http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6469894.story


Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says
A pharmacy owner and workers had sued Washington state to block a
requirement that they stock and sell the 'morning after' contraceptive.
By Carol J. Williams

July 9, 2009

Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are
personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious
grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a
supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block
2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and
dispense the pills.

Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere
sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs
asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the
pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They
said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping
their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they
regard as a form of abortion.

Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo
Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise
of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court
in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations.
That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who
refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a
nearby pharmacy where it was available.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in
issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the
free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Other constitutional challenges are pending with the district court,
which had been waiting for the 9th Circuit ruling on the injunction,
said Chad Allred, a Seattle lawyer whose firm represents Stormans and
the pharmacists. In anticipation of the injunction being vacated,
Stormans and the two pharmacists secured an agreement with the state
that it would not pursue sanctions against them until the other issues
were decided at trial, Allred said.

"We're still optimistic that we're doing the right thing and that we
will prevail in the end," said Kevin Stormans, who with his father and
two siblings owns the supermarket at the center of the legal challenge.

The 9th Circuit ruling, however, means that the requirement that
pharmacies stock and dispense Plan B takes immediate effect, said Joyce
Roper, an assistant attorney general for Washington state.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that filed the
suit on behalf of Stormans, didn't return a call for comment.

Although the courts have yet to pronounce judgment on other aspects of
the lawsuit, the unanimous ruling on the free-exercise clause could
portend further judgments, as the case moves forward, that a patient's
right to timely medication supersedes a pharmacist's personal convictions.

The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing
outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W.
Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel.

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of
general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by
religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or
personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:58:45 -0400, HK wrote:




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6469894.story


Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says
A pharmacy owner and workers had sued Washington state to block a
requirement that they stock and sell the 'morning after' contraceptive.
By Carol J. Williams

July 9, 2009

Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are
personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious
grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a
supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block
2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and
dispense the pills.

Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere
sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs
asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the
pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They
said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping
their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they
regard as a form of abortion.

Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo
Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise
of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court
in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations.
That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who
refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a
nearby pharmacy where it was available.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in
issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the
free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Other constitutional challenges are pending with the district court,
which had been waiting for the 9th Circuit ruling on the injunction,
said Chad Allred, a Seattle lawyer whose firm represents Stormans and
the pharmacists. In anticipation of the injunction being vacated,
Stormans and the two pharmacists secured an agreement with the state
that it would not pursue sanctions against them until the other issues
were decided at trial, Allred said.

"We're still optimistic that we're doing the right thing and that we
will prevail in the end," said Kevin Stormans, who with his father and
two siblings owns the supermarket at the center of the legal challenge.

The 9th Circuit ruling, however, means that the requirement that
pharmacies stock and dispense Plan B takes immediate effect, said Joyce
Roper, an assistant attorney general for Washington state.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that filed the
suit on behalf of Stormans, didn't return a call for comment.

Although the courts have yet to pronounce judgment on other aspects of
the lawsuit, the unanimous ruling on the free-exercise clause could
portend further judgments, as the case moves forward, that a patient's
right to timely medication supersedes a pharmacist's personal convictions.

The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing
outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W.
Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel.

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of
general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by
religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or
personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

And cautionary tales such as "Brave New World, "1984," and "Logan's
Run," have never been so closely paralleled. Freedom is an illusion.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:58:45 -0400, HK wrote:

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by
religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or
personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

This ruling overturned the temporary injunction sought by the
pharmacy, and is not a ruling on the case itself, which proceeds in
district court. I believe the ruling can be appealed to attempt to
reinstate the injunction, and I hope it is.

The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the
Supreme Court to consider — and likely soon.

Moron. Learn to read something other than KOS.

Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:58:45 -0400, HK wrote:

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by
religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or
personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

This ruling overturned the temporary injunction sought by the
pharmacy, and is not a ruling on the case itself, which proceeds in
district court. I believe the ruling can be appealed to attempt to
reinstate the injunction, and I hope it is.

The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the
Supreme Court to consider — and likely soon.

Moron. Learn to read something other than KOS.


Duh...I understand how the federal court system works, moron.

With a bit of luck, over the next seven years a couple of the righties
on the Supremes will retire or FOAD, and we'll be able to wrest that
court away from big business, the war merchants, and the religious nutcases.