Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:21 PM

maddezmom (130,846 posts)

Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments earlier this month in a lawsuit that claimed state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, Wash., and two licensed Washington pharmacists sued in 2007, saying that dispensing Plan B would infringe on their religious beliefs because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, an act they equate with taking human life.

The state argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and that they promote a government interest — the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Judge-says-Wash-can-t-make-pharmacies-sell-Plan-B-3349010.php#ixzz1n9ivsH5H

89 replies, 7436 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

89 replies	Author	Time	Post
Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B (Original post)	maddezmom	Feb 2012	OP
Another blow to woman's rights and health safety.	Justice wanted	Feb 2012	#1
by a bush appointee, big surprise	niyad	Feb 2012	#2
Like the Bush appointee that ruled agaionst DOMA? n/t	24601	Feb 2012	#13
so, one decent decision out of how many despicable ones? sorry, I am not impressed with their	niyad	Feb 2012	#26
Can they require pharmacies to prominently post whether or not they sell Plan B?	tanyev	Feb 2012	#3
That ws my first thought.	xxqqqzme	Feb 2012	#4
The problem, of course, is that many women don't have a lot of flexibility in purchasing decisions.	yardwork	Feb 2012	#7
You are correct.	MsPithy	Feb 2012	#10
It sounds like fertile women should have a supply always on hand, just in case. n/t	pnwmom	Feb 2012	#18
just in case of rape? really?	RainDog	Feb 2012	#28
Wow. You never heard of a condom breaking?	pnwmom	Feb 2012	#35
Just in case of any reason she might think it is warranted	Marrah_G	Feb 2012	#60
I think Plan B is used for something other than rape in the majority of cases. n/t	pnwmom	Feb 2012	#79
I don't know if that is possible, but if so, would be a very good idea.	yardwork	Feb 2012	#75
You're right -- the most vulnerable are the least likely to plan this in advance.	pnwmom	Feb 2012	#80
I think they have more options here than you are giving them credit for	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#34
If I'm the Catholic Church	jayschool	Feb 2012	#55
What an asshole. /nt	yardwork	Feb 2012	#5
Pharmacists aren't licensed medical doctors.	BadgerKid	Feb 2012	#6
When did "religious freedom" become the right to impose your beliefs on others?	NC_Nurse	Feb 2012	#8
NC NURSE NAILS IT	Skittles	Feb 2012	#38
Exactly. This is the argument that needs to be made! N/T	potone	Feb 2012	#40
That's what it's been about for at least 150 years	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#46
I predict the 9th will overrule him.	Deep13	Feb 2012	#9
Is there any single product or item that statute can require a business to sell?	BOHICA12	Feb 2012	#11
So you are ok with a pharmacist that happens to be a JW	left is right	Feb 2012	#12
Yes for pharmacist - she/he is a merchant	BOHICA12	Feb 2012	#16
Do you even know of any JW who are pharmacists because I dont.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#17
And a scientologist refusing to sell anything psychoactive? /nt	TheMadMonk	Feb 2012	#20
a pharmacist is not the same thing as a tire dealer.	niyad	Feb 2012	#25
People's lives don't depend on tires?	BOHICA12	Feb 2012	#27
really nice try, but tires and drugs are not the same thing. but you go right ahead and frame this	niyad	Feb 2012	#30
The correct term is pharmacy (the business), not pharmacist (the person)	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#33
No. Pharmacies are not allowed to decide which state regulations to follow	RainDog	Feb 2012	#45
And they should. They also can challenge regulations that are inappropriate	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#56
the provision states "when there is a community need"	RainDog	Feb 2012	#59
So the plaintiff was a brand new pharmacy?	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#61
the issue is supplying medicines based upon the community	RainDog	Feb 2012	#78
so, pharmacies should not be regulated?	RainDog	Feb 2012	#29
As i'm learning more about society i see pharmacies as part of the commons	alp227	Feb 2012	#31
Until they become government entities, I agree with the court's decision	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#32
this is why we need single payer health care...	alp227	Feb 2012	#36
Single payer would not address this issue, single provider would	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#43
Auto makers are required by statute to manufacture and sell replacement parts...	Hassin Bin Sober	Feb 2012	#42
Try to buy a car without seat belts, air bags, high mounted third brake light	Thor_MN	Feb 2012	#51
That is a product requirement, not one leveled on the dealer or reseller	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#82
This message was self-deleted by its author	old man 76	Feb 2012	#14
sickened	eyeofnewt	Feb 2012	#15
At least there should be a sign on the door stating this. This way	Dawson Leery	Feb 2012	#19
I was thinking there should be some way for customers to tell the difference	csziggy	Feb 2012	#37
I like it	SemperEadem	Feb 2012	#50
The judge was half right	saras	Feb 2012	#21
That makes sense. After all, corporations are people...	Rhiannon12866	Feb 2012	#22
Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team)	sdghjtyjty	Feb 2012	#23
WTF	Skittles	Feb 2012	#24
This decision is blatently political and will be overturned. This notion that Pharmacists have the	Monk06	Feb 2012	#39
This decision is not about refusing to dispense, it is about private businesses choosing whether or	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#41
libertarian clap-trap. Legislatures can and do regulate business and what they sell..	Hassin Bin Sober	Feb 2012	#44
The trouble is, plan B is a specific product	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#47
How is it incorrect as a commerce issue	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#57
The licenses are based on percentage of reciepts based on food sold versus liquor sold....	Hassin Bin Sober	Feb 2012	#72
Pharmacists, however must be state licensed. So, the state should be able to	sinkingfeeling	Feb 2012	#64
Medical professionals should now be allowed to deny any service based on their religious beliefs.	Incitatus	Feb 2012	#48
They already can refuse to do certain procedures and its legal for them to do so.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#49
I completely agree with this ruling.	NaturalHigh	Feb 2012	#52
Then they would be violating the exact same regulation.	ieoeja	Feb 2012	#66
Pharmacies are already allowed to refuse to stock certain products bsed on facts.	Hassin Bin Sober	Feb 2012	#70
Refusing to stock a product is not imposing religious beliefs.	NaturalHigh	Feb 2012	#76
"I won't sell this to you because I am a Christian" IS imposing religious beliefs. And about beer	uppityperson	Feb 2012	#83
I guess that gives women pharmacists the right to not dispense boehner pills.	dkofos	Feb 2012	#53
Works for me.	NaturalHigh	Feb 2012	#54
Actually it give pharmacies the right not to stock them	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#58
Here with go again with the same damn judge	suffragette	Feb 2012	#62
State's true goal was to suppress religious objection?	caseymoz	Feb 2012	#63
Question for those who disagree with the ruling: Should pharmacies be required to sell homeopathics?	slackmaster	Feb 2012	#65
I assume the state has a medical board of some sort that makes those determinations.	ieoeja	Feb 2012	#68
Homeopathics in general are considered by the FDA to be diet supplements	slackmaster	Feb 2012	#74
Pharmacy's rights?	SpankMe	Feb 2012	#67
If you're going to sell medicine, you should not be allowed to discriminate based on religion	Hugabear	Feb 2012	#69
And what if there is just the one pharmacy nearby?	IndyJones	Feb 2012	#73
The problem is that not every pharmacy can carry everything and	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#81
Read my post again	Hugabear	Feb 2012	#85
So if Plan B or other drug used exclusively by women is not carried for something other than	ProgressiveProfessor	Feb 2012	#87
That is, in fact, how the law is written.	Hassin Bin Sober	Feb 2012	#88
Seriously, someone help me to understand this "religious" thing.	IndyJones	Feb 2012	#71
Plan B has not been found to be a Contragestive.	AtheistCrusader	Feb 2012	#77
Abortion has been proven to be safer for the mother than pregnancy and giving birth.	truthisfreedom	Feb 2012	#84
There is a business opportunity in Fed-Exing Plan B to women living in the more 3rd world states.	diane in sf	Feb 2012	#86
Sue them for child support	HockeyMom	Feb 2012	#89

Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:23 PM

Justice wanted (2,657 posts)

Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B

1. Another blow to woman's rights and health safety.

2. by a bush appointee, big surprise

13. Like the Bush appointee that ruled agaionst DOMA? n/t

26. so, one decent decision out of how many despicable ones? sorry, I am not impressed with their

3. Can they require pharmacies to prominently post whether or not they sell Plan B?

4. That ws my first thought.

7. The problem, of course, is that many women don't have a lot of flexibility in purchasing decisions.

10. You are correct.

18. It sounds like fertile women should have a supply always on hand, just in case. n/t

28. just in case of rape? really?

35. Wow. You never heard of a condom breaking?

60. Just in case of any reason she might think it is warranted

79. I think Plan B is used for something other than rape in the majority of cases. n/t

75. I don't know if that is possible, but if so, would be a very good idea.

80. You're right -- the most vulnerable are the least likely to plan this in advance.

34. I think they have more options here than you are giving them credit for

55. If I'm the Catholic Church

5. What an asshole. /nt

6. Pharmacists aren't licensed medical doctors.

8. When did "religious freedom" become the right to impose your beliefs on others?

38. NC NURSE NAILS IT

40. Exactly. This is the argument that needs to be made! N/T

46. That's what it's been about for at least 150 years

9. I predict the 9th will overrule him.

11. Is there any single product or item that statute can require a business to sell?

12. So you are ok with a pharmacist that happens to be a JW

16. Yes for pharmacist - she/he is a merchant

17. Do you even know of any JW who are pharmacists because I dont.

20. And a scientologist refusing to sell anything psychoactive? /nt

25. a pharmacist is not the same thing as a tire dealer.

27. People's lives don't depend on tires?

30. really nice try, but tires and drugs are not the same thing. but you go right ahead and frame this

33. The correct term is pharmacy (the business), not pharmacist (the person)

45. No. Pharmacies are not allowed to decide which state regulations to follow

56. And they should. They also can challenge regulations that are inappropriate

59. the provision states "when there is a community need"

61. So the plaintiff was a brand new pharmacy?

78. the issue is supplying medicines based upon the community

29. so, pharmacies should not be regulated?

31. As i'm learning more about society i see pharmacies as part of the commons

32. Until they become government entities, I agree with the court's decision

36. this is why we need single payer health care...

43. Single payer would not address this issue, single provider would

42. Auto makers are required by statute to manufacture and sell replacement parts...

51. Try to buy a car without seat belts, air bags, high mounted third brake light

82. That is a product requirement, not one leveled on the dealer or reseller

15. sickened

19. At least there should be a sign on the door stating this. This way

37. I was thinking there should be some way for customers to tell the difference

50. I like it

21. The judge was half right

22. That makes sense. After all, corporations are people...

24. WTF

39. This decision is blatently political and will be overturned. This notion that Pharmacists have the

41. This decision is not about refusing to dispense, it is about private businesses choosing whether or

44. libertarian clap-trap. Legislatures can and do regulate business and what they sell..

47. The trouble is, plan B is a specific product

57. How is it incorrect as a commerce issue

72. The licenses are based on percentage of reciepts based on food sold versus liquor sold....

64. Pharmacists, however must be state licensed. So, the state should be able to

48. Medical professionals should now be allowed to deny any service based on their religious beliefs.

49. They already can refuse to do certain procedures and its legal for them to do so.

52. I completely agree with this ruling.

66. Then they would be violating the exact same regulation.

70. Pharmacies are already allowed to refuse to stock certain products bsed on facts.

76. Refusing to stock a product is not imposing religious beliefs.

83. "I won't sell this to you because I am a Christian" IS imposing religious beliefs. And about beer

53. I guess that gives women pharmacists the right to not dispense boehner pills.

54. Works for me.

58. Actually it give pharmacies the right not to stock them

62. Here with go again with the same damn judge

63. State's true goal was to suppress religious objection?

65. Question for those who disagree with the ruling: Should pharmacies be required to sell homeopathics?

68. I assume the state has a medical board of some sort that makes those determinations.

74. Homeopathics in general are considered by the FDA to be diet supplements

67. Pharmacy's rights?

69. If you're going to sell medicine, you should not be allowed to discriminate based on religion

73. And what if there is just the one pharmacy nearby?

81. The problem is that not every pharmacy can carry everything and