Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says

[babylonsister]

Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says

A pharmacy owner and workers had sued Washington state to block a requirement that they stock and sell the 'morning after' contraceptive.

By Carol J. Williams
July 9, 2009


Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.

Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.

Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pill-ruling9-2009jul09,0,6469894.story

[and-justice-for-all]

1. The war on women continues...nt

[muntrv]

2. Court reminds pharmacists to do their jobs.

[kiva]

3. Good, it's about time someone told these idiots that their job

is to dispense medication, not salvation.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

43. they MAKE 60 OR 70 DOLLARS PER HOUR

WHAT IS THE NUMBER TODAY?????

[katandmoon]

4. Good news. And the judges in the unanimous ruling included two Bush appointees.

[azul]

5. Pharmacists have the choice

to get another job, or to move to a state and business where Plan B is not required to be stocked and sold by law.

Or else, I guess, refuse and be prepared to get fired and/or jailed.

No use calling them dumb, we here are all pretty much stupid. Why else would we choose to be born human? To love one another?

[progressoid]

6. Well, hot damn.

k/r

[ismnotwasm]

7. Good

Very glad to hear it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I would be surprised if the "shall carry" portion survives. "Shall dispense" is a no brainer

The implication of "shall carry" is pretty scary if broadly applied

[BlooInBloo]

9. WOOT!!!!

[AwakeAtLast]

10. Good to see

Let's hope it stays that way.

[snake in the grass]

11. This is great.

If they can't administer medications due to personal objections, they need to look for a new job. Period. Pharmacists, who want to work, but refuse to give out medications for "moral" reasons are as contradictory as vegans working in an abattoir.

[lindisfarne]

12. K&R

[ContinentalOp]

13. Great news! -nt-

[Maru Kitteh]

14. GOOD! If one is not comfortable practicing their profession within the law, GET A NEW PROFESSION!

If you want to preach, be a preacher. Otherwise, STFU.

[tammywammy]

15. k&r

[omega minimo]

16. kR Where do trained and licensed professionals get the notion they can cherrypick which medicines

to dispense? :wow:

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Crazy, isn't it? And there are docs who refuse to treat certain people! (I think recall a story

from last year or before of a Christian doc who wouldn't care for people who had tattoos.)

[omega minimo]

18. Amazing.

[kestrel91316]

55. That doctor was up in Bakersfield, IIRC - wouldn't treat A CHILD because

the MOTHER had tattoos.

Bastard needed his license revoked, IMHO.

[Brewman_Jax]

19. If they want salvation

they can go to church. This is a professional issue, not a 1st Amendment issue. If the job offends their sensibilities, they can find another job that doesn't.

[spooky3]

20. Agree - the Constitution protects them from GOVT. interference

in their legitimate religious practices (and even that has limits, as in the case of the parents who deny children medical treatment on religious grounds). But (as far as I know, as a non-lawyer) no one has a constitutional right to impose his/her religious views on customers of a private business.

on edit: these quotes from the court (in the link in the OP) say it so well:

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

[hyphenate]

21. You can't go into the pharmacy school with the expressed

desire to "punish" people who aren't as "Xtian" as others. In fact, it's pretty much a given that you should stay away from all forms of science careers if you don't don't want to be going against any and all of the crazy ass BS that was drummed into you.

My attitude is that they're pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with, and then they will rewrite the laws to go along with it. They still hold too much power in this world, and if we don't bring their horrendous shit to a standstill, we will never get the chance to make up for it later.

[Odin2005]

22. Good. If the loonies don't want to do the job they can find a different one.

[pleah]

23. K&R Good!

[FormerDittoHead]

24. What's next? Forcing Vegan Restaurants to Serve Steak? HA!

Does anyone else remember someone making that argument here last week...?

I've since blocked him. Maybe one of the two that I have blocked on this thread?

Nice to see some things going 'our' way...


.
on edit: my spellcheck doesn't work on the subject line :-<

[Forkboy]

27. "This is a vegetarian restaurant only, we serve no animal flesh of any kind."

"We're not only proud of that, we're smug about it."

[FormerDittoHead]

29. Think you missed the CONTEXT

Last week, in this forum, this issue of pharmacists and birth control came up.

What I wrote in my subject in the prior msg above was the 'logic' of someone defending the pharmacists, as forcing them to serve birth control against their religious beliefs, so the argument went, was the same as forcing vegan restaurants to serve meat... Use the search box to look for it if you want.

Anyway, I happened to extend the argument (against the pharmacists who didn't want to do their job) to say that if they didn't have it in inventory, in fact they would (should) be responsible for GETTING the doctor prescribed item. (that is, as one is legally required to buy prescriptions from a pharmacist)

At the time, I didn't see much support for the inventory requirement, but I'm gratified to see that the COURT agreed with my thinking.

...and for now, it's the LAW.

[Forkboy]

30. I was just quoting a Monty Python sketch.

and that's as deep as I was trying to get.

[FormerDittoHead]

48. Oh. I didn't (don't) know that one. Argument's down the hall. n/t

[Ignis]

34. self-delete

Not worth trying.

[Forkboy]

35. Sure it is.

My very best friend on the planet is a vegetarian, and I have total respect for those that choose that route. It's just a line from Monty Python that I find funny (along with my vegetarian friend).

[Ignis]

39. Yes, it is a funny Python quote.

I was going to be serious about how many on DU assume that every vegetarian lives to be smug, as if that's enough of a reason to make drastic dietary changes from the SAD.

But then, quoth I, "fuck it." :)

[Forkboy]

42. Nah, vegetarians have my respect.

I'm not one myself, but it's something that eats at me (no pun intended). I just have too many other things to correct in myself first. ;)

[Ignis]

44. Step 1: Stop clubbing baby seals before breakfast.

You really have to take these major life changes slowly. ;)

[Forkboy]

47. So THAT'S where I'm going wrong.

:rofl:

[Control-Z]

33. You've got to be joking.

Unbelievable.

[FormerDittoHead]

49. Yes. If you read the msg you'd see the CONTEXT.

*I* was joking but paraphrasing (without the "HA!") another DU poster, who made that argument in the GD forum about this subject very recently.

[Control-Z]

50. Oh. No. I understood your post completely.

I just find it unbelievable that anyone would actually attempt to argue for these religious zealot pharmacists. And with such a ridiculous analogy, no less. I would put the poster on ignore, or at least keep an eye out for him, if I knew who it was. (and I don't even have an ignore list, but he/she sounds like a good member to start one with.)

edit: fixed a typo

[FormerDittoHead]

53. Yes. We're on the same page.

Exactly. The other guy seemed to pride himself on his unshakable logic and refused to concede the point, however.

So much the better that this ruling vindicated my position, by people who obviously knew both the circumstances and the law, better than that other fellow.

[Kber]

40. Well, not serving beef doesn't discriminate against a protect class of citizens

Not providing a medication only used by women does.

And a steak joint can require it's Hindu employees serve beef as a condition of employment. To allow otherwise would "unreasonably" interfere with the business. It's been pretty well established.

But I feel like I'm asking for an Amen from the choir here. :)

[DissedByBush]

45. I think you outlined an important difference

If a pharmacy by policy doesn't want to sell something I can't see how it would be right to force them to sell it. I don't care what it is. Think of the government forcing a Wiccan bookstore to sell the hateful end of fundamental Christian literature. It's not right.

If a pharmacy employee wants to opt-out he shouldn't have the right to force his beliefs on his employer. Just with the Hindu serving steak he should have to sell the pills as part of his employment or get another job.

[Mariana]

54. Because we are required by the law

to get our prescription medicines from licensed pharmacists. There's no other legal source. Since we are REQUIRED to use their services, they should be REQUIRED to dispense any drug that has been properly prescribed.

If they want to give up their monopoly and let us buy our meds at the 7/11 and on Amazon.com, I'll reconsider.

[DissedByBush]

56. I'd understand that if there were only one pharmacy

I lost count of the number around here.

I'm required to eat out at licensed restaurants here too.

[liberalhistorian]

58. Obviously, you don't live in a rural area, as I do.

Around here, there's only one pharmacy within ninety miles. A lot of people around here would be mightily inconvenienced if that pharmacy decided to pull this nonsense. It's very easy to say "just go to another pharmacy", but it's not easy at all in rural, isolated areas.

[Mariana]

59. That's not a valid comparison.

Licensed restaurants are not your only legal source of food.

[DissedByBush]

61. Can I eat at an unlicensed restaurant?

Probably but it would be illegal for them to operate.

I can also buy food from a market. But that they are licensed too.

I can also buy from a different source of drugs -- a different pharmacy.

[Generic Other]

25. As it should be

Your religion stops at my medicine cabinet door thank you.

[Swede Atlanta]

26. Good news....

Freeperville must be in an uproar. How dare a court tell a pharmacist to do their jobs. This is persecution of the Christians plain and simple. This cannot stand or else the court will rule Christmas illegal.

[Horse with no Name]

28. But this will continue

Until there is teeth to this legislation that they will LOSE their license, livelihood, and be made financially responsible for ANY pregnancies that result from their refusal to dispense this medication, they will continue to deny women legal medication. They won't mind paying a pittance fine. In fact, they will probably find a way to write it off as some kind of tax deduction.

[Control-Z]

31. Or there will be organizations

set up for the sole purpose of funding the fines.

[Horse with no Name]

32. Yep. Legislation without substantive penalty in this case is useless. n/t

[flvegan]

36. So what's the penalty for not stocking and selling the Plan B pill?

Can a woman requesting the pill at a pharmacy call the cops if they refuse? Serious question.

[Kber]

37. Seems pretty grounded

Businesses generally have to respect the free exercise of religion unless it creates an undue burden on the company. For example, Burger King "could" require a Hindu to handle beef patties.

and

Generally a business can conduct their business in accordance with their religions beliefs (like not operating on Sundays, for example), unless their conduct discriminates against a specific protected class of citizens. So restaurants cannot refuse to serve African Americans or, say women.

So it seems like this is pretty grounded in established law.

[liberalhistorian]

38. I'm reminded of an old Onion headline story:

"Christian Science pharmacist refuses to fill any prescriptions."

[Control-Z]

52. That's a good one!

And new to me. I'm saving it. Will use it somewhere.

[redqueen]

41. Holy crap... all day long I've read this subject line as "CAN refuse"...

which wasn't really news to me, so I just passed over it.

I finally noticed... it says can't... oh happy day! :bounce:

[myrna minx]

46. Fantastic news! K&R n/t

[spanone]

51. who the fuck are these people? do they refuse to sell viagra?

or cancer drugs? or any other damned thing a doctor prescribes???

[defendandprotect]

57. We have to decide if Churches are going to run our pharmacies . . .

or if common sense and health needs will prevail -- ????

[Liberal_in_LA]

60. Ralphs?