Posted on 08/04/2007 8:33:28 PM PDT by monomaniac
Illinois Court Rules Pharmacists May Reject Plan B
By Peter J. Smith
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, August 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Illinois pharmacists are not obligated to violate their consciences and dispense Plan-B and "emergency contraceptives" according to this week's ruling by a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott ruled Tuesday that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's executive order in April 2005 requiring pharmacies "without delay" to provide Plan-B and other abortifacient "emergency contraceptives" mandated store owners to provide it, but did not mean that pharmacists themselves had to violate their conscience and religious beliefs by dispensing it.
Scott's decision means that a discrimination lawsuit by pharmacist Ethan Vandersand can proceed against retail giant Wal-Mart, which contended it had a legal obligation to punish incompliant pharmacists under the executive order. Wal-Mart asked for a dismissal of the case Ethan Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on the basis that Illinois conscience legislation did not apply to pharmacists or exempt them from dispensing drugs that conflict with their religious views.
Wal-Mart placed Vandersand on unpaid leave after the pharmacist declined to dispense Plan B at the Beardstown Wal-Mart pharmacy to a Planned Parenthood nurse seeking the drug on behalf of a female patient in February 2006.
Justice Scott ruled in favor of Vandersand and his attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), who claimed Vandersand was legally protected from discipline by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII, which requires employers to accommodate employees' religious beliefs. "The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience," Scott said, adding that 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," the US district judge ruled.
Scott's ruling means that Vandersand may proceed with his case against Wal-Mart under both the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII. Vandersand is seeking lost pay and unspecified monetary damages against Wal-Mart.
Scott's ruling leaves in place Gov. Blagovich's executive order that pharmacies provide "emergency contraception", however it clarifies that pharmacy owners, not pharmacists have to comply with carrying out the law, and the latter are not obliged to violate their consciences.
The ruling validates the objections of the more than a dozen Illinois pharmacists who have been fired or suspended for refusing to dispense the drugs on religious or ethical grounds by employers intent on complying with the executive order.
IMHO, the owner of the store should decide on the policy, though I think pharmacists who have moral objection to products or policies that are introduced during their term of employment should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
Is this any different than a doctor not wishing to perform an abortion?
Kinda stretching the truth aren't you? The ruling doesn't say that at all, it says if a pharmicist doesn't want to dispense a drug that kills babies they don't have to, no different than a doc who refuses to abort children. Besides, plan B is hardly a life or death drug, if a woman is in such bad health that plan B would save her life she should be using birth control, you know, pills, condoms etc.
Wal-Mart and other companies have the right to fire employees who do not abide by their rules, but the STATE doesn't have the right to force anyone to sell something they think is morally wrong.
If a doctor took a job at an abortion clinic and then refused to perform abortions, should the clinic have the right to fire him?
drug, if a woman is in such bad health that plan B would save her life she should be using birth control, you know, pills, condoms etc.If a women is in such bad health that a pregnancy could be fatal, she is likely to not be a good candidate to go on the pill, patch, etc.
Maybe she is using condoms? The #1 reason for women to seek plan B is "the condom broke".
Incredibly, U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott was recommended to the federal court by Carol Mosley-Braun and Richard Durbin, appointed by Clinton, and confirmed by the Senate. Those scumbags must be beside themselves right now.
Actually the number one EXCUSE for using plan b is the condom broke, that doesn't mean the condom actually broke. If they were so into birth contol why did they seek out a prescription for plan b to start with. I will tell you why: Because it is easier to kill the baby after conception than it is to use birth control. Using pills, or other methods of control, in conjunction with condoms is the NUMBER ONE way to avoid unwanted babies.
Seeking out prescriptions for pills that kill babies shows the mind set of these "ladies". They care little for human life.
As for any Freepers who are for these pills, then they must also be for abortion and this rules them out as conservatives, conservatives don't believe in killing babies, whatever the method of choice is. DON'T get pregnant, take every means to keep from becoming pregnant, don't kill a baby.
There are reasons to abort a pregnancy, the condom broke isn't one of them.
I don't think it is easier. It's just that irresponsible, impulsive people have a tendency to do things first and deal with the consequences later, even when living one's life this way is bound to be a lot more time-consuming, expensive, dangerous, stupid, etc...
You nailed it: If you find your employers policies 'morally offensive', find another job.
As for any Freepers who are for these pills, then they must also be for abortion and this rules them out as conservatives, conservatives don't believe in killing babies, whatever the method of choice is. DON'T get pregnant, take every means to keep from becoming pregnant, don't kill a baby.So now you get to write the rules about who is and is not "conservative"?
So a man who states that he personally abhors abortion, yet supports keeping a legal right to choose, or that we should err on the side of self-determination keeping government out of private matters between a women and her physician, or simply feels that the life of the mother is, in the first trimester, more important, is not "conservative" because calex59 says so?
I say that if Harriet Miers is conservative enough for George Bush, if she holds conservative viewpoints, then she's conservative enough for me, even though she says:
"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Miers said.Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that "we gave up" a long time ago on "legislating religion or morality," she said. And "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."
While the speeches may not be an accurate predictor of how Miers may rule as a justice, abortion rights opponents and advocates and legal analysts said yesterday that Miers's professed belief in self-determination could suggest that she favored a woman's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy.
I suppose so but where does it stop? That was my question. I’m saying that if there is a drug that is against whatever personal beliefs the pharmacist has, he can refuse to dispense it ... same as those cabbies ... if they refuse service, then go find another job that doesn’t offend ... simple.
I suppose so but where does it stop? That was my question. I’m saying that if there is a drug that is against whatever personal beliefs the pharmacist has, he can refuse to dispense it ... same as those cabbies ... if they refuse service, then go find another job that doesn’t offend ... simple.
What if the drug came on the market after the pharmacist was hired? As in this case. And why would a doctor who abhores abortions take a job at an abortion clinic?
What if the drug came on the market after the pharmacist was hired? As in this case. And why would a doctor who abhores abortions take a job at an abortion clinic?
Hooray!
If we were dealing with a "pharmacy" whose sole business was the dispensation of "Plan B" and other contraceptives, your analogy would be relevant. We're not, and it isn't.
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.