On Trial: Pharmacist Refuses To Prescribe Plan B Due To 'Beliefs'

[turbinetree]

In what many consider the first case of its kind, a veteran Minnesota pharmacist went on trial Monday after allegedly refusing to dispense the morning-after pill to a woman due to his own personal beliefs on abortion and contraception.



By Aysha Qamar — August 4, 2022

In what many consider the first case of its kind, a veteran Minnesota pharmacist went on trial Monday after allegedly refusing to dispense the morning-after pill to a woman due to his own personal beliefs on abortion and contraception. According to NBC News, the woman, a mother of five, filed a civil lawsuit against the pharmacist for violating her civil rights by refusing to fill her prescription for emergency contraception.

The woman, identified as Andrea Anderson, is seeking unspecified damages. She wants an injunction requiring Badeaux and the pharmacy he works for to follow state law, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including on issues related to pregnancy and childbirth.

Campaign Action

The incident took place in 2019 when Anderson sought emergency contraceptive after a condom broke during sex. While Anderson “acted quickly” the pharmacist on duty, George Badeaux, refused to fill Anderson’s prescription, claiming it would violate his "beliefs,"
the complaint said.

Republished with permission from Daily Kos.

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/08/trial-pharmacist-refuses-prescribe-plan-b

[Sympthsical]

1. Needed context that should be highlighted.

According to the complaint, he not only refused to give Anderson her medication but warned her of trying to fill the prescription at other local pharmacies. Under state law, Badeaux is required to tell Anderson where else she could try but he refused to do so

That's why he's in trouble. Pharmacists are required to get someone else to fill a prescription or transfer it. He didn't. Her lawsuit isn't testing the conscience clause. Her lawsuit is seeking damages because he didn't follow the requirements of it.

He tried to shut down her access at other locations. That isn't allowed.

[turbinetree]

2. I have no sympathy for the guy and his company...and it comes to light that CVS did the same thing..

[Sympthsical]

5. More than CVS and Walgreens adhere to this

It's just that the internet decided to notice them.

Major (non-Catholic) hospital systems in states like California also follow these conscience protocols.

I think what we're seeing is that these pharmacists in these highlighted stories are getting highlighted because they're being loud and difficult and generally assholish about their ability to opt out.

In most places, you'd have no idea that they do this on the daily, because it's done in the background without the customer realizing.

[turbinetree]

6. Well if that is the case which I am very sure is happening as we speak, just like the article

being posted to make people aware......then maybe its time to bring these firms into the Congress for a hearing and to also take them before the FDA (The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to answer some questions....this is not a first amendment issue.....

[Sympthsical]

7. It's literally written into laws and regulations

It isn't a conspiratorial secret.

As I said, because of Dobbs, people are making it an issue now. Which, cool. But it's standard procedure.

The reason these cases get highlighted is precisely because they're out of the norm of how things are supposed to work.

[turbinetree]

8. Yepper spot on................

[localroger]

13. Problem is you give these assholes an inch, they will grab for a mile

It was a major mistake when Walgreens didn't just fire the first asshole who pulled this over birth control years ago. If their response was find a job your conscience permits you to do, final answer, it would have been made unambiguous and the whole issue would not be dragging on like this.

[Sympthsical]

14. It has to get past the courts

Religious conscience clauses have been repeatedly upheld as long as employers can work around them with "reasonable accommodation." We have something similar at the company I work for. In production, there may be handling of animal products. Vegans can opt out of handling those products. And it works, because a reasonable accommodation can be made to simply put that worker in another place along the production line.

The problem in this Minnesota case is that the pharmacist would not make a reasonable accommodation. In fact, he actively worked against it. Once you do that and a patient's care is compromised, you're in for some shit. That should be an instantly fireable offense.

He's rightfully getting sued, IMO.

[localroger]

17. True, but Walgreens just didn't want to be bothered

It's not cut and dried that this stupid policy would have been upheld. Being a pharmacist isn't like being a food product technician (I work in industry and I know those jobs). You work for years to become a pharmacist, and you know going in that your job will be to dispense whatever medications are prescribed by doctors -- not to second-guess doctors with your own judgements about medical efficacy or morality. You are fairly well paid for going to the trouble to get that training. It is not the only job you could down, as industrial jobs sometimes are. It would not be tolerated if people came in with prescriptions for high dosage Ibuprofen and you steered them to OTC tylenol instead because you personally prefer it. That would just be called what it is, not doing your job, and after too many incidents you would be fired. It was only tolerated because it's a politically charged issue and Walgreens didn't want the publicity of dealing with it, and other pharmacies followed their example.

[Sympthsical]

20. Pharmacists aren't dictating treatment

They're dictating their personal participation in treatment.

That is all.

And when they violate laws and regulations and compromise treatment, there are consequences. Which this chucklehead is about to find out if he hasn't already.

[Novara]

15. We knew it was just a matter of time before some sanctimonious asshole ...

... wouldn't be content with simply refusing to do it himself, but would actually try to force others to adhere to their worldview.

This is exactly why it's dangerous to coddle these motherfuckers. They aren't content to be assholes themselves. They feel they have the right to impose their garbage on everyone else.

This will go all the way to the SCOTUS. Even though ostensibly, this is not about any "conscience clause," it will end up showcasing religious bigotry and this fucking corrupt SCOTUS will allow it.

[Sympthsical]

16. Dobbs has emboldened assholery

There's no question about it.

Reasonable accommodation of religious belief is a well-worn legal field. Conscience clauses won't be struck down. They've been upheld by liberal and conservative courts alike.

At issue in the highlighted cases like this is when the pharmacist violates the terms of the reasonable accommodation. For example, with this case, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy would be well within their rights to pull this guy's license. I haven't looked it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if they at the very least slapped him with a sanction or suspension.

It's a tricky area, because at some point you do have to accommodate beliefs. For example, my partner has a list of pharmacists in his system who will deal with End of Life protocols. Why a list of those doctors who will do it? Because it's far, far shorter than a list of pharmacists who won't participate in it. Most pharmacists in the system just do not want the deliberate taking of a human life on their conscience.

Should anyone who wants to be a pharmacist be forced to give someone pills that they know will be used for suicide? I think most people would say no. So then you get into abortion. If someone believes that is the taking of a life, should they be forced to participate? So these conscience clauses, with their requirements to provide the patient access to care with someone else, are meant as a path around that.

But the patient does need to have their care accommodated either by transfer or another person at the location.

These assholes didn't do that.

[localroger]

18. I think that example only works

...because euthanasia wasn't legal until recently anywhere, and still isn't legal in most states, so anyone going into the field would not expect to be given such a prescription. If euthanasia was legal when you decided to become a pharmacist, went to the trouble to go to school to become a pharmacist, learned all those classes of drugs you would be expected to handle including, presumably, the ones used for the legal practice of euthanasia, then after you get out of school and get a job I would expect you to do the goddamned job you trained for.

[Sympthsical]

19. Well, that's not humans work

We have freedom of belief and freedom of conscience. The question becomes how much can a corporation or government dictate to someone that they have to violate it?

That's why reasonable accommodation exists. If someone can maintain their conscientious objection while the patient still maintains access to care, then I honestly don't care. It's not given me to dictate to others what they must believe or not - especially when it comes to issues of death.

I have no idea when life begins. No matter how much thought I've given it, my answer is always, "I don't know how to answer that." That's why I'm pro-choice. It is up to the woman to decide for herself what her conscience dictates.

But pharmacists and doctors are autonomous human beings, too, with the right of their conscience. They are not dispensing robots who are unaffected by the choices they make. To ask someone to end a life is a fairly big ask, IMO.

Maybe pharmacy robots are the answer.

[localroger]

21. While all of that is true...

...I don't think anybody would have a sense of humor about it if you took a management level job at a meat-packing plant and then started making delegating work related to the slaughter of animals. At some point you have to be held responsible for doing the job you were hired on to do, because there are other jobs out there if you don't like the one you're in.

[Novara]

23. Right. Not informing the patient was the issue.

But it was just a matter of time, because sanctimonious pricks like this think their worldview is the only worldview and everyone must adhere to it.

I still hold that if you can't do your job - for whatever reason - you need to find another one. Your conscience does not override and dictate someone else's life.

I am an atheist. I don't make everyone around me disavow their beliefs, because I don't get to dictate to others how they live their lives. And if my job required me to participate in anything religion-oriented, I'd sure as fuck find another job.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. If your beliefs interfere with your job, GET ANOTHER JOB!

Too many fakes, aka Kim Davises, in the country.

[turbinetree]

4. Yepper spot on................

[Chainfire]

9. His job is to dispense medications, not morality.

[Turbineguy]

10. If you don't want to sell certain medicine

don't chose being a pharmacist.

[gratuitous]

11. A civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit

Too bad, too. This country and its citizens needs a real course in civics and what we mean by a person's rights. If you don't want to use contraceptives because you think it makes baby Jesus cry, swell. Don't use contraceptives. But if you interfere with someone else's use of contraceptives, that's over the line, out of bounds, and unAmerican. Practice your religion as you see fit, but you have no business making others practice it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. Your abusing my 1A freedoms! That's treason!

Sorry, couldn't figure out where to sprinkle random apostrophes in that title.

The camel's nose is under the tent, now. It appears to me that the goal is to favor white evangelical protestant "conservative" religion in spite of the U.S. Constitution. These religious beliefs may then be transformed as needed to advantage the billionaires' boys club in the background.

[EnergizedLib]

22. Here we go

How in the world did we get here again?