Court: Druggists May Deny Emergency Pill

[elehhhhna]

Court: Druggists May Deny Emergency Pill
CURT WOODWARD Associated Press Writer

(AP) - SEATTLE-A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.

In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/11-09-2007/80950015c5b07ca4.html

[zabet]

1. I am surprised

that big pharma did not stop this law. Unless, less
outlets for distribution means they can drive the price
up.

[LeftCoast]

2. That is a BS ruling. Either this needs to be overturned or new legislation written

You can't have pharmacists deciding willy-nilly which medications they will hand out. If it is legal to prescribe, then it's their job to dispense it.

[Quantess]

7. Agreed. There are other jobs out there.

Either do the job, or find another line of work.

Pharmacists get to be in a position of power over an individual, saying no, you can't have this prescription? I don't think so!

[MindPilot]

3. How long before the vegan checker at Krogers gets fired

for refusing to ring up that porterhouse?

I don't think he would be excising his rights; he would be refusing to perform his assigned duties.

[Eric J in MN]

10. Or an Orthodox Jewish man could work in the meat section of a government cafeteria...

...and when someone asks for a hamburger, tell them that it's not kosher and he won't serve it but they can go someplace else.

He'd be fired.

[lolly]

4. Require them to post a HUGE sign

OK, then, any pharmacy that does NOT dispense the morning-after pill should be required to post a sign visible from the street announcing that fact.

Women should not have to face the humiliation of being told by some sanctimonious jerk that they have to go somewhere else to get their medication. They should be saved the time and trouble of parking and schlepping into the store.

Oh, and if people like me, who are beyond needing this anymore, decide not to shop in places with these signs, well, that's the breaks.

[Deep13]

5. What a bunch of fucking idiots.

Now women will suffer and be denied lawful, safe and effective medication because of a moronic deference to freedom of religion, someone else's religion in this case.

[dragonlady]

6. The reason why who nominates federal judges and justices is so important

The judge was nominated in 2002 by you-know-who. We all need to remember cases like this when we are tempted not to vote for a Democrat because our favored candidate didn't win the nomination.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020123-21.html

And the pharmacist can not only embarrass the patient by refusing to fill the prescription. Sometimes they confiscate the paper it's written on! Then the patient would have to get another, and since time is of the essence in this case, it may turn out to be too late to be effective. That's fine with the pharmacist.

[NMMNG]

8. Ugh!

I'm sick of these RRRW asshats trying to run other people's lives in the name of their religion. If they can't perform the job duties they should get another job, period.

[Eric J in MN]

9. "another nearby source" - could be another religious pharmacist on duty there

If the first religious pharmacist says, "Go to the store across town" another religous pharmacist may be working there.

Referring to another store isn't a solution.

If the judge said that if someone else in the same store is there to handle the transaction, then the first pharmacist doesn't have to, that I would accept.

[MindPilot]

11. I'm not a lawyer, but it is an interesting legal argument

Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for the pharmacists and drug store owner, said, "We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional."

First it puts the anti-abortion/pro-life position without a doubt in the arena of religious free exercise/establishment. Which means that the government should have no say either way. However complicating that is the fact that a pharmacist is a profession licensed by the state and federal governments and subject to terms and conditions which certainly include not second-guessing the doctor's orders. Therefore a person who refuses to dispense a prescription based on a personal religious belief is not only violating the terms of their license to practice their profession, and by so doing jeopardizing a patient's health or recovery, they are actually using government power to force their religious practices on to someone else. So what we have here is a clear violation the Establishment clause, not a case of prevention of free exercises.

I think it could only be construed as interfering with free exercise if the person was required by the government to work as a pharmacist and not allowed to quit the job.

[lolly]

12. Just a suggestion

My own feeling is that all women of childbearing age should have a dose of Plan B on hand. Since it's now non-prescription--but has to be handed to you by a pharmacist :eyes:--get one from a friendly pharmacist now or get one online from drugstore.com or someplace and keep it safe and available so you don't have to go through the humiliation of asking a pharmacist for permission to get one.