before the start of a civil rights trial in Tacoma federal court, attorneys for the State of Washington told a federal judge that the State would seek to create new rules for pharmacists with conscientious objections. The new regulations would give the plaintiffs in the lawsuit–the owners of Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy and two pharmacists–what they’ve wanted all along: the right to refuse to stock or dispense Plan B (the so-called “morning after pill”) based on their conscientious objection.
This is an enormous about-face for the State, which has for several years maintained that it had to restrict the religious freedoms of pharmacies and pharmacists in order to ensure patient access to the morning after pill. In its filing today, however, the State concedes that allowing pharmacists with conscientious objections to refer patients to other pharmacies “is a time-honored pharmacy practice” that is “often in the best interest of patients, pharmacies, and pharmacists” and “do[es] not pose a threat to timely access to lawfully prescribed medications.” Based on the State’s representations, the Plaintiffs have agreed to allow the trial to be postponed while the Washington State Board of Pharmacy undertakes its rule-making process. Washington State is capitulating less than a month after The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty<http://www.becketfund. org> helped Plaintiffs defeat Washington’s motion for summary judgment.
“This sends a clear signal to Governor Christine Gregoire that her bullying tactics are not acceptable. First she threatened to fire the members of the State Board of Pharmacy if they did not agree with her; then, she tried to pressure the pharmacy by joining a boycott against Ralph’s Thriftway,” said Eric Rassbach, National Director of Litigation for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “It may come as a surprise to her, but conscientious and principled people like the owners and pharmacists of Ralph’s Thriftway are the backbone of this country.”
The controversy began in 2006 when the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously supported a rule protecting conscience for pharmacy workers. The Board voted in favor of a regulation allowing pharmacists with religious objections to refrain from dispensing Plan B and to refer patients to nearby suppliers. Governor Gregoire soon learned about the protection, publicly threatened to fire the Board’s members, and even called them late at night to lobby them. Matters escalated when the State’s Human Rights Commission insinuated that Board members could be held personally liable under gender discrimination laws if they supported the regulation.
Buckling under these pressures, the Board decided to reconsider the issue and instead adopted new language mandating pharmacies to stock and dispense the medication even when doing so violates their conscience. The Board adopted this regulation even though it admitted it found no evidence that anyone in the state had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) due to religious objections. The Becket Fund’s clients, a family owned pharmacy and two individual pharmacists, filed suit to prevent the new regulation from forcing them out of their profession.
“Americans should not be forced out of their professions solely because of their religious beliefs–but that is exactly what Washington State sought to do,” said Luke Goodrich, legal counsel at The Becket Fund. “The government should accommodate and protect the fundamental rights of all members of the medical profession, not punish some members because of their religious beliefs.”
Legal Voice, a group that intervened in the case to defend the regulations, has already decried Washington’s change, calling it an “outrage.”
The Becket Fund represents the plaintiffs along with Kristin Waggoner and Steven O’Ban of the Seattle firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC.
I guess it would be okay for Muzzie taxi drivers not to drive fares carrying alcohol or have dogs with them.
Two words that should not appear together.
“the right to refuse to stock or dispense Plan B “
You can’t ‘give’ someone a right that wasn’t yours to take in the first place.
A better comparison might be a law forcing a Moslem taxi driver to have a dog along just in case you wanted one, or to serve alcoholic beverages to you.
Around here you have a right to refuse to ride with a taxi driver you don't want to ride with ~ and except for DC, a taxi driver can reject a fare he suspects might be troublesome.
In DC the ACLU is all the time trying to force black DC taxi drivers to pick up young black men on the street (carrying guns) and take them to really bad parts of town.
I can only imagine the ACLU management in the area gets a vicarious thrill every time a black taxi driver is murdered and robbed ~ those ACLU people are so crude they can't even be considered human.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Another piece of good news. Washington state may be not so huge in the grand scheme of things, but now pharamcists don't have to participate in killing unborn babies if they don't want to. That IS important! May many more states follow suit.
“A better comparison might be a law forcing a Moslem taxi driver to have a dog along just in case you wanted one, or to serve alcoholic beverages to you.”
Excellently put.
Were a pro-lifer to take a job at an abortion clinic, then refuse to do abortions, he could be fired.
These pro-lifers signed up to be pharmacists and dispense life saving and life improving medicines. Not death draughts.
The Hippocratic Oath (I don’t think pharmacists have to take it, but whatever) still states the oath taker will not help a woman procure an abortion.
Actually it is a huge thing. The freedom to practice religion is not a small thing, even if it’s just one aspect of freedom, in one state.
Doesn’t matter whether they’re pro or anti abortion. The pharmacy should make it stocking decisions without govt. interference.
I’ve gone to several pharmacies and asked for simple things like Lugol’s (iodine solution) or other things that used to be carried in pharmacies. They didn’t have them. That’s their right to not stock something. There are all kinds of drugs and items that pharmacies may or may not stock. Having the gov’t. require that they stock and/or provide certain specific items is - or should be - beyond the scope of gov’t. Any gov’t.- state, local, federal.
Seems to me that requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense a specific abortifacient for “anti-religious” reasons is the same as requiring it for “religious” reasons. Neither one should be any of the gov’t’s business.
Fabulous verdict. Passing this on!
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.