BREAKING: Judge halts state's morning-after pill rules (drug stores CAN opt out)

The Associated Press (Via The News Tribune of Tacoma WA) ^ | 11/8/07

[llevrok]

ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 8th, 2007 01:07 PM

A federal judge has suspended Washington’s requirement that pharmacists sell “morning-after” birth control pills. The injunction says pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill, referring a customer instead to a nearby source.

It’s part of a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a drugstore owner, who claim in a lawsuit that the state’s birth-control sales rules violated their civil rights.

The morning-after pill, sold as “Plan B,” can dramatically lower the risk of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Some critics consider the pill tantamount to abortion, although it has no effect on women who are pregnant.

[edsheppa]

Are you seriously suggesting that regulating which drugs a druggist can sell is slavery?

Not that it matters really. Thompson thinks federalism is more important than an amendment guaranteeing a right to life. Surely he would have opposed that one eliminating slavery too.

[Gator113]

I hate to be the one to rain on the parade, but,.......

I have lived in this, liberal/traitor/coward /organized crime governed, state of Washington (”Frisco North”) since 1973.

I have learned to never celebrate anything that occurs in this state that may seem to be even remotely positive, because it is only, and always.... temporary.

Fortunately for me, I live upwind and a good distance from Seattle, so when the big bomb finally does go off, it will simply give us an interesting light show to watch from our hot-tub.

[llevrok]

I hear ya. I was born and raised in WA and after 10 years away, returned to now live in OLY.

This is not my father's washington!

[Norman Bates]

Well said, FRiend.

[Mr. Silverback]

1st Amendment, free exercise clause.

If you really believe that forcing a person to commit an act their religion regards as murder isn’t a state violation of free exercise, one wonders what you wouldn’t tolerate. We don’t even force people to kill the enemy in a war, for Pete’s sake.

[Mr. Silverback]

It’s a double edged sword though. What if a lady who has four children already goes to the pharmacy to get a prescription for a fertility enhancing drug and the pharmacist thinks the world is already overpopulated and won’t give it to her? There’s a gazillion reasons and personal beliefs that might make somebody refuse to give a prescription.

So that pharmacy is the only pharmacy in town? I live in a city of only 25,000 people and there are 7 pharmacies here. What do you think the chances are that every pharmacist working at those shops is a zero poulation growth groupie? What do you think the chances are that every one of them is anti-morning after pill?

But the main question is, does the state really have a right--indeed, an obligation--to force a person to do business with another person, just so the customer is saved the inconvenience of choosing another provider? I can't see where that's an appropriate state role if the business owner says "I won't serve him because I don't like his face," much less when the reason is "You're asking me to commit an act that I believe is murder."

BTW, I believe that people who are into population control are ill-educated morons, but if a local pharmacist decided to withhold fertility drugs from a customer I would be 100% in his corner. It's his business and his conscience, not the state's or the customer's.

[Mr. Silverback]

Thank you, FRiend. Word to your mother. :-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Which [constitutional] provision guarantees a druggist the right to pick and choose which drugs to sell?"

One doesn't need a specific constitutional "provision" to establish the innumberable number of rights to free activity, including economic activity, which comprise the concept of "liberty." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments cover it:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What this means is that you have a right to do what isn't prohibited by law. The includes the right of vendors of goods and services to decide which goods and services they will vend, and how, and when, and to whom.

[Witter]

You have no idea what all pharmacists do! Doctors call them to consult on drugs. They dispense drugs and know what drugs work against each other. The list goes on and on!

[cryptical]

What this means is that you have a right to do what isn't prohibited by law. The includes the right of vendors of goods and services to decide which goods and services they will vend, and how, and when, and to whom.

But you also have to follow the law when it specifies which goods and services licensed vendors will have to vend in order to keep their licenses, right?

[juliej]

Good news! How dare a governor - such as Corzine in NJ - take away the conscience clause! What arrogance!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But you also have to follow the law when it specifies which goods and services licensed vendors will have to vend in order to keep their licenses, right?"

This is not an argument, it's a tautology. What you're saying is, "If the law say x, the law says x." Duh. That's what the whole controversy is about: should the law revoke a professional license as a punishment for ethical behavior, e.g. for refusing to distribute a substance intended to injure or kill? And the answer is: no.

Let's see if this analogy helps: say there's a blind mom and dad who have an infant with normal eyesight. Say they strongly identify with the "blind community" and all the people they admire are blind. They come to the pharmacist with a prescription for ketoconazole which they mention they want to put in their baby's eyes to destroy his sight.

They have a prescription.

Ketoconazole is legal.

They're paying for it.

Do you sell it to them?

If you don't, should you lose your license?

[firebrand]

It’s not as large. Life is a more important right.

[firebrand]

Got the juxtaposition wrong on that one. Sorry . . .

[TNPatriot]

No, involuntary servitude.
The State being the overpowering authority.
The coercion from the threatened revocation of license(s).

Unlike my legal theories, though - Fred doesn't need defending...

Who is the lucky recipient of your support, BTW?

[edsheppa]

1st Amendment, free exercise clause.

I don't think anyone is saying the guy can't be Catholic or whatever but rather that pharmacies must carry certain drugs to be licensed and if you can't accept the licensing restrictions, find some other line of work. People who object on religious basis to some government policy or other must support them with their taxes or go to jail. That's not an establishment of religion either.

[edsheppa]

That’s just silly. The courts have been able to reconcile even the draft with that prohibition.

[4woodenboats]

What if a young pharmacist just out of med school decides he doesn't’t want to give life saving drugs to people over 45 because he wants to get his social security?

Then he is within his rights to sell whatever he wants, and the community has a right to boycott him into poverty - AND go right down the street to buy those life saving drugs.

That was an absurd analogy, btw, though not unique. When our state government was dictating what this business can and cannot sell - with no compensation if the product turned out to be a non seller, btw, there were barges of ridiculous comments thrown out on that slippery slope.

If you really think this is a "right to life" issue in the twisted context you present, then shouldn't the pharmacist BE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT to stock every known remedy known to man, even though it would immediately bancrupt him?

What if someone was bleeding, or was a hemophiliac? - well, gee, they shouldn't have to go all the way to a hospital to get a transfusion, should they? Why, the pharmacist should stock every known type of blood, not just bandages!

What if someone got stung by an insect or bit by a snake? Damn those pesky pharmacists if they don"t stock anti venom for every known poisonous snake and spider, along with someone to teach them how to use it.

What if, what if, what if, what if, what if, what if,...the background noise of any true nanny state.

[edsheppa]

Your post doesn't make sense. If that provision actually establishes rights to free activity, including economic activity then economic activity cannot be regulated and so there can be no question of whether an activity is permitted by law because such laws would be unconstitutional.

But your conception of the Amendments is obviously wrong because economic activity has always been regulated by state and local governments.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I did not propose that no economic activity can be regulated. I was asked what specific provision in the Constitution authorizes sellers to decide what they want to sell, and I answered that this is ordinarily an unenumerated right under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The state can enact reasonable regulations, but in this case I say they ought not require the provision of harmful and lethal drugs. This is not a matter of individual whimsy. It has been an explicit part of medical ethics for 2500 years.