In what is an extremely disappointing ruling, an Illiois appellate court has ruled that the state cannot force pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives. An abstract concept of 'religious freedom' wins out over actual medical conditions and health needs of women.
How does someone get to decide which parts of their job they want to do and which they just can't deal with?
CHICAGO (Reuters) - An Illinois appellate court Friday affirmed a lower court finding that the state cannot force pharmacies and pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives - also known as "morning after pills" - if they have religious objections.
In 2005, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich mandated that all pharmacists and pharmacies sell "Plan B," the brand name for a drug designed to prevent pregnancy following unprotected sex or a known or suspected contraceptive failure if taken within 72 hours.
In 2011, an Illinois judge entered an injunction against the rule, finding no evidence that the drugs had ever been denied on religious grounds, and that the law was not neutral since it was designed to target religious objectors.
The Christian zealots declared it a great victory for their continuing war on women's reproductive rights and their agenda to impose their beliefs. Freeedom for me, but not for thee.
"This decision is a great victory for religious freedom," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, quoted in a statement about the decision.
The ACLU expressed it exactly right - religious "freedom" trumping health needs.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state, expressed dismay at the court's decision.
"We are dismayed that the court expressly refused to consider the interests of women who are seeking lawful prescription medication and essentially held that the religious practice of individuals trumps women's health care," said ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka. "We think the court could not be more wrong."
It boggles my mind that people who are hired for a specific job with specific job requirements are able to then subvert their job to accommodate their own religious beliefs, and that they find ways for the law to uphold their actions. What about the rights of a woman to obtain the health care she needs, isn't this upheld by the Constitution? The judge claimed that no one was denied the drug due to these particular pharmacists. Perhaps those women thus affected don't have the financial backing of these zealots and haven't been able to fight this battle in court.
The ruling made no provision or explanations for why it was acceptable to expect women to have to 'shop around' to get a prescription filled, nor the possible mental duress of having just been raped that could make that problematic.
I am infuriated by this ruling but given that it is on a local level, don't see much recourse.