Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quote of the day
Next Post: Proft: Democratic pension plan will “confiscate your homes”
Posted in:
* A big court win for a couple of religious pharmacists…
An Illinois appeals court has ruled in favor of two pharmacists who objected to having to provide emergency contraception on religious grounds, setting a precedent their lawyer hopes will protect others from judicial or state sanctions.
In a seven-year legal campaign, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog set out to shield their pharmacies from a 2005 executive order issued by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring all pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the so-called morning-after pill.
In a lawsuit, they argued that they were protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which says health professionals cannot be punished if they refuse to offer a service because of their conscientious convictions. A circuit court originally dismissed their claim, but the state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a court must hear it.
Friday’s ruling affirmed an injunction granted by a lower court that found that state law “protects the pharmacists’ decisions not to dispense emergency contraceptives due to their conscience.”
* More…
The pharmacists had sued under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which states that health professionals and organizations cannot be discriminated against, coerced or punished civilly or criminally if they decide not to offer a health or medical service because of their conscientious convictions.
“This was the latest affirmative that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act really means what it says,” Manion said. “It provides the broadest protections for the rights of conscience of health care professionals of any law in the country. It strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of people to have access to medical care and … the rights of people who object … to being coerced into violating their conscience.”
The ruling, as decided, applies only to the two pharmacists and does not broadly apply to other pharmacists in the state. But Manion was optimistic about the implications.
“This is plenty, because the precedent that this will set in the state of Illinois means that the state is not going to go after a pharmacist that exercises conscientious objection when they know the court has ruled this way in this case,” he said. “So we’re very happy with it.”
* Other news…
* State paying 6-figure pension to ex-teachers union lobbyist: Once Purkey decided to take advantage of the pension perk, she had to shift money — $666,300 in all — into the state retirement fund in a series of transactions, then start paying into it while she worked at the union, according to interviews, emails and pension records. The money covered the employee and employer contributions that would have been required if she had been in the state fund all along, plus interest.
* Special Report: The unkindest cuts of Medicaid - Uncertainty surrounds impact of lost services: The cuts include the elimination of payments for most adult dental services, the end of the popular Illinois Cares Rx program for senior citizens and disabled Illinoisans, new limits on prescription drugs, reduced eligibility for the Family Care program covering low-income parents, and tighter controls on Medicaid eligibility overall.
* Special Report: Cuts in Medicaid sting seniors, disabled
* Nursing homes sustain cuts, get RN staffing ratios they prefer
* Medicaid expansion: Impact for Illinois could be significant
* Why isn’t Amazon paying sales tax in Illinois?: But other sources say communication has been minimal both ways. That may suggest that Illinois has to take the initiative, rather than waiting around for someone else to do something.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quote of the day
Next Post: Proft: Democratic pension plan will “confiscate your homes”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
You know, someone said that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act covered this years ago….
Wonder who that could have been….
Comment by OneMan Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 12:23 pm
Does this mean “due to their conscience” they can also stop handing out any pills for erectile dysfunction?
Could a pharmacist refuse to hand out any pills from certain companies because their conscience tells them that big pharma is a problem?
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 12:39 pm
Could a Christian Scientist pharmacist hand out copies of “Science and Health” instead of pills?
Comment by Lakeview Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 12:47 pm
CA has already passed legislation to collect taxes on Amazon purchases…and, in spite of that Amazon will open a new warehouse there…should IL follow suit? Yup.
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 12:55 pm
“(e) “Conscience” means a sincerely held set of moral convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths;”
Comment by Happy Returns Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 1:06 pm
I’m glad about Illinois’ Medicaid expansion, because we have been servicing DHS clients who are sick and poor but had their General Assistance program discontinued. We encourage these people to go to free clinics and give them flyers with clinics’ info. Many of these people might not be sick enough to get Social Security Disability, but they tell us they no longer have their medication for illnesses like diabetes.
When we tell them that they are no longer eligible for their limited medical assistance, many of these people don’t act like moochers at all. Most of them calmly and politely accept the decision. I really hope the ACA is not repealed, for their sake.
I like the idea of the “Robin Hood Tax,” the “nominal” tax of $.50 per every $100 of financial transactions, to help people who are really at the economic bottom.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 1:14 pm
What about a Scientologist refusing to refill Prozac?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 1:45 pm
According to Manion - “It strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of people to have access to medical care and … the rights of people who object … to being coerced into violating their conscience.”
Umm, normally a “balance” means both sides get something. I see what the pharmacists get. What do the women who need the medication get?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 2:01 pm
re: Amazon, be careful what you wish for…
http://miscreantsball.com/2012/07/17/amazon-collecting-sales-tax-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
Comment by Stuff happens Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 2:04 pm
I don’t favor these “conscience” objections. If you are going into a field like this you should be required to dispense ALL legal drugs. If you can’t do that find something else to do. Keep your religious or other moral objections to yourself and do your freaking job.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 2:56 pm
and there is a first amendment right to tell people that someone refuses to fill such prescriptions.
Comment by amalia Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 5:11 pm
=Umm, normally a “balance” means both sides get something.=
=Keep your religious or other moral objections to yourself and do your freaking job.=
I think you both missed the key quote and the key word which is “DISCRIMINATED” (v. “balance” or the phrase “do your freaking job”) as in:
“…which states that health professionals and organizations cannot be DISCRIMINATED against, coerced or punished civilly or criminally if they decide not to offer a health or medical service because of their conscientious convictions.”
At a minimum (at the federal level), you can’t be discriminated against because of, among other things, RELIGION when it comes to EMPLOYMENT.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 24, 12 @ 9:58 pm
Ok pharmacists. Now you will just lose customers. It was your choice. I would choose not to use their pharmacy any longer.
Comment by Mike Thursday, Oct 11, 12 @ 9:25 am