Posted on 07/25/2015 5:54:25 AM PDT by marshmallow
Washington D.C., Jul 24, 2015 / 04:47 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Owners of a pharmacy in Washington state must provide the morning-after contraceptive pill against their religious beliefs after a federal appeals court upheld a state mandate that they do so.
Todays decision is unfortunate, stated Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, on Thursday. The government has no business punishing citizens solely because of their religious beliefs.
At issue is a 2005 state law that mandates pharmacies provide the morning-after and week-after contraceptive pills to customers even if they religiously object to doing so. Individual employees may recuse themselves from filling such prescriptions if they have a religious objection, but another employee must be present to fill the prescription.
Pharmacies cannot simply refuse to fill the prescriptions while referring customers to other pharmacies that can do so, as the plaintiffs, owners of Ralphs Thriftway store, had reportedly done in the past.
The Storman family owns the pharmacy and religiously objects to providing the morning-after and week-after pills, believing that they can induce early abortions.
Goodrich argued that the state regulations are unmatched in the burden they lay upon businesses. No state other than Washington makes such a requirement of pharmacies, he said.
The Stormans initially won at the federal district court level in 2012 after a 12-day trial featuring around 800 exhibits and testimonies from persons responsible for drafting and enforcing the law.
The district court found that the law violated the First Amendments protection of the free exercise of religion and discriminated against religiously-owned and operated businesses by carving out certain other protections for pharmacies that were not explicitly religious.
For instance, pharmacies did not have to obey the mandate if a patient could not pay for the prescription or if they filled out.....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
They can probably get away with passive aggressive compliance, without killing any babies and without being prosecuted.
They keep one dose of each mandatory prescription baby-killer on the shelf. Whenever someone asks for it, they take the prescription for a couple minutes, then the pharmacist(s) declare that they are not feeling well. They hand that prescription back, fill the ones they received before it, and close for a few hours. Repeat as necessary until FedGov restores the rule of law and stops persecuting Christians.
Civil disobedience: take 4 weeks to fill the prescription
and somehow the prescription packages (all 2 of them) always get damaged in shipment and thus being tampered with, are unsellable
I think passive compliance in a way that resulted in no sales is the way I’d go ... much cheaper than lawyers, accomplishes the same goal
If this store doesn't have Plan B, isn't there another one down the street that does?
Otherwise, mustn't we force all restaurants to carry all drink products too, because it's not fair that I can't have a Pepsi with my favorite sub sandwich?
-PJ
Civil disobedience is definitely the right answer here for a pharmacy.
You ordered the material but had to send it back for problems with packaging.
You ordered but it all has already been bought, so you are out.
A clerk forgot to order the product.
And how is a pharmacy referring a customer to somebody else who will dispense the drug keeping Planned Barrenhood from getting their precious blood money?
Did Planned Barrenhood prove that somebody who would have bought Plan B ended up not buying it SOLELY because this pharmacy refused on contientious grounds? If the same standard as was used on all the eligibility cases was applied to this case there is no way in heck that Planned Barrenhood could prove they had standing. It can’t be “what if” type speculation; they have to prove that they already lost money solely because of this pharmacy - just to have a CASE.
This is where they claim that the government has a vested interest in people having access to Plan B.
Government doesn’t care if you have access to Dr. Pepper.
Why does government have a vested interest in access to Plan B? Because Roe v Wade said - simultaneously - that there is an individual right to privacy so that government can’t regulate contraception - and that the government has a vested interest in “potential life” so government can do whatever stinkin’ thing they want to do in regards to a woman’s womb, as long as they have the audacity and duplicity to claim it is their business. IOW, they made a ruling that is so contorted that they can shape it into whatever they want it to mean. And the liberal, judicial-activist courts use it for that very purpose.
Does the government have a vested interest in making sure that pharmacies dispense the antidote for heavy metal poisoning? Like, so attempted murderers can’t just slip some lead into the sugar bowl and quietly do away with people who know too much? They don’t give a rip about that. That would mean they are interested in protecting the innocent, and this regime is ONLY interested in protecting the guilty and screwing the innocent.
When I needed progesterone to keep from miscarrying our youngest daughter I had to go to a clinic in a neighboring town because none of the pharmacies had the form of it that I was prescribed. The government didn’t care if I had the medicine needed to save my child’s life. Their vested interest is only in DESTROYING innocent lives. Just once I wish they would come right out and say that, so people can see them for who they really are.
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.