Morning-After Pill: Illinois Judge Rules Pharmacists Can't Be Required To Sell Plan B

In 2005, then-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich introduced a rule requiring pharmacists to distribute the so-called "morning-after pill" to women who asked for it. Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, delivers a concentrated dose of hormones like those found in regular birth control, such that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can disrupt ovulation or fertilization, preventing pregnancy.

Someone seeking emergency contraception should have a right to obtain it, no matter what, Blagojevich insisted. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures. Just fill the prescription," he said, as the Chicago Sun-Times reported at the time.

But an Illinois judge ruled Tuesday that it can't be so cut-and-dried.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz sided with a pair of pharmacists who filed suit against the rule, claiming that it violated the state's "right-of-conscience" law, NBC Chicago writes. That law protects healthcare providers from being forced to give care that violates their belief.

When Blagojevich made his rule, he said that right-of-conscience only applied to physicians, not pharmacists. And circuit and appellate courts dismissed the lawsuit, as CBS reports, because the pharmacists hadn't been fired or suffered other consequences because of the rule.

The state Supreme Court, however, ruled that lower courts had to hear the case. And now, Judge Belz has sided with the plaintiffs, who argue that the pill is tantamount to abortion and violates their religious beliefs, says the Sun-Times.

Of course, this is a somewhat contentious claim. Plan B is distinct from RU-486, the abortion pill. In most if not all cases, Plan B acts by preventing ovulation, according to the FDA. In some cases, it interferes with fertilization of the egg. And studies from the 1970 and '80s suggested that there was some chance that the pill kept a newly-fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterine wall.

This last possibility provoked the outrage of hard-line anti-abortion activists, who believe that life begins at fertilization, and that the emergency contraceptive is therefore a very early form of abortion in those cases. But a slew of recent studies suggest that Plan B actually does not interfere with implantation.

The Illinois Attorney General's office says it plans to appeal the ruling.

Comments

[Fetus]

12:35 PM on 04/12/2011

If it were Plan B (Levonorgestril) it would be an anagram of Eva Longoria..

[newamericanliberal]

01:00 PM on 04/10/2011

Separation of church and state is our only chance at keeping our freedom.

NAL

[florestanchi]

04:38 PM on 04/08/2011

And here I was thinking being remunerated handsomely for counting pills and printing labels was a morally neutral enterprise...

These pharmacists cannot have it both ways. They deny the existence of a fiduciary responsibility to their customers in order to escape liability whenever the drugs they dispense are pulled off the market for safety reasons, and yet they assert a fiduciary responsibility to their customers whenever a drug is prescribed that they do not wish to dispense. Either fill the prescriptions as they're written, or go to medical school.

[Pollytiques]

11:28 AM on 04/08/2011

Is there NO END to the hypocrisy of the Republican party and their little soldiers? How many of us don't know that the morning after pill is the same as birth control pills? You KNOW those men that is controlling this BS does...just like they are going to shut down the government because some poor women get the pills through planned parenthood. Gimme a break. It's ALL smoke and mirrors. Someone might actually start raising some Cain about the real problems....like tax for the rich and the corporations..and the military budget.

[LiamS]

02:50 PM on 04/07/2011

This has sparked some interesting comments wherever I've seen it reported. I'm not a fan of it, but the arguments on both sides are good to wade through.

More than anything, I see this as a burden on employers, who have no recourse but to keep employees who refuse to do their jobs on moral grounds.

I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I'm sure it will end up back in court very soon.

[ElenaOfJersey]

11:41 AM on 04/07/2011

My, what a broad brush you paint with.

Not all Christians are anti-contraceptive. Not all Christians are Pro-Life, for that matter. Thanks for the ignorance, though!

[LawrenceL]

09:57 AM on 04/07/2011

Imagine receiving a prescription for a medication.

You take it to the pharmacy.

The person behind the counter whispers to the pharmacist, and they approach you a moment later, with a reproachful look on their face:

"We don't sell THIS. Why do you want THIS?"

A helluva disgraceful way for a commercial business with a possible monopoly (in small towns) to dispense medication, for a LEGAL medication.

Any pharmacy or pharmacist who has moral troubles about stocking or dispensing legal medications whould lose their license, period.

[American Air]

10:46 AM on 04/07/2011

So why do you call yourself a christian and support this cult?

[LawrenceL]

02:22 PM on 04/07/2011

But I don't call myself a Christian, and I don't support this (or any) cult.

As I've said before, I'm an atheist.

[newamericanliberal]

01:07 PM on 04/10/2011

F&F. Where does this end...I will bet that same pharmacist will yell bloody murder about impinging on his right to sell cigarettes or liquor. Maybe he will now not want to sell you condoms, or anything else he doesn't approve of, no matter the letter of the law. When church interferes in the economic public square and the govt, we are no better than fundamentalist extremists.

NAL

[GenXer]

07:50 AM on 04/07/2011

This Is not about what the provider wants, but the patient. How would you like a doctor to withhold a blood transfusion because he is a Jahova witness.

[Kevin Zielke]

07:03 AM on 04/07/2011

If I work at McDonalds and a person comes in and asks for a cheeseburger should I be able to deny them that product because I am against people eating cheeseburgers? No, it is my job as an employee to sell the products that the store I work at carries to the customer that asks for them and can pay for it.
And I don't understand how anything involving religious belief of the pharmacist is involved here. They aren't the ones who get to decided a woman's life for her. And wasn't that right-of-conscious law for the patients so the doctors wouldn't be able to force a procedure on them that they were against? I wasn't aware that it also lets pharmacists judge your life and force their values on you.

[American Air]

10:46 AM on 04/07/2011

As a Hindu I feel you should not serve beef!

:)

[newamericanliberal]

01:08 PM on 04/10/2011

Then most likely the Hindu would not work at MacDonalds, but if he did, he would do his job I bet.

NAL

[ElenaOfJersey]

11:43 AM on 04/07/2011

And honestly, McDonald's cheeseburgers should really weight heavier on the conscience than contraceptives ever would. They might be delicious, but they're just waiting to give you the ol' 1-2 punch.

[Peace Walker]

06:25 AM on 04/07/2011

It is time to overturn any "right of conscious" in the workforce. It is just another euphemism for discrimination. A pharmacist cannot choose what to dispense or not no more than a taxi driver should be allowed to decide who not to drive. The choice is simple, if you do not want to perform abortions, do not become a gynecologist; if you object to certain medications, do not become a pharmacist; if you do not want to drive women, do not become a taxi driver. Demand RIGHT OF SERVICE!!!!!

[newamericanliberal]

01:09 PM on 04/10/2011

separation of church and state = freedom.

NAL

[Joanne22]

02:34 AM on 04/07/2011

If the religious zealots are going to continue with this nonsense, major pharmacy chains like CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Rite Aid, etc are going to have to step up and have their pharmacists pledge that they will fill any prescriptions presented to them. I guarantee the first pharmacy chain that advertises their pharmacists will "honor your doctor's prescription" is going to get all the business. Whether it's birth control, Viagra, whatever. No one wants a lecture or even a funny look. And certainly no one wants to be denied health care.

[johnb123]

02:29 AM on 04/07/2011

Plan B is NOT a prescripti­on medication. They DON'T have to carry it.

[thatgirl22]

07:48 AM on 04/07/2011

At the time of the suit was filed, an RX was needed. It's only been available to women over 18 w/out an RX since 2006.

[Jayson Burke]

01:17 AM on 04/12/2011

I just checked the Plan B website. It is available to anyone age 17 and up w/o a prescription. Under 17 you need a prescription from your doctor. It's confusing b/c 18 is age for most things, but this you can get w/o a prescription at age 17. Here's the link: http://www.planbonestep.com/where-to-get-plan-b.aspx

[ElenaOfJersey]

11:44 AM on 04/07/2011

Plan B is a prescription medication for women under 18 in most states.

[Jayson Burke]

02:18 AM on 04/07/2011

If this court ruling stands, it means pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription not based on science, but based on any kind of made-up "belief" they want. In other words, they are free to discrimate at will. Are female pharmacists not going to fill Cialis prescriptions now? What about pharmacists who practice Scientology? Guess they won't be giving anti-depressants to anyone.

[newamericanliberal]

01:10 PM on 04/10/2011

F&F. Well said. Beliefs cannot intrude into govt and the market place. Separation of Church and State = Freedom.

NAL

[beden7068]

01:23 AM on 04/07/2011

Has anyone actually read they law which they said it violates?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapterID=58

[Th3 5p3ctr3]

01:39 AM on 04/07/2011

Yes I have. And I should point out that this particular line seems incredibly relevant, considering that Plan B is, in effect, an emergency medication:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care. "

[Th3 5p3ctr3]

01:41 AM on 04/07/2011

Another very important point: Judging by the wording of this particular law, it was designed to protect PATIENTS from being coerced into receiving medical care that violates their religious beliefs, or for anyone associated with that person to force them to accept such aid. The clauses including the 'delivery' of such health care services are quite obviously a poorly thrown together afterthought.

[Fran Jaime]

01:19 AM on 04/07/2011

If this is justification, then I imagine that a pharmacist who is a scientologist won't have to dispense psychiatric meds, right?

[Th3 5p3ctr3]

01:46 AM on 04/07/2011

The problem with the law is it is ridiculously nebulously worded and unconstitutional at best.

Basically, the way it is written, you could go through medical school, get a job with a hospital making 200k a year, and do absolutely nothing. All you'd have to do is claim that providing medical assistance is against your religion. Suddenly you have a paycheck, with no actual work required.

That's why I completely discard it when making my arguments. Unconstitutional laws are not worth following and are useless to support a position, since a they tend to be overthrown relatively quickly. Now that this has made headlines, I expect some appeals, case escalations and an eventual reversal.