Federal Appeals Court Okays Injunction Protecting Pro-Life Pharmacists

LifeNews.com ^ | May 1, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Federal Appeals Court Okays Injunction Protecting Pro-Life Pharmacists

Los Angeles, CA -- A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction in a lower court ruling that halted a new state requirement forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for all drugs. The mandate included drugs that would violate their moral or religious beliefs of pharmacists who don't want to be involved in abortions.

Washington state pharmacists who are pro-life were worried they could be forced to dispense the morning after pill or birth control drugs.

[dschapin]

Wow, the 9th Circuit does something right. I am impressed.

[gdani]

Whoopee.

Next it will be Muslims who don't want to handle pork or transport alcohol.

[The Lumster]

Wow, the 9th Circuit does something right. I am impressed.

No they didn't. I am very much pro life but this is not an issue for government to decide. If a pharmacists employer wishes to allow him to opt out of filling certain prescriptions for religious reasons then that is their prerogative.

Otherwise a pharmacists who feels that strongly about the issue should seek other employment

[vpintheak]

That is one crappy argument. Hmmmm... murder of innocent children versus I can’t touck pork or alcohol. Yeah downright crappy, but lieberals like to equate unspeakable evil with morals.

[joebuck]

"Next it will be Muslims who don't want to handle pork or transport alcohol."

I don't get your point. If Ca. passed a law requiring all independant truck drivers to transport pork or alcohol when asked by a customer, even if such practice violates the truck driver's religious beliefs, then that law too should be struck down.

[Mr. Lucky]

Don’t you think these sort of matters ought to be left to the private contract of employment?

[stockpirate]

I am PRO-life, but this is bad law.

[gdani]

Hmmmm... murder of innocent children versus I can’t touck pork or alcohol.

How do birth control pills and/or the morning after pill "murder innocent children". (They don't).

Yeah downright crappy, but lieberals like to equate unspeakable evil with morals.

Yeah - I'm a liberal because you disagree with me. Nice try.

[Old Mountain man]

I think you may have missed the point: California passed a law REQUIRING all pharmacists to fill these prescriptions. That means if I own the pharmacy, I HAVE to carry and dispense drugs that I believe are immoral. I agree with the 9th on this one.

Lord, I never thought I would say that.

[mgstarr]

So where is the line drawn on not forcing someone to violate their religious or moral beliefs at their place of employment? If you set the precedent here, it will not stop here.

Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[gdani]

Don’t you think these sort of matters ought to be left to the private contract of employment?

Yeah - my first remark was a little flippant.

The Govt should stay out of it totally. And pharmacists who don't want to dispense certain drugs because it offends them should look for new jobs.

[Mr. Lucky]

So should Doctors who don’t want to perform abortions or lawyers who don’t want to subborn perjury also have to find new jobs?

[MEGoody]

I am very much pro life but this is not an issue for government to decide.

But that was the point of the ruling. The state was trying to require that pharmacists fill these prescriptions - they weren't leaving it up to the individual pharmacy. The court ruled that the state couldn't do that.

[MEGoody]

(They don't).

That is a matter of personal conviction. If you feel they don't, then feel free to get your pharmacy license so you can dispense these drugs. But I'm sure that any conservative would be in favor of having the state stay out of trying to force pharmacists to do so.

[gdani]

But I'm sure that any conservative would be in favor of having the state stay out of trying to force pharmacists to do so.

I am. As I sort of said in a post above, my remark was flippant. I'm in favor of keeping the Govt out of the issue.

Which means I also favor the abolition of laws that *protect* pharamacists from having to fill certain prescriptions.

However, many so-called conservatives favor *those* laws.

[The Lumster]

But that was the point of the ruling. The state was trying to require that pharmacists fill these prescriptions - they weren't leaving it up to the individual pharmacy. The court ruled that the state couldn't do that.

But now due to this ruling, employers will be required to accomodate pharmacists who do not wish to fill these prescriptions. If that is not explicit in the ruling it will eventually have this effect. Just wait and see.

Either way it is government interference in the private contract between employer and employee. The courts should butt out!

[Gennaro]

So, after six years of pharmacy school and a doctorate in pharmacy, long before this issue and the drug came to the fore, I have to change professions if I’m faced with an abortifacient prescription.

Thanks a lot.

[dschapin]

Wait, it sounds like maybe I misunderstood the article. I thought they kept in place an injunction which protected the pharmacist from being prosecuted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[T]his is not an issue for government to decide. If a pharmacists employer wishes to allow him to opt out of filling certain prescriptions for religious reasons then that is their prerogative."

I think you're construing this ruling exactly backwards. The ruling halted a new state requirement forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for all drugs. The ruling restores the decision-making power to pharmacy owners, who would be free to make their own policies regarding the drugs and their employees.