Posted on 04/14/2005 2:31:43 PM PDT by Daisy4
ACLJ Files Lawsuit Against Illinois Governor Charging Order Requiring Pharmacists to Dispense Medication that Violates Religious Beliefs is Unenforceable http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1475 April 13, 2005
(Springfield, IL) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today filed a lawsuit in state court in Illinois on behalf of two pharmacists challenging Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s emergency amendment to the state code requiring pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs. The ACLJ lawsuit charges that the Governor’s order is unenforceable and urges the court to declare it null and void because it violates state law including the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
“This directive is not only legally flawed but it puts pharmacists in the untenable position of having to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs and violating a law that could cost them their jobs,” said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the two pharmacists. “There are protections in place to prevent employees from being punished because of their religious beliefs. The Governor’s directive is out of step with state law and we are urging the court to issue an injunction that would block the enforcement of this directive and ultimately declare the Governor’s action null and void.”
The ACLJ today filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Springfield, Illinois on behalf of Peggy Pace and John Menges, two registered pharmacists who will not dispense the morning-after pill and/or “Plan B” medication because of their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. Both Pace and Menges believe the drugs are abortion producing medications. Pace is a staff pharmacist at a retail chain in Glen Carbon and Menges works as a staff pharmacist at a retail chain in Collinsville.
The lawsuit contends that the Governor’s emergency amendment is unenforceable because it violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which makes it unlawful for any public official to discriminate or punish any person who refuses to “participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.”
The suit also charges the emergency amendment violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit requests the court grant an injunction preventing the measure from being enforced and asks the court to declare the directive unenforceable and null and void.
“The religious beliefs of those in the health care industry must be protected,” said Manion. “The pro-life pharmacist who chooses not to dispense abortion producing drugs should not face punishment and discrimination for abiding by those convictions.”
The ACLJ, which specializes in pro-life litigation, is defending a national law protecting health care workers from discrimination. The measure, which is being challenged in the federal courts, bars federal funds from going to federal or state programs that discriminate against health care professionals who do not participate in abortion services. The ACLJ represents members of Congress – including Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the sponsors of the measure.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
Chicago Tribune - Illinois Birth Control Law Challenged: Pharmacists Seeking Right
I don't see how they have a case. If the requirements of the job offend your religious beliefs then don't take the job. If someone works in a bookstore they can't choose to not sell certain kinds of books.
I believe the order forces those who own/operate/manage private pharmacies and chains to sell Birth control as well. That's the argument. To counter your statement, Why does there need to be a law, if the employee refuses the owner can fire them.
The only problem with your statement is that these pharmacists took their jobs with the understanding that they were protected - BY LAW - from having to dispense such things. Only now does Blagojecivh want to try and overrule/overturn that law.
In the absence of that original understanding, the blame would fall on the pharmacist(s) who refuse; in this case, as far as they were concerned, the law permitted this. Now it's the Illinois Dems trying to say "yeah, we know what you agreed to (and understood) when you took the job, but now we're changing the rules so either violate your deeply held religious beliefs or get another job.
I wouldn't sell a child pornography book from a bookstore, regardless of whether or not someone determined it was legal.
should be 'a right not to sell something'
To avoid duplication, please do not change the title of a published article.
In the case where the title is lengthy, please use the beginning words in the original published title and as much of the original title as will fit. Thanks.
I think one problem is that the law also applies to pharmacists who own the pharmacy. And if you own the bookstore, you certainly have the right to decide what books to sell.
The flaw in your argument is in comparing the owner of the bookstore to the State, and as of yet, the State does not have ownership of the pharmacies.
Please review Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints before posting any news article, whether posted as a thread or as a post within a thread.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I took this from aclj.org. Does that make a difference?
"Manion argued that forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions they believe violate their religious principles not only places those pharmacists in a moral dilemma but also violates the so-called conscience clause that allows those in the medical field to avoid performing procedures, most notably abortion, that they find reprehensible"
Restrictions still apply when items from restricted sources are published on other sites.
I think the law is broader than that and apples across the board to all pharmacists/pharmacies. Again, though why does the state need to be involved if individual managers and owners can decide to fire people who refuse to sell products in their store?
I don't see how they have a case. If the requirements of the job offend your religious beliefs then don't take the job. If someone works in a bookstore they can't choose to not sell certain kinds of books.
Thank God there are decent people fighting the totalitarian democrat party and its Culture of Death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.