Illinois Pharmacists Fight The Morning-After Pill
9 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 19th, 2008 // 8:46 am
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled a circuit court must consider a lawsuit brought by two pharmacists who claim they should not be required to dispense emergency contraception because it violates their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. At issue is the argument that the pharmacists are being forced to choose between livelihood and conscience.
Three years ago, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued a rule prohibiting pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraception, sometimes called the morning-after pill, which is sold as Plan B by Barr Pharmaceuticals. The pill reduces the chance of pregnancy if taken within three days after sex. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization and interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg, which some people consider the equivalent of abortion.
“I cannot follow my religion’s teachings and continue to be involved” in emergency contraception, pharmacist Luke Vander Bleek, 45, a Catholic and one of the plaintiffs, who runs pharmacies in three Illinois towns, tells the AP. He says his stores don’t stock or dispense emergency contraception. He and the others argue they are protected by state laws that prohibit forcing health care decisions over moral objections and insulating citizens from religious interference.
Here is the opinion and this is a summary of the case.
Justice Robert Thomas, writing for the majority, said nothing about the constitutionality of the Illinois rule or whether it violates those state laws. But the opinion said Blagojevich’s public statements that pharmacists with moral objections “should find another profession” could be seen as a signal the state would allow no exceptions to the rule. That left the plaintiffs with no recourse but the courts.
Justice Charles Freeman dissented, joined by Justice Anne Burke. He wrote that it was inappropriate for the court to rely on the governor’s public statements about the rule. Freeman wrote that only three enforcement actions, all against large chain pharmacies, have been undertaken by the state, showing the rule isn’t aimed at small business owners like the plaintiffs.
Supporters of the rule, including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, said they believe it will withstand the pharmacists’ legal challenges in the lower court. “The rule is working,” Pam Sutherland of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, tells the AP. Before the rule took effect, the organization received several calls a month from women who said they had been denied birth control at pharmacies; the rule has ended those complaints, according to Sutherland.
In 2006, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults, but only by pharmacies that checked photo ID before selling the pills. Girls 17 and younger still require a prescription.
Mark Rienzi, a lawyer representing the pharmacists, praised the decision. “This says to all health care workers in Illinois, ‘You do have recourse. You can go to court to seek protection,’” he tells the AP. The rule required pharmacists to risk losing their licenses “simply because they have religious beliefs that don’t fit with Gov. Blagojevich’s moral code.”
The Illinois rule led to several other lawsuits, including one in federal court that was settled by a compromise in which objecting pharmacists wouldn’t have to participate in filling the prescription, the AP reminds us. In such cases, a pharmacy employee would contact a pharmacist at another location, then follow his or her directions for dispensing the morning-after pill.
harpy
And so it begins…
pharmavet
They should just go work in a Catholic hospital. Then they won’t have a conflict of interest. Pharmacists are just like support personnel in a hospital or MD office. Filling an Rx from an MD is no different than a nurse carrying out the orders the MD writes on a chart. Theyb are to be carried out unless the MD has made a mistake or that patient safety is compromised.
JimK
Interesting case, although this is a State Court Action, the Court relied heavily on First Amendment Protections granted by the Constitution and cited lower federal court decisions as the basis for their decision and although the decision was to remand the case back to the lower court based upon the language of the Illinois Supreme Court decision it would appear that the entire regulation would have to be rewritten to incorporate the items that the Court states are lacking. So while the Court did not grant a Declaratory Judgement in favor of the Plaintiffs the language of the Court’s decision does not give the lower Court or the State much leeway in deciding the outcome. I am sure that the regulation will probably be revised to incorporate the specific religious exemption language proposed by the Illinois Supreme Court, which may have the unintended consequences of individual pharmacists who work for large chain stores also seeking a variance from participating in Plan B.
While I understand the rationale behind the Court’s Decision I don’t agree with it; pharmacies and pharmacists are licensed by the State and should be required to dispense whatever medication is legally prescribed.
I realize there is somewhat of a contradiction here in that doctors are licensed by the State and cannot be required to perform an abortion but there is a difference here in that the pharmacists are selling a legally prescribed product; it should not be up to them to decide what prescriptions they will honor.
It is not like deciding what magazines you will carry in your store or whether or not you will sell liquor or beer; the pharmacist’s license was granted for the specific purpose of dispensing legally prescibed drugs.
former marketing exec
This will be quite interesting indeed. Let’s see, I think there are some Buddhists Pharmacists,there certainly must be some Muslim Pharmacists, I know there are some Jewish Pharmacists, and of course there are pharmacists covering all the various Christian sects. But what does this say about the United States of America? What happens to the basic idea of separation of church and state?
Doctors do not have to perform abortions and if you need an abortion, you will simply not go to the doctor who doesn’t offer it as part of their practice. Likewise, it would be prudent for pharmacists who do not feel comfortable in filling morning after pills to have their colleagues fill the order instead. I wonder if these same pharmacists do not fill the scripts for patients taking anti-viral drugs for HIV/AIDS?
In my opinion this issue is a slippery slope. If the catholic pharmacists get their way, the door is open wide for everyone else with different beliefs to plead religious conflict.
Something from John F. Kennedy (whose Daughter Caroline would make an excellent President): September 12, 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”
If you choose to serve the public outside of your religious institution, then you must realize that you must be able to cater to the needs of the public, which will certainly be different from your own beliefs and needs.
I hope not too much money is wasted on this issue…
Salmon
It’s a difficult issue.
In some states pharmacies have to offer all pharmaceutical services. However that is clearly not enforced otherwise so many community pharmacies wouldn’t send people to someone else when they need something compounded. Also most pharmacies don’t counsel even when required. Typically they just ask the patient to sign that they don’t want counseling without even asking. Personally when I refused to sign (hoping they would ask) they told me it was an insurance requirement otherwise they wouldn’t get paid. Hah! And this from a major chain.
So my question is do we get into selective enforcement?
JimK
To Former
I agree with you 100%, the only reason I mentioned the fact that doctors are licensed by the State and are not legally required to perform an abortion, even if it is in the scope of their practice, was because I thought that someone reading my post would point to this “apparent contradiction.”
I personally believe this is more a States Rights Issue and an Issue of Separation of Church and State, then it is a Free Exercise of Religion case.
umd student
The galling thing about a pharmacist refusing to provide Plan B is the urgent nature of the need; pregnancy can only be prevented if prompt action is taken. By their actions such pharmacists risk causing distressed women to resort to abortion if fertilization and implantation are successful.
Imagine an ER nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness and refuses to help with blood transfusions for critically injured patients. Would not the hospital be responsible for replacing such a nurse with someone effective in emergency situations?
We may disagree over whether health care is a right generally or in all cases, but we tend to agree that that life-saving care should be provided in emergencies. The Illinois rule seems consistent with this stance, as it has likely prevented abortions.
Virgo
interesting case it is though but one shouldn’t say because of religious factor,let the whole of the country girls go around with unwanted pregnancy,if there is no such drugs lot of them will go into taking alcohols to flush it outsome may even go to the extent of visiting quack doctors,so i will go for the establishment of control pills cuz it reduce the number of unwanted pgrenancy
Christine
If this is truly about a matter of beliefs, what about the woman’s beliefs? What if she believes that she can’t support another child or go through a pregnancy, and for whatever reason, also believes that her contraceptive may have failed? Why do the pharmacist’s beliefs come first?