Conscience protection for pharmacists now the law in Illinois:
An Illinois judge has ruled in favor of two pro-life pharmacists who don’t want to dispense the so-called “morning-after pill,” or Plan B, on religious grounds.
On Tuesday, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz struck down a 6-year-old state law that required Illinois pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception.
“We’re thrilled,” Mark Rienzi, a Catholic University law professor and one of the pharmacy owners lawyers, said after the ruling.
“The law of Illinois and the law of the United States make it clear that people can enter the health care profession without having to check their conscience or religion at the door,” he said.
(Via: Stan Guthrie)
April 8th, 2011 | 10:15 am
As a resident of Sangamon County, I say a hearty Hallelujah!
April 8th, 2011 | 11:14 am
Be careful what you wish for.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html
April 8th, 2011 | 11:45 am
Ray: The question really is what are the minimum standards for a given profession. It’s clearly not the case that ALL pharmacies have to carry ALL medications, is it? So then we ask if there is some minimal set of medications that ALL pharmacies MUST dispense, and if that set includes Plan B. It seems clear that there is nothing like a uniform societal consensus about that.
I don’t think this is really analogous to your links. The first case seems absurd–arguing that because Muslims don’t believe in drinking alcohol, they shouldn’t study how to treat alcoholism? That’d be like Christians saying they shouldn’t treat anyone unmarried who has an STD. It’s ridiculous. For the second, it seems pretty reasonable to argue that certain hygiene requirements are necessary for medical professionals. I don’t think that Muslims can object to that. If they object to publicly washing their arms, then surely that can be worked around pretty easily. Neither of these cases seem to involve forcing actions that are morally objectionable.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
Ray: The question really is what are the minimum standards for a given profession.
It’s really a larger question than just that.
The “medical” profession is increasingly expanding into non-medical procedures which are being classified as medical.
Killing a fetus is not a “medical” procedure. It does not restore anyone’s good health – not unless you classify pregnancy as a disease, and the fetus as not only not human, but as a parasite, an invader, a growth or tumor.
(Which a lot of people on the left want to do.)
As medicine becomes more about blurring the lines between things that are about healing and things that are not about healing, the right to conscience is going to become ever more important.
April 8th, 2011 | 3:10 pm
That’d be like Christians saying they shouldn’t treat anyone unmarried who has an STD. It’s ridiculous.
Brian,
It is my understanding that the Bush regulations, which Obama rescinded, could have been interpreted to protect the right of Christians (or anyone) who claimed a right of conscience not to treat someone for this (or any) reason.
If you check out the Church Amendment (one of the four pieces of legislation the Bush regulations “codified”), it is very broadly worded. Take this section:
——–
(d) Individual rights respecting certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions
No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.
———-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000300—a007-.html
I am not a lawyer, but one of the lawyers writing on Mirror of Justice claimed that while civil rights legislation protecting conscience rights required only “reasonable accommodation” in the case of conscientious objection, statutes such as the Church Amendment gave absolute rights.
I know this is very sketchy, but my point is that “conservatives” pressing for conscience regulations are not pushing for what is “reasonable.” They want—or so it seems to me—an absolute right for anybody to refuse to participate in anything that they claim violates their conscience. And they want the kind of protection that could result in it being “discrimination” to refuse to hire someone who refused to do what they were hired to do.
April 8th, 2011 | 3:20 pm
The problem that I have with this is not about the freedom to practice religion or hold religious views in a workplace, but about the product itself.
Plan B does not kill babies! This has been proven time and time again, by the company itself and by third-party researchers. If a woman IS pregnant and takes Plan B, she does not abort, lose the baby or even suffer any negative side effects. It is simply for people that are worried about unprotected sex, and I don’t think any person should be able to limit a woman’s access to this product. This in itself is incredibly unjust – are you also against masturbation, or women having their periods? Because both of these things have the same effect as taking Plan B.
I repeat: a woman who is pregnant will not be affected by Plan B. So what is your opposition to it?
April 8th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
David: I 100% agree that the requirement should be “reasonable accommodation.” If your objection prevents you from doing the basic part of your job, you can’t expect to be accommodated. So you can’t work at Planned Parenthood if you refuse to participate in abortions, since that’s what they do. But you should be able to work at a hospital or a pharmacy, unless your job somehow specifically requires it (which I am pretty sure never happens).
I should also say that you may want to broaden your focus away from big, bad conservatives being some sort of ultimate boogeyman here. I know someone in the medical profession who refuses to do pretty fundamental job requirements, for moral reasons that most of us would find a bit flimsy. You know who protects her from being fired? The SEIU, that’s who. (I wonder if they would do so if abortion were the issue–I bet not.) So sometimes there’s other things going on…
April 8th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
Ashley,
A woman who is clinically pregnant (i.e., who has an embryo that has implanted) will not have her pregnancy affected by Plan B. It is theoretically possible (but has not been proven) that a woman who takes Plan B, which fails in its primary function (to prevent ovulation) may conceive, and Plan B’s secondary action will prevent the embryo from implanting. Pro-lifers consider this an abortion, since for them, pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation.
However, as I said, there is no proof Plan B (or the pill) actually does prevent implantation.
April 8th, 2011 | 5:52 pm
It is my understanding that the Bush regulations, which Obama rescinded, could have been interpreted to protect the right of Christians (or anyone) who claimed a right of conscience not to treat someone for this (or any) reason.
We need to ditch our current view of “civil rights” in favor of one that is capable of recognizing that all rights are not equal.
The right to life is fundamental.
The right to conscience is a real right, but the right to life is more fundamental, and should be prioritized.
No physician should have the right to withhold treatment that would cost someone their life. The right to conscience and the right to life are not equal.
But the right to conscience is more fundamental, and should be prioritized over, the right to purchase or receive products or services that are not lifesaving.
April 9th, 2011 | 1:52 pm
David,
Plan B doesn’t have to “fail” to suppress ovulation; it merely has to be taken after ovulation has occurred, in order for ovulation to have occurred. Since Plan B is a post-coital form of birth control, “suppressing ovulation” is not really within its intended function anyway.
There is every reason to believe that hormonal agent which functions by making the female body inhospitable to a newly developing embryo would result in the destruction of an embryo that came into existence before the agent was taken. It may not be “proven,” but it’s simply the logical outcome of the way the thing is designed.
April 10th, 2011 | 2:22 am
This ruling will certainly be appealed to a higher court.
April 10th, 2011 | 3:13 am
pentamom,
I agree that if Plan B is taken after ovulation, it makes little sense to say that it “fails to prevent ovulation.” However, I disagree with this: “There is every reason to believe that hormonal agent which functions by making the female body inhospitable to a newly developing embryo would result in the destruction of an embryo that came into existence before the agent was taken.”
William Saletan in Slate reproduces this quote in an article on Plan B:
There is a reasonable, but not conclusive, evidence that Plan B works only by preventing ovulation, or if ovulation has occurred, by preventing fertilization.
April 10th, 2011 | 9:33 pm
Not disputing, but does this mean that Plan B is ineffective if fertilization has already occurred? I wouldn’t think it would be so popular in that case.
April 10th, 2011 | 9:44 pm
I think that all the major pharmacies should stop hiring pharmacists and start hiring Plan B dispensers with Pharmacy degrees instead.
Alternatively, we can have Christian Scientist ‘surgeons’ sit and do nothing in operating rooms.
But at any rate, there should be notices placed in pharmacies that have anti-doctor pharmacists that state the following:
“This pharmacy has been required to employ a pharmacist that seeks to subsitute his/her religious doctrine for your doctor’s guidance. We are unfortunately bound to keep employing him/her against our wishes”
And of course, those of you who demand this ridiculous burden on Pharmacy owners and Doctors all oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
April 11th, 2011 | 7:31 am
And of course, those of you who demand this ridiculous burden on Pharmacy owners and Doctors all oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
But there are many people who would choose to go to a business that values ethics.
Remember: nobody ever breaks just one.
April 11th, 2011 | 12:14 pm
“This pharmacy has been required to employ a pharmacist that seeks to subsitute his/her religious doctrine for your doctor’s guidance. We are unfortunately bound to keep employing him/her against our wishes”
Or else, the ones who insist upon hiring “degreed Plan B dispensers” could post this:
“This pharmacy has chosen to hire only pharmacists who will disregard their professional training and responsibility for their patients’ health upon being presented with a Plan B prescription, and pretend they are trained monkeys who respond to prescription stimuli with pill-dispensing behaviors.”
April 11th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
Pregnancy is not a disease.
April 11th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
David: I 100% agree that the requirement should be “reasonable accommodation.” If your objection prevents you from doing the basic part of your job, you can’t expect to be accommodated. So you can’t work at Planned Parenthood if you refuse to participate in abortions, since that’s what they do.
Pregnancy is not a disease.
April 11th, 2011 | 2:23 pm
This ruling is meaningless. The Illinois Supreme Court will undoubtedly reverse it.
April 11th, 2011 | 7:23 pm
I think Blake is trying to tell us that pregnancy is not a disease, which of course it isn’t, but I think we would all agree that pregnant women should see their doctors and should get good prenatal care. Also, more than 99% of babies in the United States are born in hospitals. So pregnancy is not a disease, but it is quite appropriately treated as a medical matter.
April 12th, 2011 | 6:13 am
If you join the medical profession because you want to heal people, then refusing to heal people might be a breach, but refusing to harm is not.
The left is obviously using a deception-based strategy in labeling things as “medicine” that are in fact not medical in nature. Abortion is one example.
Healing involves the curing of disease.
Things that mutilate the body’s natural functions for reasons that are not about healing disease are not the same in kind, and it is not honest to pretend otherwise.
Birth control is no more “medicine” than a tattoo is.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact