Illinois court backs pharmacists on morning-after pill

[rug]

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted Sep 23, 2012 @ 07:01 AM

CHICAGO — An Illinois appeals court has ruled in favor of two pharmacists who objected to having to provide emergency contraception on religious grounds, setting a precedent their lawyer hopes will protect others from judicial or state sanctions.

In a seven-year legal campaign, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog set out to shield their pharmacies from a 2005 executive order issued by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring all pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the so-called morning-after pill.

In a lawsuit, they argued that they were protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which says health professionals cannot be punished if they refuse to offer a service because of their conscientious convictions. A circuit court originally dismissed their claim, but the state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a court must hear it.
Friday’s ruling affirmed an injunction granted by a lower court that found that state law “protects the pharmacists’ decisions not to dispense emergency contraceptives due to their conscience.”

The ruling by the 4th District Appellate Court applies only to the two pharmacists, the Chicago Tribune reported Saturday. But their lawyer, Francis Manion, said it sets an important precedent.

http://www.rrstar.com/updates/x1217099510/Illinois-court-backs-pharmacists-on-morning-after-pill

The decision:

https://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/4thDistrict/4110398.pdf

[2pooped2pop]

1. Drug stores should be forced to identify themselves

as a "selective pharmacy". So you will know in advance that you don't want to go there and be embarrassed being denied your script.

[rug]

2. That's not a bad idea.

[rexcat]

3. It should be posted at the front of the store...

that way people can decide if they want to do any business with them. I am sure some will and some won't.

[cbayer]

4. I think that's a great idea. It may cause some to boycott them in general, which

is not a bad plan, imo.

[Downwinder]

5. Require a disclaimer on all ads.

[Igel]

7. More than once I've gone to a pharmacy and been told "no."

On occasion they were out of the med.

On occasion they said they simply didn't carry it.

I was vaguely irritated. Never felt embarrassed, however.

Once, for my wife, went to a half dozen pharmacies looking for a certain drug before I wised up and used the phone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. All pharmacies are selective pharmacies by your definition

since not a one carries everything. I had a Walgreens tell me that they did not carry some of the drugs I need regularly. By putting my scripts with them, they started having some on hand.

[Freddie]

6. Isn't Plan B OTC now?

Or technically, behind the counter (like "real" Sudafed) but non-prescription to patients 18 and over. Can a pharmacist refuse to sell you something--does not involve filling a prescription--if the store has it in stock? Of course a pharmacy can refuse to stock it but that's not up to the pharmacist unless he owns the store.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. IIRC, it also required the pharmacy to carry it as well

As illustrated up thread, not all pharmacies carry all drugs, which I understand. Also brought up boycotting, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I have no problem if the pharmacy does not carry Plan B. As a business owner, they can choose to carry whatever merchandise they wish. However, I am free to boycott that merchant for any reason I wish, and tell every one I know about it and why. The pharmacy business is very competitive. The ones doing stupid things can easily be culled by the public.