Court: Druggists must dispense Plan B pill

[ensho]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/07/court-druggists-must-dispense-plan-b-pill.html


A federal appeals court has ruled that pharmacists must dispense the Plan B "morning after" pill, even if they are religiously opposed to the contraceptive.

Yesterday a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction that had blocked 2007 regulations requiring Washington state pharmacies to stock and dispense the pill. The judges said the rules do not violate First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

-snip-

The Los Angeles Times writes that the case "could affect policy across the western U.S."
-------------

good news

[WillParkinson]

1. Excellent...

If you want to follow your conscience then you need to do it in a job that does not impact the lives of others in such a way that you refuse to help them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Its quite a bit more subtle than that

The ruling overturns a lower court ruling that the state rules were illegal. Its been returned for reconsideration and a rehearing. What was overturned was the basis for the original judgment. That matter is not out of the court system at this time.

There are two aspects to this case...must dispense and must carry. The state board is pushing a must carry rule as well as must dispense. I do not expect that to stand. The implications in other areas are seriously long reaching. I expect shall dispense rule will be allowed to stand.

[Warpy]

3. If the exercise of their religion puts half the population in danger

I'd say that's adequate notice that they need to find a different line of work.

Honestly, I don't think there's a single set of personal boundaries out there on the religious fringe.

If they had personal boundaries, they'd know the only control they have over "sin" is their own self control and that other people are completely beyond their control and should be.

There are no people I need rescuing from more than the people who want to "rescue" me.

[LiberalFighter]

4. They need to have their license pulled and fined big time.

[Warpy]

5. I agree. Refusing to fill a legal prescription violates the state

pharmacy practice act unless the patient has an allergy to or contraindication to that medication, in which case the pharmy needs to contact the doctor for an alternative.

Refusing to fill a prescription for any other reason is adequate reason to pull a license. The pharmy is not a physician and he doesn't really know why any medication is being prescribed since so many, including BC pills, are used for off label conditions.

I encourage anyone who runs into one of these pious goons to take the name and note the place, date and time and put in a formal complaint with the state pharmacy board.

These sanctimonious assholes have got to be taken out of positions where they are able to hurt people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Its more than refusal to dispense, it reads like the state is pushing "shall carry"

Shall dispense is a no brainer, shall carry is a slippery slope

[Warpy]

7. Allowing them not to carry this puts women at risk

"Oh, she can always get a surgical abortion, but I want to keep my own hands clean," sounds like an inferior moral defense for anything.

After all, this is something that protects a woman's health, finances, social support and LIFE. Forcing any drug store worthy of the name is the no brainer. Women need to know that when they approach a DRUG STORE, that store stocks what they need in the way of DRUGS.

The problem with slippery slope ideas is that they so very rarely occur in reality. "Give em an inch and they'll take a mile" is silly when the inch is all they're asking for and all they really need.

I don't see anybody proposing that drug stores stock anything but women's health items. They haven't had a problem stocking Viagra, you know.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Its a very scary precedent when the state can direct merchants on what to carry

and not reimburse for costs etc. Could it not then require that doctors offer certain procedure etc, lawyers take certain kinds of cases etc.

I have no problem with them not allowing them to be part of state supported pharmacy plans (financial pressure vice direction) etc.

[Warpy]

9. They already do to some extent

If a pharmacy wants to be licensed, it already has to carry certain things. This is just the first OTC medication to be lumped in with those.

It's not as huge a deal as you think it is. Really.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Where can I find out what the requriements are?

[REP]

12. If they carry BC pills, carrying EC is no added burden; no 'slippery slope'

Except to those, perhaps, who are overly concerned about what those damned immoral uppity women are doing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. While I think not carrying them is dumb, the principle of such mandates is troubling

I don't expect it survive the next round in the lower court. There were some better articles on this than the LAT. The decision was narrow and its still in play.

[Just Saying]

11. There are also pharmacists that refuse to dispense even birth control pills.

It is a slipery slope in that these NOT doctors shouldn't be deciding for a woman what she should or should not do in her life nor should they be allowed to sit in judgement. Perhaps they should consider another line of work if they can't perform their job which isn't preaching or telling women how to live, but dispensing perscribed medications.

What's next? Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in drug transfusions - would you let a surgeon who didn't believe in them operate on you?

At the very least, religious zealot pharmacists should have to post their policy so that women who believe that as free adults we have the right to make our own decisions about reproduction can avoid their store. I wouldn't want to spend a penny to keep such places open.

Hmmmm...I wonder if they dispense viagra???