• OMG!!! GDPR!! GDPR!!! GDP f***ing R!!!!!!!!!!!111111one!

    Bla, Bla, Bla, updated privacy policy, because "we care about you! "

    ಠ_ಠ

    If you even give a shit, our privacy policy is here.

    Pro-tip: If you have a reasonable, and transparent policy from Day 1, then you don't have to run around like an asshole!

Judge says Washington state can't make pharmacies sell Plan B

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
I guess the media's just blowing this whole contraception thing out of proportion and there aren't conservatives out there trying to ban access to contraception. And I would imagine there's a whole list of things a pharmacist could object to on "moral" grounds. Pain meds for drug addicts, Viagra for rapists. You're a pharmacist, you're paid to dispense drugs.

Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B
GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press
Updated 04:43 p.m., Wednesday, February 22, 2012

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton sided with a pharmacy and two pharmacists who said state rules requiring them to dispense Plan B violate their constitutional rights to freedom of religion because such drugs can destroy a fertilized egg, which they consider equal to abortion.

Washington's rules require that pharmacies stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand. The state adopted the dispensing regulations in 2007, following reports that some women had been denied access to Plan B, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills and is effective if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

State lawyers argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and because they promote a government interest — the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.

But Leighton ruled that the state allows all sorts of business exemptions to the rules. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.

"The most compelling evidence that the rules target religious conduct is the fact the rules contain numerous secular exemptions," the judge said. "In sum, the rules exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from stocking and delivering lawfully prescribed drugs for an almost unlimited variety of secular reasons, but fail to provide exemptions for reasons of conscience."

The decision comes as contraception has been debated in political and health care circles around the nation. A controversy erupted this month when religious groups protested a new federal rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.

The outcry prompted President Barack Obama to change the rule to shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies. Lawmakers in a few conservative states have taken up the fight with proposals that serve as direct challenges to Obama's ruling.

Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, did not strike down Washington's rules, but said simply that the way they were applied to the plaintiffs in this case was unconstitutional.

The state remains free to try to enforce the law against other pharmacies that violated the stocking and dispensing rules, whether for Plan B or other drugs; it remains unclear whether courts would reach a similar conclusion if pharmacies objected to selling other drugs for religious reasons.

"I remain concerned about the impacts on patients if pharmacies are allowed to refuse to dispense lawfully prescribed or lawful medications to patients," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who insisted on the dispensing rule's adoption. "I am especially concerned about those living in rural areas, many of whom may have few alternatives and could suffer lengthy delays in receiving medication or go without entirely."

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.

Further appeals were expected, both from the state and from groups that intervened on the state's behalf. Before taking more than an hour to read his 48-page opinion in court, Leighton acknowledged that he crafted it for the benefit of a "skeptical" appeals court.

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it — one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy — as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.

"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser said Leighton's ruling was "more detailed" but made the same mistake he made in 2007.

Margo Thelen, of Woodland, one of the pharmacists who sued over the rules, said she had to leave one job because she refused to dispense Plan B — and now she can continue working at her new job without fear of being fired.

"Speak to anyone who shops in a pharmacy," she said. "Their product isn't always available."

Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.

In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.

In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.

Leighton said Washington's rules are akin to the Florida case. Though they appear to be neutral by their plain language, the state allows pharmacies not to stock or sell drugs for various business reasons, he said.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/a...rmacies-sell-Plan-B-3349010.php#ixzz1nA7tfXHB
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,700
18,455
513
Kingdom of Charis
#2
Technically Plan B isn't a contraceptive because it is retroactive. That's like saying an abortion is a contraceptive. More like contraberthive.


I'm not sure what I think of this. I guess as long as you still have access to it somehow then it's not a big deal, but I'm not sure how you could ensure that...
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,107
12,895
373
Atlanta, GA
#3
such drugs can destroy a fertilized egg, which [the two pharmacists] consider equal to abortion.
I side with them on the constitutional issue (and on free market grounds; if the pharmacy won't sell Plan B, go to a different pharmacy), but that's just fucking retarded. I wonder if either of the pharmacists are meat-eaters.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#4
Technically Plan B isn't a contraceptive because it is retroactive. That's like saying an abortion is a contraceptive. More like contraberthive.
It does the same thing that The Pill does; it keeps an egg from dropping when taken properly. But it can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting if it's been a few days, although it's far from perfect on that front. If an egg has already implanted it's pretty much worthless. It's not like RU-486 which will do that. I can ALMOST even see why they'd have an objection to RU-486, because that kills babies 100% of the time. Taking Plan B "usually" just does the same thing The Pill does, so if they prescribe that they should prescribe both.

I'm not sure what I think of this. I guess as long as you still have access to it somehow then it's not a big deal, but I'm not sure how you could ensure that...
Not everybody lives in an area where they can go two blocks from a CVS that refuses to dispense it to a Walgreens that does.

I side with them on the constitutional issue (and on free market grounds; if the pharmacy won't sell Plan B, go to a different pharmacy), but that's just fucking retarded. I wonder if either of the pharmacists are meat-eaters.
See above.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,700
18,455
513
Kingdom of Charis
#5
It does the same thing that The Pill does; it keeps an egg from dropping when taken properly. But it can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting if it's been a few days, although it's far from perfect on that front. If an egg has already implanted it's pretty much worthless. It's not like RU-486 which will do that. I can ALMOST even see why they'd have an objection to RU-486, because that kills babies 100% of the time. Taking Plan B "usually" just does the same thing The Pill does, so if they prescribe that they should prescribe both.
Too technical for me. I guess I stand corrected. I wasn't really making an argument there. Just sayin'

Not everybody lives in an area where they can go two blocks from a CVS that refuses to dispense it to a Walgreens that does.
Yeah, that's what got me thinking. I know someone who lives in a rural area in Washington state, and for her one or two drugstores not carrying it could mean major travel. So again, one of those weird situations where I don't know what to think.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#6
I guess the media's just blowing this whole contraception thing out of proportion and there aren't conservatives out there trying to ban access to contraception.
Ban? You really don't understand the difference between "not force" and "ban"?
And I would imagine there's a whole list of things a pharmacist could object to on "moral" grounds. Pain meds for drug addicts, Viagra for rapists. You're a pharmacist, you're paid to dispense drugs.
Feel free to fire any pharmacist you're paying, if they're not dispensing drugs to your satisfaction. But leave the ones you're not paying alone.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#7
Yeah, that's what got me thinking. I know someone who lives in a rural area in Washington state, and for her one or two drugstores not carrying it could mean major travel. So again, one of those weird situations where I don't know what to think.
Perhaps you should consider finding a solution to the problem that doesn't involve the use of force.

Especially now, that a nice judge who understands the concept of individual rights just stopped some politicians from using force.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Jan 12, 2010
36,212
21,809
398
Northern California
#8
Perhaps you should consider finding a solution to the problem that doesn't involve the use of force.

Especially now, that a nice judge who understands the concept of individual rights just stopped some politicians from using force.
This. It's a private business, they shouldn't be forced to carry a product they don't agree with... and in this case especially when it's not one needed to sustain life (the absence of it actually sustains life).

I don't agree with the stance people have on Plan B... I'm sure it's been used to my benefit on more than one occasion, but this deals with a private business opting out of a product they disagree with, and that should be legal.

Edit to add:

Not everybody lives in an area where they can go two blocks from a CVS that refuses to dispense it to a Walgreens that does.
OAPC, not everyone lives in an area where they can get to a pharmacy within two hours. You don't have a right to convenience. You're lucky if you have a pharmacy two blocks away, not entitled to it. Can you sue the only store within 100 miles because they don't carry the type of aspirin you like, even though you get really bad headaches? No you can't. You can appeal to them, and if they refuse decide that you will never give them your business again, but that stance means going even further for everything else you need.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,700
18,455
513
Kingdom of Charis
#9
Perhaps you should consider finding a solution to the problem that doesn't involve the use of force.

Especially now, that a nice judge who understands the concept of individual rights just stopped some politicians from using force.
I just don't know the law well enough. These guys are licensed by the Feds to sell drugs, and I don't know the ins and outs of getting such a license, or whether or not the feds could say "if you want a license you need to carry x, y, and z so the populous in your area will have access to it." Not everything is entirely black and white. Yes, you shouldn't be forced to sell something if you are a private business, but then again, it's not like you sell muffins. This is a special area of consumer goods and I'm not sure it should enjoy the same "hands off" treatment as, say, a hardware store. Not saying definitely. I'm just not sure what I think about it yet.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#10
Ban? You really don't understand the difference between "not force" and "ban"?
Eliminating access in certain areas is just as effective as a ban.

Feel free to fire any pharmacist you're paying, if they're not dispensing drugs to your satisfaction. But leave the ones you're not paying alone.
I've fired a few pharmacists in my past for that...;)
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#12
I don't agree with the stance people have on Plan B... I'm sure it's been used to my benefit on more than one occasion, but this deals with a private business opting out of a product they disagree with, and that should be legal.
Too bad. The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have the authority to tell businesses what they can and can't sell (beyond not selling anything illegal).
Actually, no it's not. It's allowing an EMPLOYEE of licensed business to opt out of it.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,107
12,895
373
Atlanta, GA
#13
I know someone who lives in a rural area in Washington state, and for her one or two drugstores not carrying it could mean major travel. So again, one of those weird situations where I don't know what to think.
She could order whatever she wants or needs online. Those items would be shipped right to her door.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,700
18,455
513
Kingdom of Charis
#15
She could order whatever she wants or needs online. Those items would be shipped right to her door.
Yeah, the more I read about this, the more I side with you guys. Especially this part:

But Leighton ruled that the state allows all sorts of business exemptions to the rules. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.
So you're allowed to not carry a drug because of too much paperwork, but not because of a moral objection? Come on. If you aren't being strict, don't be strict. Like the judge said:

the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.
This looks like it was a political case by the State, and therefore worthy of losing by default. Any case not pursued for its true merit deserves be ruled against anyway. I'm really not getting the impression that anyone was actually hurt by this.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
I guess the media's just blowing this whole contraception thing out of proportion and there aren't conservatives out there trying to ban access to contraception. And I would imagine there's a whole list of things a pharmacist could object to on "moral" grounds. Pain meds for drug addicts, Viagra for rapists. You're a pharmacist, you're paid to dispense drugs.
You have no concept of a difference between the public and private sectors, do you? It must suck to depend on government for every little thing in life, considering how they fuck up so much.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
She could order whatever she wants or needs online. Those items would be shipped right to her door.
Is that a joke? Because something like Plan B is pretty much time-critical.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton sided with a pharmacy and two pharmacists
Point taken. But it would also allow a pharmacist to go it alone against his employer's wishes.
a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.
If the drug is in stock, it sounds like a specific druggist could refuse to dispense them. Sounds like they really just need to rewrite the law.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
You have no concept of a difference between the public and private sectors, do you? It must suck to depend on government for every little thing in life, considering how they fuck up so much.
You have no concept of people's religious and scientific ignorance fucking things up. Plan B is just a variation of the Pill. If you dispense one, you should dispense the other. I even said I could see them objecting on moral grounds to something like RU-486. Your Moral Oral brethren have successfully clouded the issue to where people think they're the same thing.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,552
19,736
513
jersey
#19
If Plan B is legal, no government should be able to force independent pharmacies to carry it. Same way they dont have to carry Advil if they dont want to. If the ruling was against free clinics, I would have to disagree.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#20
I just don't know the law well enough. These guys are licensed by the Feds to sell drugs, and I don't know the ins and outs of getting such a license, or whether or not the feds could say "if you want a license you need to carry x, y, and z so the populous in your area will have access to it." Not everything is entirely black and white.
The principle of individual rights to life, liberty and property is black and white.

If I own a pharmacy, I have the right to sell whatever I want in it. And you don't have the right to force me to sell or not sell anything. No room for any grey there. None whatsoever. All use of force to achieve some "noble" goal has the same exact color: black. It is born out of the same exact irrational desire to control other people's minds, and it leads to the same exact corrupt society where might makes right.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#21
You have no concept of people's religious and scientific ignorance fucking things up. Plan B is just a variation of the Pill. If you dispense one, you should dispense the other. I even said I could see them objecting on moral grounds to something like RU-486. Your Moral Oral brethren have successfully clouded the issue to where people think they're the same thing.
Wow, you really don't have any fucking concept of individual liberty. I was just making a point, but you honestly don't know the difference.

Guess what? People are allowed to have different views than you, and base their actions on those views. You and your Communist brethren can't force anyone to do anything they find offensive. Deal with it and get your Plan B pill at the next store over.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#23
If the drug is in stock, it sounds like a specific druggist could refuse to dispense them. Sounds like they really just need to rewrite the law.
No, the ruling is fine. You're the only one who thinks individual employees can just refuse to serve customers at will now. This side of Partycock's great wall of imagination, an employer who caught his pharmacist doing that is free to discipline or fire him.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
No, the ruling is fine. You're the only one who thinks individual employees can just refuse to serve customers at will now. This side of Partycock's great wall of imagination, an employer who caught his pharmacist doing that is free to discipline or fire him.
And so I guess the woman can just go back in time and undo her pregnancy. Nice imagination there Norm...

If Plan B is legal, no government should be able to force independent pharmacies to carry it. Same way they dont have to carry Advil if they dont want to. If the ruling was against free clinics, I would have to disagree.
Advil's over the counter, so that's a different situation. And you know you can get that at a 7-11. Prescription drugs are regulated in a different way.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,107
12,895
373
Atlanta, GA
#25
Is that a joke? Because something like Plan B is pretty much time-critical.
She can overnight it.

Point taken. But it would also allow a pharmacist to go it alone against his employer's wishes.
That's between the employer and the employee. It's none of the state's business.

If the drug is in stock, it sounds like a specific druggist could refuse to dispense them. Sounds like they really just need to rewrite the law.
They need to stop meddling in the affairs of the private sector. They just cause more problems.
 
Top Bottom