In a big win for our right to have some semblance of control over our bodies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that pharmacies must fill prescriptions even if the prescription is for Plan B.
The case was brought to the Ninth after several pharmacists in the state complained that doling out Plan B – which is, I guess you have to say, 100% not an abortifacient but rather a preventative medication – went against their religious beliefs and refused to do their fucking jobs and hand over the medication.
I’m not attorney, but this has seemed pretty obvious from the beginning. Congrats to the activists, attorneys, and elected officials, who made it happen. Hopefully there won’t be an appeal.
PS: no matter what, the Olympia Thriftway is gross. They could have done the decent thing and let people have emergency contraception at any damn point.
fuckwad babyparts head exploding, five…four…three…
Will the pharmacists be forced to carry Plan B products even if it is not currently part of pharmacists’ product mix?
Here’s the key quote:
“The right to exercise one’s religion freely, however, ‘does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’ Emp’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (‘When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.’).
What this means is your personal religious beliefs don’t supersede, or excuse you from, society’s rules that apply equally to everyone. In other words, if your religion practices human sacrifice, you don’t get an exemption from the laws against homicide in the name of religious liberty.
The issue, of course, is more complicated than this. Congress and state legislatures have wide leeway to grant religious exemptions from general laws or regulations. It’s also important to keep in mind this case involves contraception, not abortifacient, drugs (i.e., pharmacists aren’t being asked to participate in abortion); and it’s a challenge to state rules REQUIRING pharmacists to make Plan B available to their customers, not a challenge to state rules ALLOWING pharmacists to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions based on religious objection. Whether a pharmacist can be REQUIRED to fill a Plan B prescription, and whether s/he can be allowed to REFUSE to do so, are two different issues. Some states, in fact, have adopted the latter rule. For the status of rules in various states as of 2012, see
http://www.ncsl.org/research/h.....ation.aspx
Also, keep in mind the Ninth Circuit is the most “liberal” of the federal appellate courts, and the reasoning and result in this case might not be followed by other circuits. We also don’t know what the more-conservative SCOTUS would do with this case, although we may find out, because I think there’s no way the losing side won’t appeal this decision, although it’s not a sure thing that SCOTUS would grant certiorari.
The language from the Ninth Circuit decision I quoted above, and the general rule I described, are very interesting because gay marriage licenses and wedding cakes are the same issue: You can believe whatever you like, but neither a government official’s nor a private business owner’s personal religious beliefs can override laws against discrimination — but legislation can do so. This being so, I would expect to see these battles shift from the courts to Congress and state legislatures. The pharmacists having lost in court, undoubtedly they will now lean on their conservative friends in the state legislature to override the state pharmacy commission’s rules with a state law. So, ultimately it’s a political issue to be settled at the ballot box.
@2 Yes, and that rule wasn’t challenged in this case, so the court didn’t deal with it.
If it was a seller of a different product rather than pharmaceuticals, can that seller be forced to carry a product in his/her inventory that he/she would rather not carry? Is the seller forced to risk his/her money in inventory purchases that he/she does not wish to carry?
Can this ruling be used to attack businesses who wish to not carry certain items and force them to do things against their will?
I’m not keen on forcing anyone to do something he/she doesn’t want to do.
@5 Generally speaking, no and no, and this case doesn’t establish a precedent otherwise. Pharmacies are subject to more regulation for reasons which shouldn’t need explanation.
@6 If you live on a residential street posted 25 mph, and your children have to cross that street, and your neighbor isn’t keen about obeying the speed limit and would much rather drive 60 mph on your street, would you feel a little keener about the police forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do?
@6 Do you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks at their discretion? Do you think segregated lunch counters should be made legal again? Do you think other parents should be required to get their kids vaccinated before sending them to your child’s school? How far should your liberty go when your choices affect other people? Should you be allowed to engage in false advertising? To sell adulterated or dangerous products? Should you be allowed to sell guns to children? Should you be allowed to let your 12-year-old drive your car on public streets? If you own a factory, should you be allowed to spew toxic emissions into the air and dump toxic chemicals into public waterways? Should you be allowed to perform surgery or dispense medicines without a license and appropriate medical training? Should you be allowed to store explosives in your garage in a residential neighborhood? Should you be allowed to point a laser beam at the cockpit of an airplane in the approach pattern?
@6 are you keen in allowing discrimination? Should I be forced to serve a black person, a Jew, an Asian?
Should somehow some solution be created so as not to discriminate against either?
Are you in favor of employing a government worker that refuses to perform part of their duties? Do we need to double employee people so that the action that is being refused by one will be performed by the one willing?
Do you think someone working a private emoyerer can refuse to do something that is against their morals or belief. Say like selling conforms in a conscience store?
Where does your not being to keen on “forcing” people to do what they don’t want to do?
Is anyone really forcing you to do something when you have the option not to work there and go do some other line of work?
Are people just crying about nothing here?
Is it right to force a homeless person to get s job?
@8 posted @9 before reading @8. Nice job.
Not keen on “forcing” people – what bullshit.
Why am I forced into believing some religion has rights and my life has to be affected by somone else’s rdligious beliefs. The fallacy of religious freedom extending to interfereing with someone else’s life is just bullshit and hypocrisy, a loophole to discriminate.
@9 should say “like selling condoms in a convenience store”
Why is the objection being limited and described under the premise of Religious Liberty?
What if I am an atheist? Is the same consideration going to be given to me under the premise that I have beliefs and morals that are near and dear to my heart? And should I be able to seldctivly biased based on my morals and beliefs?
Who is going to be the interpreter of the Bible, Koran, etc to decide what is objectionable based on religious belief?
Isn’t this like Sharia Law that conservative were and are so worried about?
Shy are American conservatives so worried about Muslims when they so much emulate them?
Long live Ireland – Hime of the real Free and the real Brave.
America is becoming nothing more than an ISIS controlled state.
Should a building inspector be forced to issue a building permit or a certificate of occupancy (CO) for a casino or other building that may be conflict with his or her religious beliefs?
@6 jack I tend to agree with you that Walgreens shouldn’t have to sell a product that they don’t want to sell, but at the same time I disagree with you that it is equal comparison to other “issues”.
A drug store is just that, a store that can decide what and what not to sell, but when it comes to other establishments then it is more of a discrimination thing. I don’t necessarily disagree with religious objections but it has to be clearly done or implemented in a manner where individuals aren’t selectively discriminating, especially when it comes to a government function that is suppose to work for the people, all of the people equally, and where there is a thing called separation of church and state, how ever you want to twist and turn that definition, it is pretty clear when you just think of it as stow ration of the two.
Long live Ireland – true home of the Feee and the Brave,
Don’t let America turn into some nazi religious state, if you want that you can join ISIS.
@2, 5, 6,
I think RR is covering this nicely. I’d only emphasize that we are talking about a business that is very highly regulated. And for good reason. Pharmacists not only know this when they get started in a college of Pharmacy, as a profession they strongly support strict and intrusive regulation of their industry.
And the idea that a state licensed, and state regulated pharmacist would be compelled to carry any specific product as a direct consequence of state licensing and regulation is not at all peculiar. Many other regulated businesses face very similar requirements.
Where matters of broad public safety are concerned, government intrusion into private business practices is commonplace, well established in the law, and widely supported by the people. We want safe medicine, safe foods, safe schools, safe buildings, safe airplanes, etc. Business people who voluntarily engage in these kinds of businesses do so knowing what is expected of them. There’s nothing unfair here. And there’s nothing for you to feel uncomfortable about.
@15 – I tend to disagree with part of what you said, and I’m not sure if you misinterpreted a bit what Roger said, because I agree with what he said in general. I guess I’d have to analyze every sentence to better state my position.
I do agree with your third paragraph in whole, and maybe I am misunderstanding the issue here because I admit I didn’t read the article posted by Carl (Sorry Carl don’t have a lot of time although I find what you write very interesting in the body of what your write), but I don’t see this particular instance or example as a health issue or public safety issue. I’m not sure whether a drug store should have to sell a product if it is readily available across the street or somewhere. The question that creates is ease of access and availability. And the market should kind of dictate that. I don’t think in this case that it compromises public safety or takes away their liberty to purchase.
But when someone doesn’t want to abide by a particular law or regulation when it comes to public safety or civil liberties then I would disagree with that – I think each case needs to be individual determined and a blanket rule can’t be applied to everything.
Had a little more to say but got to run.
@ 3
The Ninth Circuit court is the most-reversed of the circuit courts.
Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for ‘Most Reversed’
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....athan-keim
It is not for no reason that it’s called the ‘Nutty Ninth’.
The Justices have long had a seemingly contentious relationship with the Ninth Circuit, which covers most of the western United States and Hawaii and Alaska. Far more cases come to the Court from the Ninth Circuit than any other court, and — not surprisingly — Ninth Circuit rulings make up a sizeable portion of the docket of argued and decided cases – 75 cases, or 25.7% for the last four Terms including the current session. During that period, the Court has reversed or vacated and sent back 79.5% of the Ninth Circuit decisions it has reviewed.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014.....-circuits/
This was written a year ago.
The decision at hand is a 3-judge panel’s (apparently unanimous) opinion. In a couple of years it probably will hit SCOTUS, and cert will very likely be granted.
Not hard to predict how five certain SCOTUS Catholics are likely to come down when it does.
Of course it will be appealed.
The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Vice President of Legal Services Kristen Waggoner regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s decision Thursday in Stormans v. Wiesman to uphold Washington Board of Pharmacy rules that force pharmacists to dispense drugs contrary to their conscience instead of allowing them to refer customers to other pharmacists as they are allowed to do in all 49 other states:
“No one should be forced to choose between their religious convictions and their family businesses and livelihoods, particularly when the state allows referrals for just about any other reason. The premier medical and pharmaceutical associations all support the right of a provider to refer patients, and all other states allow such referrals. This decision will affect many facilities within the state, including Catholic hospitals and pharmacies, which have made clear they will not dispense these drugs. As the district court noted, drugs like Plan B and ella are widely accessible within the state. In fact, no woman anywhere in Washington has been denied timely access to these drugs for religious reasons. We will appeal this ruling.”
@16,
Sorry, I’ll try to clarify.
As part of the WAC, since 1967 Washington State has a “stocking rule” that does dictate a minimum inventory selection for all licensed pharmacies. Plaintiffs here did not challenge the stocking rule. They challenged the 2007 rules concerning the professional conduct of licensed pharmacists, and the limitation of circumstances under which a licensed pharmacy may refuse to deliver medicine.
In general Jack’s “concerns” center on state intrusion into the choices of a private retail business. @5 Jack specifically expresses “concern” that this ruling might be expanded to intrude on the private practices of other retail businesses. Roger responds ably @7, but without context. I only sought to add some. Again, the stocking rule is obviously specific to this industry, is well established, is well understood in the industry, and is not being challenged here.
In order for Washington State to create a rule in a uniformly regulated business that may interfere with the business owners first amendment rights, the state must show that the rule is rationally in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest. Here, the state makes a rule that is neutral with respect to religious beliefs, and is uniformly applicable and uniformly applied to all such regulated businesses. And the state asserts that the rule is rationally related to its interest in ensuring all citizens have timely access to lawfully prescribed medicine.
The dispensing rules make no exception for circumstances where a lawful prescription might be filled nearby. While you might prefer it, the state is under no constitutional obligation to provide such an exception. And for myself, I can certainly understand why the state is reluctant to do so. For one thing such an exception might in time come to weaken the state’s constitutional authority to create the rule in the first place.
So it absolutely matters here that this is a regulated business, that those regulations are applied uniformly and without prejudice, and that the regulations have a legitimate purpose in government. Any or all of those things probably would not be the case if the government made a rule ordering all groceries to sell lottery tickets or porno mags. Even though that would probably also make fuckwad baby parts head explode. It’s just on a hair trigger that way.
What can I say except that these fucking religious people are nut bags!
I wasn’t aware of the laws and regulations or WAC “stocking rule” dictating minimum inventory selection or other similar rules, and I’m not a lawyer (just a dumb construction civil engineer), but I’m sure someone felt that some regulations were needed. And these idiots who don’t want to comply are just fuckheads.
I was looking at this more with the perspective of requiring a business to sell condoms, porn magazines, or lottery tickets as you say.
But this Religious bullshit is bullshit….one main target and that is the gays and birth control.
I bring back my suggestion (a little different from a pharmacist) of a Building Official or Town/City Hall Official refusing to issue a building permit or a certificate of occupancy for a Casino, or a Adult Book Store, or a Synagogue, or a Muslim house of Worship, or a liquor store, or a Pot Store based on their Religious Beliefs. Or the local electrical or plumbing inspector not wanting to go to a Project to perform an inspection because it’s an Adult Bookstore and he finds it objectionable. Or even a Planned Parenthood Office. Or a Titty Bar.
Could you see some Muslim American inspector refusing one of them of something, they’d be outraged.
What is next?
Just a bunch of fuckwads trying to protect you from the gays and the baby killing liberals. This will all come back to bite them in the ass.
Then you have a moron that posts shit like items #17-19 that is pretty much meaningless (regardless of whether he is right). What does what he said lend to the conversation? He doesn’t even go out on a limb and state a position, other than inferring that he thinks the 9th circuit court is wrong. Does he care whether one day hypothetically he could possibly be denied the right to build an adult book store, if he so wished, and he was told sorry no Building permit will be issued today because the building official in town objects religiously (not because of an town ordinance but because the official on duty religiously objects). I’m sure the deadbeat would go get a gun and shoot the town clerk, is my guess.
deleted by poster
@14 “I tend to agree with you that Walgreens shouldn’t have to sell a product that they don’t want to sell”
The real issue of these pharmacy rules doesn’t arise in Seattle, where if a pharmacist refuses to sell Plan B, you probably can find a pharmacy that sells it within a few blocks. The issue arises in the rural areas of the state where Walgreens may be the only pharmacy within 50 miles. What if NO pharmacy in eastern Washington was willing to sell Plan B, and someone in Chelan or Brewster who has just been raped has to drive 200 miles to find a pharmacist willing to fill her prescription? That’s the real reason why the state pharmacy commission enacted these rules despite the objections of numerous pharmacists.
@16 “I’m not sure whether a drug store should have to sell a product if it is readily available across the street or somewhere. The question that creates is ease of access and availability. And the market should kind of dictate that. I don’t think in this case that it compromises public safety or takes away their liberty to purchase.”
I discuss this issue @23.
@17 What exactly does that dig contribute to this discussion?
The Ninth Circuit is the second-highest court in its geographical jurisdiction. Only the Supreme Court can overturn its decisions. SCOTUS accepts less than 2% of the appeals it receives every year, which means this Ninth Circuit decision has about a 1-in-60 chance of being reviewed and even lower odds of being reversed. Good luck with those odds, you’ll need it. If you’re feeling that lucky, maybe you should buy some Lotto tickets while you’re at it.
@20 & @21 – I’ll bet some of those pharmacies who don’t want to sell Plan B that Dr. Bickle imagines will soon receive protection from the 5 Catholic justices on SCOTUS do sell girlie magazines and lottery tickets because there’s money for them in it.
By the way, Bickle, if you’re so sure of the Catholic Church’s grip on the Supreme Court, then why haven’t these Catholic justices overturned Griswold v. Connecticut and reinstated laws banning contraceptives?
I suspect that despite their religious affiliations the Supremes will be quite a bit more circumspect in how they view this.
It seems to me that it might be very difficult to make any definitive ruling overturning the 9th here without also making a pretty broad precedent perhaps limited to state professional licensing, but applying beyond the practice of pharmacy. Imagine the Supremes grant cert, and then rule in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning the state’s WACs on the grounds that they infringe on the individual 1st amendment rights of licensed pharmacists. That would in effect be establishing the balancing test wherein the state’s interest in protecting the health and safety of citizens is trumped by the individual religious freedom of a state licensed professional. I’m not suggesting that this precedent would be so sweeping as to allow all people to ignore any or all state laws wherever they conflict with orthodoxy. But it seems to me that state licensed professionals, within the context of their regulated professional practices, would be pretty much free to ignore state rules governing their conduct that they assert conflict with their closely held religious beliefs. That’s a pretty big can ‘o worms to open up.
Oath of a Pharmacist –
“I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”
(The revised Oath was adopted by the AACP House of Delegates in July 2007 and has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association. )
@27 “That’s a pretty big can ‘o worms to open up.”
Yeah, the next group of people standing in line wanting a religious exemption from the laws of general application might be those whose religious practices include human sacrifice.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/.....index.html