Judge Says Pharmacists Can Refuse to Give Morning-After Pill
By Ralph Rivera, IFI Lobbyist | Illinois Family InstituteAn Illinois Judge ruled last week that the State cannot force two pharmacists with religious objections to abortion to dispense Plan B also known as the "morning after pill".
Circuit court Judge John Belz in Springfield issued a temporary restraining order to remain in effect until he can hear arguments regarding the legality of the state's administrative rule that requires pharmacies to dispense all "lawful prescription[s] for a contraceptive... without delay" against the owners/pharmacists religious beliefs and consciences. Pharmacy owners Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, who have several northern Illinois pharmacies, have been fighting for their rights on this issue since 2005.
At heart of the legal battle is the question of whether the Emergency Contraceptives Rule, which took effect on August 25, 2005 under the executive order of then-Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Right of Conscience Act.
The governor at that time stated publicly that "pharmacists with moral objections should find another profession," and "must fill prescriptions without making moral judgments."
Last December, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the pro-life pharmacists could proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn the executive order by Blagojevich, after a divided appellate court affirmed a circuit court [Judge Belz] decision to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that "Plaintiffs [VanderBleek and Kosirog] have alleged that defendants are on record via the Governor's public statements, warning that the entire point of the rule is to coerce pharmacists with religious objections into dispensing Plan B contraceptives."
In October 2007, a settlement was reached with the State and certain pharmacists and Walgreen Co. that stated pharmacists would not have to fill a prescription they opposed on moral grounds, but the pharmacy would have to make arrangements to have the prescription filled by some other pharmacist.
This requirement that the pharmacy would still have to see that the prescription order was filled did not protect the pharmacy owner who had a moral opposition to the prescription. Both VanderBleek and Kosirog, who are also pharmacists, then pursued further legal action to protect their rights of conscience.
Pro-lifers objection to Plan B, pharmaceutically known as Levonorgestrel, is based on the fact that Plan B acts in two ways, one of which is to prevent implantation of a new human life after conception. The manufacturer of Plan B is Barr Laboratories and its own information sheet on Plan B states "it may inhibit implantation(by altering the endometrium)." Thus, it has the effect of a chemical abortion.
Judge Says Pharmacists Can Refuse to Give Morning-After Pill
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Find another profession OR fill legal prescriptions
Imagine a pilot who does not want to fly airplanes on Sunday's because he/she considers this god 's day.
Imagine the co-pilot believes in the same superstition.
Do they have the right to crash the plan at 00:00:001 on Sunday morning?
When you take on a job, you agree to set your superstition aside and agree to serve your customers within the laws of the land OR your look for another job.
Say NO to superstition.
- gma
April 10, 2009 10:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I CONCUR!
Should women of Islamic faith working in a nursing industry (or otherwise) just be allowed to not scrub up correctly because they feel it violates their faith?
No.
If you take a job... you do your job. Does the McDonald's worker have a right to say "I'm sorry, but I feel morally obligated to NOT give you fries because you're severely overweight."? Yes, he does... but he'll get fired.
A pharmacist's religion is his only when it doesn't INTERFERE with the correct performance of his job. He has no right to say "I won't do this, even though it part of my job, because I feel morally compelled to NOT do so... even though I knew before I took the job that there would be some things that I didn't agree with."
- SocialistBetty
April 13, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
one sided views
i dont believe an occupation must be followed blindly to all ends. the same logic of "you must do your job regardless of moral" as been the same cause of torture and murder in war, government invasion of privacy, as well as senseless destruction of natural resources. There should always be a line that you should stand up to when you strongly feel it is wrong, and one should always have that choice to do so.
There is also a difference between superstition and principle and that is the amount of belief and faith the individual has on a certain ideal. To a person that has no passion and faith at all everything that cannot be proven will seem to be absurd and superstitious.
These people have been in the field long before this drug or this rule was made. Back then the job didnt require what they feel as forced murder. So they should be jobless AND lose their right to choose as well?
Additionally, if the consumers have the right to choose to indulge in unprotected sex (even with the numerous options to do otherwise) and have access to something to completely avoid the consequences, why can't the provider also exercise the right to choose?
In my opinion it is not going to hurt anyone if pharmacists who choose not to distribute this are allowed not to. There are a lot of other providers who certainly share the pro-choice view.
For those pro-choice who are attacking these people because of their views, realize that these people are just fighting for what you guys supposedly stand for: the right to choose.
- seraphim
August 27, 2009 8:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dissent
“There should always be a line that you should stand up to when you strongly feel it is wrong, and one should always have that choice to do so.”
While this is true that dissent does not protect one form being fired for refusing to do their job.
“There is also a difference between superstition and principle and that is the amount of belief and faith the individual has on a certain ideal. To a person that has no passion and faith at all everything that cannot be proven will seem to be absurd and superstitious.”
This is exceptionally true. When talking about your religious beliefs to someone who does not share them it is important to remember that they see your beliefs in the same way as you see other beliefs…
Do you think that the beliefs and practices of Voodoo are superstition? Do you think that someone who believes in Voodoo can refuse to give a medication because something about that medication violates their beliefs… and that they can still retain their job because of that refusal? What if that medication was insulin?
“These people have been in the field long before this drug or this rule was made. Back then the job didnt require what they feel as forced murder . So they should be jobless AND lose their right to choose as well?”
Actually they are either losing their right to chose, or are losing their job.
“Additionally, if the consumers have the right to choose to indulge in unprotected sex (even with the numerous options to do otherwise) and have access to something to completely avoid the consequences, why can't the provider also exercise the right to choose?”
I am not sure I follow you there. Two individuals choosing to indulge in unprotected sex are acting as private individuals; the pharmacist is acting as an agent of their employer and in their official capacity as a licensed professional.
When you are acting as a employee your ‘right to chose’ is curtailed by your employer… a salesman working at an upscale clothing store cannot chose to come into work wearing a thong and expect his employer to accept that behavior.
When acting as a licensed professional ones right to chose is confined by law . A licensed pharmacist cannot give out herbal remedies instead of what is prescribed because they believe that it will work better.
“In my opinion it is not going to hurt anyone if pharmacists who choose not to distribute this are allowed not to. There are a lot of other providers who certainly share the pro-choice view.”
Except in cases where there is only one provider in a given area, and traveling to another provider represents an undue burden.
“For those pro-choice who are attacking these people because of their views, realize that these people are just fighting for what you guys supposedly stand for: the right to choose.”
There is a large difference between someone acting as a private individual and someone acting at the agent of a company or a licensed professional.
- MrBook
August 27, 2009 7:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dissent
"While this is true that dissent does not protect one form being fired for refusing to do their job."
Which is the exact reason so
"Do you think that the beliefs and practices of Voodoo are superstition? Do you think that someone who believes in Voodoo can refuse to give a medication because something about that medication violates their beliefs… and that they can still retain their job because of that refusal? What if that medication was insulin?"
It does not make sense to parallel the case to such a situation.
While an extreme example such as that is clear cut, this case is not as such. this birth control pill is not a fraction as essential as insulin, and there are many alternatives and preventative processes to it. In this particular case, i do believe there is not sufficient reason to let these people lose their job over something thats biggest reason is a law that circumvents a basic constitutional right.
"When acting as a licensed professional ones right to chose is confined by law . A licensed pharmacist cannot give out herbal remedies instead of what is prescribed because they believe that it will work better."
No, because that would be intervening in the treatment process. Refusing to carry a substance is a different thing from recommending something else regardless of reason being belief or logic.
"Actually they are either losing their right to chose, or are losing their job."
Which obviously shows that the situation they are put in is unjust.
"Except in cases where there is only one provider in a given area, and traveling to another provider represents an undue burden."
in which the burden is on the government to find a way to provide this service WITHOUT compromising the freedom of any person.
And again involving medication which its necessity can be prevented or avoided by numerous other medications and treatments currently available with said providers.
Forcing something on people is not the solution unless tyranny or communism is the plan.
- seraphim
August 27, 2009 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tyranny
“Which is the exact reason so “
Yes, if their employer requests that they do their job, and that request is not illegal then they should be fired.
“It does not make sense to parallel the case to such a situation.”
If someone is a pharmacist can they refuse to give a treatment based on their religious beliefs.
“While an extreme example such as that is clear cut, this case is not as such.”
But you do agree that the government can force the pharmacy to provide life saving medication , even in cases where the pharmacist has a religious objection to that treatment?
“this birth control pill is not a fraction as essential as insulin, and there are many alternatives and preventative processes to it. In this particular case, i do believe there is not sufficient reason to let these people lose their job over something thats biggest reason is a law that circumvents a basic constitutional right.”
Yet sometimes those preventative measures can fail… and in some cases this may be needed (such as after a sexual assault).
“No, because that would be intervening in the treatment process. Refusing to carry a substance is a different thing from recommending something else regardless of reason being belief or logic.”
Then how about refusing to carry anti-depressants?
“Which obviously shows that the situation they are put in is unjust.”
Interestingly there was a settlement that seems to be a reasonable compromise:
In October 2007, a settlement was reached with the State and certain pharmacists and Walgreen Co. that stated pharmacists would not have to fill a prescription they opposed on moral grounds, but the pharmacy would have to make arrangements to have the prescription filled by some other pharmacist.
This would ensure that the patients would still be able to get their prescriptions, while allowing the pharmacists to not sell the drug they disapprove of.
“in which the burden is on the government to find a way to provide this service WITHOUT compromising the freedom of any person.”
Which they did through the above compromise… the pharmacists do not have to stock or distribute Plan B, but if an individual does come in with that prescription they still have to make arrangements to have it filled. This could be as simple as sending them to the pharmacy across the street or it could involve ordering it from another pharmacy if there are no local pharmacies that carry it.
“And again involving medication which its necessity can be prevented or avoided by numerous other medications and treatments currently available with said providers.
Forcing something on people is not the solution unless tyranny or communism is the plan.”
That presumes that those other methods are perfectly effective. Plan B is called that because it is an emergency measure.
- MrBook
August 28, 2009 5:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, no.
If you feel your job is asking you to do something you're morally opposed to, you're in the wrong job. It's either the job that needs changing - or you.
Your job is not to pass moral judgment on a drug. Your job is to dispense it as prescribed. If you can't do that - find another job. (I mean you, if you are a pharmacist... natch.)
It IS that simple, and there is a perfectly clear choice to be made:
What is more important to me: my job? or my apparently stringent morality?
A pharmacist's job is not to make decisions on medication . Obviously. Simply to fill it. The pharmacist who doesn't like the fact that a person gets vicodin for a scratch doesn't have the right to deny the patient his prescription. The pharmacist who has a moral abhorrence to oxycotin doesn't have the right to deny the person her prescription. Morality is unclear - the law is not. Plan B is as legal as codine (you can tell by my spellings of these things I'm not one for meds... pologies if the mistakes bother you). Morality should not require of you that you not do your job and if your morals tell you that you simply cannot perform your job, you need to quit. There ARE other jobs .
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 7:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not scrubing up?
What is there in the Islamic faith that would not let a person properly scrub up??
- mike1948
August 29, 2009 11:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not a person - just a woman.
It's indecent to expose one's self above the wrist. Kind of hard to scrub up properly when you won't wash above there.... Big thing in Britain awhile back.
- SocialistBetty
August 30, 2009 7:14AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doing their Job
Did you know there are Pharmacists in the Military? Well there are and if they refuse to fill a prescription they don't get fired they get court martialed.
My point? Regardless of religious belief, in the Military you have to do what you are told, of course you lose some of you civil rights in the Military but that is your choice to join. This also applies to the civilian world. When you take a job as a Pharmacist you have to be licensed by the State. All the States except Florida and California have the same licensing laws. This means you will abide by the Laws of the State which you reside and become licensed. It is as simple as that. If these guys oppose the Laws of the State they shouldn't be allowed to have a Pharmacy License. If they disagree with the Laws then they can go somewhere else or they can lobby to have them changed. Refusing to do your Job because of your own personal beliefs is not an option. Laws are made by the majority of the people and broken by the minority. This boils down to money and influence. If these two were low paid blue collar Pharmacy Technicians then they would be fired and or arrested for breaking the law .
- vabloke
September 17, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.