Plan B Ruling: State Can't Force Pharmacists To Dispense 'Morning-After' Pill

A central Illinois judge has ruled that the state can't force two pharmacists with religious objections to abortion to dispense emergency contraception.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz issued a temporary restraining order Friday until he can hear arguments against the rule from druggists who object on religious grounds.

The pill reduces the chance of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sex. The pharmacists believe it's tantamount to abortion.

Belz is the same judge who sided with the state and dismissed the lawsuit filed in 2005 by Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, who own five northern Illinois pharmacies between them.

The restraining order applies only to VanderBleek's and Kosirog's pharmacies. But Francis Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the pharmacists, doubts the state would enforce the rule elsewhere before the case is decided.

Manion expects a hearing Belz's court in June.

Louis Pukelis, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which enforces the rule, had no comment on the order other than to say the state "will, of course, comply with all its provisions."

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in December that the pharmacists' case must be heard. The court decided then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who issued a rule in 2005 ordering pharmacies to dispense the so-called "morning-after" pill, had made statements indicating there would be no exceptions.

"You cannot enact a law that targets people because of their religious objection," Manion said Monday.

The lawsuit focuses on a state law that prohibits forcing health care decisions over religious objections. The plaintiffs argue constitutional rights as well, such as the free exercise of religion.

Comments

[LadyJ]

I am a licensed Sales Agent in Real Estate and the IDFPR also oversees our business practices. There is an endless amount of exams, fees and rules to follow to maintain a professional license in Illinois. I cannot believe that a person who is LICENSED IN ILLINOIS can keep their license when NOT doing the job they are licensed to do. If the drug is legal then they must dispense this to the customer...the end. I can't believe there would be ANY question about this, it's completely absurd!!!!

[Yurdelite]

This is not right. When Muslims did not want to drive people with alcohol, they were told they need to find other jobs and oh the outcry, the outrage. If you cannot do the job because of religious beliefs, then get another one where your belief do not intrude upon others you are supposed to serve. On to the SCOTUS and they had better not let THEIR religious beliefs affect the whole country either. Conservatives are trying to change everybody's lives because of their beliefs. BACK OFF. If it is good enough for the Muslims, then it is good enough for the Christians, period.

[howcome]

actually a private Muslim or any other owned livery service can same as the pharmacist...

[mjb5406]

... and the Muslim who owned a Westchester, IL Dunkin' Donuts lost his franchise because he refused to serve pork-based breakfast products on religious grounds. Laws seem to be applied unequally, as usual.

[redraspberry]

Sounds like the pharmacists needs to find a line of work more suited to their ideals.......

[Bobrobert]

roflmao

They want to help little babies not kill them... good for them.

[Eric8869]

Its not a baby yet. Hence your stupidity.

[mjb5406]

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. If someone in ANY line of work is uncomfortable with performing some aspect of that job, GET A NEW CAREER! It's like a person with a job on the waitstaff at a restaurant who hates interacting with people... get a new job!

I wonder if these same pharmacists sell condoms at their pharmacies... if so, do they object to them, too, or is it just this so-called abortion issue? And what about the judge? Do his religious views preclude him from making an unbiased decision?

[OYea]

What's next? A physician who's a Jehovah's Witness legally denying a blood transfusion? How about a Scientologist refusing to fill scripts for psychotropics? Should parents then be legally permitted to deny their children certain healthcare based on THEIR religious beliefs? Does Judge Belz really want to open Pandora's Box?

Abortion is legal. If the pharmacists don't want to provide a drug that provides a legal service to women... let them find another profession. If I was a Muslim... I wouldn't take a job in a sausage factory. If I was an Adventist... I wouldn't take a job in a coffee shop. If someone isn't willing to fulfill their job description... they need to find a new line of work!

And lemme guess... the pharmacists have NO problem filling scripts for Viagra... that health insurance is even willing to cover... while women still pay out-of-pocket for contraception... right?!!!

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/contraceptive%20coverage%20facts%20should%20know%20feb%202009.pdf

Keep it up... contraceptives for women are treading on very thin ice!

http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Decision_FDA_2009_NY_1.pdf

[Eric8869]

How man unwanted children is that pharmacist required to adopt then?

These religious Whack jobs get on my nerves. Then don't become a pharmacist then. Idiots.

[MizLiz]

Found a good website about Plan B and where to get it. At least in Washington state....maybe it will work in any state. you just enter your zip code and a map pops up.

http://www.go2planb.com/index.aspx?page=5&zip=98684

[PDBudd]

Hey, thanks for the go2planb.com site. It works! What a way to by-pass the courts and the pharmacists who want to abstain.

[VOTER]

Kudos!

Great website and a Keeper.

[MizLiz]

Damn these religious freaks anyhow. What's a woman to do who's been raped? A teenage girl who got talked into sex before she was ready? Pregnancy as a punishment for "sin"? These people ought to be fired. They're not serving the public, they're indulging themselves.

[Sparhawk]

Uh...go to another Pharmacist? There are others that will dispense the abortion pill. Try to see past your h.a.t.e

[Eric8869]

The only hate I see is from religious people who force others to suffer - like pregnant girls, people with Parkisons disease, gay teenagers etc. Talk about hate.

[PlayTOE]

Will the grocery store clerk also get to refuse to ring up your sausages and bacon because it is against their religion?

Stupidity abounds.
Go get a job that is not against your religion. Don't force your religion on others.

[petphotos]

You nailed it!

"Go get a job that is not against your religion. Don't force your religion on others."

[Eric8869]

You are correct!

[mjb5406]

Great analogy... or, going a step further (and more ridiculous), a policeman refusing to stop a robbery at a butcher shop because he is Muslim or Jewish and they slaughter pork products there. Yes, it's crazy.

[easarsfield]

are these same pharmacists only going to dispense viagra and the likes to people that have wedding bands on ??? I'm guessing not.

I am tired with religious hypocrisy, if you don't want to be put in the position, find a new line of work!

[DawnK]

This is BS!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't want to dispense drugs and if religion trumps science in your mind than get a job at a church, not in medicine!!!!

[goddesscon2001]

I am so disgusted with this decision...
How can a pharmacists out rank a doctor?
The doctor gives a patient a prescription..since when did any law allow a pharmacists to over ride a physician?
Do these pharmacists have more knowledge then the doctors?
Your religious beliefs should NEVER interfere with your job..just like family problems should be left at the door when you punch in at work..you are there to do a job..end of story..

[lortosky]

well said!

[oregonbird]

Mr. Stewart? Do you have a comment on this decision? Please?

[Hereslookingatu]

This is simply outrageous. There are several different ways to examine this scenario, and none easily lend themselves to any sort of victory for the pharmacists. In no case akin to this dispute should the interests of one or two trump the needs of the many. After all, we live in democratic society where minority concerns are heard and considered but majority interests, for good reason, tend to reign supreme. At some point, everyone deals with some disappointment, but we absolutely must hold in higher regard the collective needs of the many, based on a theory of justice that accommodates the greatest number of people. We do not all feel a moral repulsion to this medicine--based on a limited reading of a limited interpretation of a religion that fails to resonate with each of us--therefore, there is no compelling reason to deny anyone a treatment.

Look, I find the skinning and butchering of animals to be morally outrageous, so I'm not a furrier or cattle rancher. My rights do not extend so far that I may rightfully prohibit my neighbor from donning or consuming products I find in violation of my ethical or moral foundation. I may voice my dissent, but I must recognize that, in itself, is my freedom, and nothing else.

[BrianShields25]

Very well said, good analogy.