Walgreen Disciplines 4 Pharmacists (Religious Rights Alert!)

CBS ^ | November 30, 2005

[NYer]

(AP) Walgreen Co., the nation's largest drugstore chain by revenue, said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

A rule imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the pharmacists, on Tuesday called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said they would consider legal action if Walgreen doesn't reconsider.

At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were filed by Americans United for Life, the Chicago public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated.

The licenses of both a pharmacy and that store's chief pharmacist could be revoked if they don't comply with the Illinois rule, Bruce said.

Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law.

For example, she said, the company would be willing to help them get licensed in Missouri and they could work for Walgreen there.

Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed, except where state law prohibits, but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.

Bruce said Wednesday the four pharmacists were the first Walgreen had disciplined under the state's rule. Walgreen has 488 stores in Illinois, out of about 5,000 nationwide, with generally three to five pharmacists employed at each one.

It was not clear whether other large pharmacy chains had taken similar action.

Jean Coutu Group Inc., which owns more than 1,900 Eckerd and Brooks stores, requires its pharmacists to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, spokeswoman Helene Bisson said. But she wouldn't say if Jean Coutu has taken action similar to Walgreen.

CVS Corp., the nation's largest retail pharmacy as measured by number of stores, did not immediately return calls.

[wideawake]

I always cringe at all the "we need a law" conservatives.

No one is saying "we need a law" - they are complaining about the governor's dictatorial imposition of a rule on private business.

We are saying get rid of an unjust law.

[realist4ever]

Do the demands of religious freedom for pharmacists include every religion, e.g. Christian Science, or only Catholicism and Christian Fundamentalism?

[two134711]

While I commend these guys for sticking to their principles, I wonder if they refuse to dispense birth control pills as well? Birth control pills can act in the same way the morning after pill does: if fertilization does occur, the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall. In fact, that's what morning after pills are: high dose birth control pills.

[wideawake]

Unfortunately, the law does not agree with us on that issue.

Lex mala, lex nulla.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Why don't you support the right of private companies to make their own policies on the matter?"

I do. Go read every post of mine on this thread.

[Tirian]

The fact that an unborn child is a human being is not a religious matter, but a fact of biology.

A private company has no right to enjoin its employees to commit murder. That is not a just condition of unemployment.

Exactly right! The larger issue here is the state law compelling pharmacists -- and their employers -- to be complicit in this. And "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg, as I remember.

[pettifogger]

I hope the pharmacists DO sue, since it will be an interesting and important debate. Regardless of the notion of "employment at will," which is the law in all 50 US states, there are a number of exceptions to this rule which posits that an employer or and employee can end the employment relationship at any time for any reason. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, provides that employers may not discriminate on the basis of religion (as well as race, national origin, sex, etc). In addition to the prohibition on discrimination, Title VII provides an AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION for employers to "accommodate" the religious beliefs and practices of their employees, so long as such accommodation does not consitute an "undue harship" on the employer. (Whine and bitch all you want about employer's rights and such, this law is on the books and until it is repealed [unlikely], employers who fail to follow it can be sued in federal civil court by the individuals or the EEOC).

Anyway, what this means is this: when Muslims want to pray during the workday, or a Jewish person wants to wear a yarmulke instead of their Burger King hat, or when Muslim police officers insist on wearing beards in violation of the uniform standards, their employers must either accommodate these religious practices, or be able to prove that to accommodate the religious practice would be an undue hardship on the employer's business.

It seems to me that these pharmacists have a case, namely: "You are requiring me to dispense a drug which violates my deeply held religious belief in the sanctity of life. I ask that an accommodation be made in order that I not be required to violate my religious beliefs and practices in order to keep this job. What accommodation, you ask? Oh, I don't know. Maybe find another Walgreens pharmacist to fill it?"

Walgreens will then try to make the case that any accommodation would be an undue hardship on the conduct of their business. Something along the lines of, "What you are forcing us to do is to have TWO pharmacists on duty when only one is really needed. This costs us lots of money and is inefficient and thereforce constitutes an undue hardship on our business."

And, a jury would decide who is right.

[wideawake]

Is it not a pharmacists job to fill and dispense prescriptions given to their customers by their doctors?

If a doctor wants to kill a customer and and gives a prescription that requires the pharmacist to dispense a large dose of potassium cyanide, the pharmacist has a professional responsibility not to help murder them.

Do you want argue the contrary?

I'll note parenthetically that "job description" and "professional responsibility" are not synonyms.

[JohnnyZ]

"Why don't you support the right of private companies to make their own policies on the matter?" I do.

At no point on this thread do you ever oppose the governor's "emergency rule" that took away Walgreens right to make their own policy.

Why do you support, or refuse to oppose, the pro-abortion mandates of the governor?

[mhking]

And you support that, and think everyone should go along or go quietly, move their family to another state and not make a fuss?

If any employer creates a policy that goes against an individuals moral or ideological standards, then that individual needs to find an employer whose standards do not go against said ideology.

[pettifogger]

As an addendum -- any legal case will pit the state law (requiring the dispensing of abortion drugs) and federal law (requiring the accommodation of religious practices) against each other.

The bottom, bottom line? Lots of lawyers will make a lot of money.

[BritExPatInFla]

Change the damn law!! It's like saying a nurse MUST participate in an abortion to keep her job.
---

Mo, it's not. Unless she goes to work for a doctor who performs abortions. These pharmacists are working for a company that is selling a legal drug, wheter or not they agree with it's use. If they don't want to fill these lawful prescriptions, then maybe they can band together and open a drugstore that bases what it sells on scripture, rather than what drugs are legal to prescribe. Heck, if nothing else, I'm sure there are plenty of Mom and Pop drugstores that refuse to sell the pills. Why didn't these pharmacists simply ask another pharmacist to help the customer, or offer to direct them to another pharmacy? Did they really think that they were going to stop them from getting the pills prescribed?

[MeanWestTexan]

1 Peter 2

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

[JohnnyZ]

If any employer creates a policy

The employer didn't create such a policy, the state did, overriding the employer's right to create their own policy.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Why do you support, or refuse to oppose, the pro-abortion mandates of the governor?"

I don't support it, and of course I oppose it.

You are insane. Don't post to me any more.

[sinkspur]

As a matter of principle IL's governor, in a unprincipled fashion reminiscent of a dictator, has imposed a rule upon a private business and the private business is caving in to the despotism rather than defending its employees basic rights.

Because business will always take the path of least resistance, relative to the harm that might come to the business.

Walgreen's apparently doesn't perceive that there are economies in challenging the ruling, since they're able to accommodate four pharmacists.

If 40 pharmacists were at issue, their response might be different.

[JohnnyZ]

I don't support it, and of course I oppose it.

Gee, sorry I didn't divine that, somehow you neglected to mention it in your haste to cast scorn on the pharmacists who followed their conscience.

[mhking]

The employer didn't create such a policy, the state did, overriding the employer's right to create their own policy.

Even in that event, if an individual cannot follow the job requirements, then he needs to get another job. There are certainly other employers and jobs where those individuals can use their skills and resources in a fashion that will not conflict with their personal ideologies.

I understand the issue, but at the same time, I can't broker someone getting a pass on doing their job simply because their religion won't allow them to do it. If their religious principles won't allow them to do a task that is a part of their job, then they need to get another job.