Breaking news
Saturday, Apr 23, 2005 - Posted by Rich Miller
From the Tribune:
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s emergency rule requiring Illinois pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including morning-after pills, remained in effect Friday after a Circuit Court judge blocked a pharmacist’s attempt to prevent it from being implemented.
Judge Thomas Quinn denied the temporary restraining order sought by David Scimio, a pharmacist at a Streamwood Osco. Scimio argued Blagojevich’s order would require him to violate his religious beliefs if he were forced to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill.
The governor issued the order after a pharmacist refused to fill two prescriptions for the morning-after pill.
- Tessa - Saturday, Apr 23, 05 @ 1:18 pm:
This is such a touchy subject. Lots of people with lots of opinions from one extreme to the other. My only thought is, if a pharmacist can object to filling this prescription on religious beliefs, and filling prescriptions is his/her job, what happens if their beliefs differ on other medications.
They may or may not feel a certain way or believe in a doctors decision, but if a doctor writes a prescription, then it should be filled.
Not that I agree that the gov should have stepped in or not, I’m just making a point. No one should be able to decide for someone else whether they should have a medication or not.
- Anonymous - Saturday, Apr 23, 05 @ 8:29 pm:
But I can still get my rubbers, right.
- Anonymous - Saturday, Apr 23, 05 @ 11:09 pm:
And if the government legislates the pharmacist had to sell guns…..?
- Tessa - Sunday, Apr 24, 05 @ 8:29 am:
I know at least one state (Montana) you can walk in the hardware store, pick out a gun and leave with it. No waiting period, nothing.
Be real. Pharmacists have a license for a reason and rules to uphold like most every other licensed position. Of course, doctors are the same way, and one always has the right to go to a different doctor if they don’t like the treatment the doctor orders. Would not the same hold true? One pharmacist won’t fill it, go to one who will. They just should not be able to refuse based on religious beliefs.
- the Other Anonymous - Sunday, Apr 24, 05 @ 9:53 am:
And if the government legislates the pharmacist had to sell guns…..?
Right now, if a Wal-Mart worker refuses to sell a handgun, that worker would be fired. It doesn’t matter if the worker is a life-long pacifist, is a Quaker, knows that the gun will not be used for hunting, or even if the worker was temporarily assigned as a clerk to the sporting section.
There’s no legal protection for most employees who refuse to provide to sell something the store is legally offering to sell.
When you think about it, the Wal Mart clerk is in a tougher spot than the pharmacist. There’s a wide variety of good jobs for pharmacists, many of which have nothing to do with dispensing contraceptives. Unemployment for someone working in a low-wage job is a lot tougher.
- Anonymous - Sunday, Apr 24, 05 @ 10:56 am:
I’m not sure what I think about this, but it’s not over. This is a temporary restraining order. I would expect to see supporters of the pharmacist’s position pursue this strongly. It could become a real rallying point for the right to life supporters, just as Terri Schiavo was.
Need to know more about under what circumstances doctors can refuse to treat on religious beliefs. What does the statute say. If the statute reasonably allows it, I could see a push in the legislature (a big push) to expand the statute to include pharmacists.
- Anonymous - Sunday, Apr 24, 05 @ 2:02 pm:
The more the government tries to squeeze its will on its people, the more the people will rebel.
This, of course, will only cause the government to squeeze harder….
- Drew Hibbard - Sunday, Apr 24, 05 @ 11:13 pm:
“The more the government tries to squeeze its will on its people, the more the people will rebel.”
Princess Leia said something to that effect in Star Wars Episode IV.
Just a thought.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 25, 05 @ 1:01 am:
This ain’t Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. This is two guys working in a publicly-regulated industry making living distributing pills for $80,000 - $100,000 a year thanks to a publicly subsidized education and publicly subsidized health care research and publicly subsidized manufacturers.
And what were they denying this women? Emergency contraception. For all we know, they were date rape victims. What are they supposed to do, justify themselves to some pharmacist in the middle of Walgreen’s?
Heroes? Martyrs? Hardly.
Ellen Goodman put it right, they want right of conscience without consequences. Believe in peace? Don’t take a job at the bomb factory.
Besides, why in the world should their conscience trump the woman’s?
- ArchPundit - Monday, Apr 25, 05 @ 11:27 am:
The key point is a pharmacist isn’t being required by law to do anything. A pharmacy is required to dispense a drug that they carry, return the prescription to the individual, or pass it along to a pharmacy that will fill it.
If a pharmacy doesn’t carry a particular pharmaceutical, it can return it or pass it on to a pharmacy that does.
If a pharmacy does carry a particular pharmaceutical, they have to dispense it on a doctor’s prescription.
Literally, pharmacists are trying to argue over whether they have to dispense a drug they already are committed to dispensing (they carry it) depending upon the amount of the drug the doctor feels is appropriate. If an individual pharmacist doesn’t want to do such a thing, they employer may make an accomodation and have another pharmacist dispense, but ultimately, the burden isn’t on an individual pharmacist, but on a pharmacy.
- Drew Hibbard - Monday, Apr 25, 05 @ 11:49 am:
I liken it to a person selling guns that has murderers coming in trying to buy them. The gun salesman knows that they’re probably going to be used to murder someone. I would imagine that the gun salesman’s morals would tell him not to sell the gun to the person because he knows that the gun may be used in killing of some innocent person.
In this case, Mr. Scimio believes that he is dispensing medication that will result in the death of an innocent human being. And becuase it was EMERGENCY contraception, he was certain that the drug would be used immediately to destroy a fertilized embryo. Therefore, he stood up for his beliefs and tried to refuse to dispense the medication.
In his mind, the Governor’s order is saying that he is required by law to enable this woman to kill someone. He’s also fully prepared to accept the consequences of standing up for what he believes in, as I’m sure he’s aware of the heat he would receive from not only that customer but other abortion rights groups. He’s definitely not taking the easy road by any means.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 25, 05 @ 12:27 pm:
But his group is arguing that he can’t be fired for not filling the script. And that is asking that he not have to take any consequences for his belief.
But under the governor’s order, he has options. 1. He could take a job at a pharmacy that does not fill contraception prescriptions. 2. He could work out a plan whereby Osco will keep another pharmacist on hand to fill scripts he doesn’t want to fill.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 6, 05 @ 4:01 pm:
For a long time I have worried about the aggressive and oppressive nature of the many new laws regarding whether or not a person has to contradict thier basic moral beliefs and live in society. Time was when you had certain religious convictions, you were not told by the state that they were wrong, and therefor you were not able to practice them. Problem is that many people today can only feel comfortable in a morality-free void, and wish to impose that void on others at the cost of personal freedoms. I am very grateful that a certain Ron Stevens, who works at a Prescriptions Plus in Illinois, is refusing to let the state government trample his basic rights. He is good example to follow. As for the governer that passed this silly emergency rule, like many lawmakers of past-time who chose to oppress others with thier power, he may have to look back in regret that he rode the popular wave at the cost of others.