BREAKING: Federal court: forcing pharmacists to distribute abortifacient drugs ‘unconstitutional’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catherine_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catherine_S

Guest
TACOMA, WASHINGTON, February 22, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a decision that could impact the unfolding debate over the HHS mandate, today a federal court in Washington state upheld the First Amendment rights of pharmacists to refuse to distribute potentially abortifacient contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B and Ella, if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The decision overturns Washington Board of Pharmacy rules approved in 2007 by pro-abortion governor Christine Gregoire, which lacked the exemption. *
Two courts have now held that this type of coercion violates the very core of the Constitution,” said Dr. Yoest. “This highlights just how radical* the Obama administration is in its unprecedented attempt to** force religious institutions** and** all Americans to fund life-ending drugs**.”

lifesitenews.com/news/federal-court-forcing-pharmacists-to-distribute-abortion-pill-unconstitutio?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b09d810e9f-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_02_22_2012&utm_medium=email
 
Amen!

Just becuse we’ve started going down the wrong road doesn’t mean we can’t turn around and go back to the right one. 😃

–Jen
 
revert_jen said:
Amen!

Just becuse we’ve started going down the wrong road doesn’t mean we can’t turn around and go back to the right one. 😃

–Jen
Click to expand...
Amen to that! 👍

And bravo to the court for standing up for the Constitution! 👍 👍
 
Catherine_S said:
TACOMA, WASHINGTON, February 22, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a decision that could impact the unfolding debate over the HHS mandate, today a federal court in Washington state upheld the First Amendment rights of pharmacists to refuse to distribute potentially abortifacient contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B and Ella, if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The decision overturns Washington Board of Pharmacy rules approved in 2007 by pro-abortion governor Christine Gregoire, which lacked the exemption.
Two courts have now held that this type of coercion violates the very core of the Constitution,” said Dr. Yoest. “This highlights just how radical** the Obama administration is in its unprecedented attempt to** force religious institutions** and** all Americans to fund life-ending drugs**.”

lifesitenews.com/news/federal-court-forcing-pharmacists-to-distribute-abortion-pill-unconstitutio?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b09d810e9f-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_02_22_2012&utm_medium=email
Click to expand...
Washington state is in the 9th Circuit. I’m holding back as the 9th Cir. is the most liberal federal circuit court in the U.S. Court of Appeals. This will wind up in the 9th Cir. If they overturn it, as I think they will, the answer will be if the USSC takes up the case and reverses the 9th, as it’s sure to get to the 9th Circuit.

However, as the article suggests – the attack on the HHS mandate is coming from many fronts and that is a good thing. This decision also “stays” the forcing of pharmacists to act against their conscience – for now. This will get a lot of attention.
 
Victory for conscience rights.

Obama admin: learn from this result.
 
We need to be cautious here. The ruling was very specific: “The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable…They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

If the state removes the “all sorts of secular reasons” for refusal then the law becomes Constitutional. It did not rule that there’s a 1st Amendment right to refuse to distribute but rather that if secular refusals are allowed than religious ones must be too.

What’s at stake in these cases is not directly *our *1st Amendment right but rather the “general applicability” of the law/regulation in question.

And this judge and the appeals courts seem to be at odds. The judge first blocked the state’s dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.
 
revert_jen said:
Amen!

Just becuse we’ve started going down the wrong road doesn’t mean we can’t turn around and go back to the right one. 😃

–Jen
Click to expand...
The battle will not be over until it* is** over so** everyone has to stay solid!!** *
No slacking off!!
 
i think this is more about pharmacies than pharmacists. im pretty sure you can still be fired for refusing to sell something your employer has in stock.
 
hazmat said:
i think this is more about pharmacies than pharmacists. im pretty sure you can still be fired for refusing to sell something your employer has in stock.
Click to expand...
The way the Washington law was written, individual pharmacists had a right of conscience but the pharmacy did not. One of the key arguments for the judge is that the cost of employing an additional employee, simply to cover for the conscientious objecting employee, would effectively make the objecting employee a financial burden. This might lower the employment opportunities of a conscientious objector and thus effectively deprive him of religious freedom.
Judge Ronald B. Leighton's court opinion:
Pharmacies without the need or ability to have two pharmacists on duty at all times cannot employ a pharmacist with a religious objection to dispensing Plan B without risking a violation of the delivery rule, if a patient with a valid Plan B prescription seeks to have it filled at that pharmacy. Nor does the fact that the rules obligate the pharmacy (and not the pharmacist) to timely deliver lawfully prescribed medications permit a pharmacist operating his own pharmacy to comply with the delivery rule without violating his conscience. Because a pharmacy must fill a prescription for Plan B, if it employs a pharmacist who objects, it must staff a second pharmacist simply to ensure that the pharmacy can comply. In effect, the conscientious objector costs the pharmacy twice what a single, non-conscientious objector does. For pharmacies that need only one pharmacist per shift, such a cost is unreasonable, and the pharmacy’s only real option is to fire the conscientious objector. The delivery rule thus renders the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection illusory.
Click to expand...
becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf
 
Leegal said:
Washington state is in the 9th Circuit. I’m holding back as the 9th Cir. is the most liberal federal circuit court in the U.S. Court of Appeals. This will wind up in the 9th Cir. If they overturn it, as I think they will, the answer will be if the USSC takes up the case and reverses the 9th, as it’s sure to get to the 9th Circuit.

However, as the article suggests – the attack on the HHS mandate is coming from many fronts and that is a good thing. This decision also “stays” the forcing of pharmacists to act against their conscience – for now. This will get a lot of attention.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, for the moment, we have a nice win for the good guys. I’ll take it. If nothing else, it will force the issue. If we win on our HHS lawsuits, win on the current obamacare fight on the personal mandate, and win on this combined with the recent supreme court win we will have had a very good run.
 
Leegal said:
Washington state is in the 9th Circuit. I’m holding back as the 9th Cir. is the most liberal federal circuit court in the U.S. Court of Appeals. This will wind up in the 9th Cir. If they overturn it, as I think they will, the answer will be if the USSC takes up the case and reverses the 9th, as it’s sure to get to the 9th Circuit. .
Click to expand...
If the 9th circuit court reverses the judge then the Supreme Court might have to take up the case since the reversal would seem to be at odds with FOP Newark v. City of Newark.
 
As a pharmacist I see that there are menaces of the freedom of conscience in both sides of the Atlantic.
 
Does anyone have a link to the Court’s opinion? I would like to read it before jumping to conclusions about it.
 
This is truly, wonderful news. Thank God! We must continue to keep this in our prayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top