A trial scheduled to begin just days from now on whether the state of Washington can force pro-life pharmacists to violate their own conscience and religious beliefs by requiring them to dispense abortifacients has been canceled.
The announcement about the pending July 26 trial in the lawsuit against the state and its officials over new rules from its pharmacy board comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which was preparing for the battle over conscience rights.
A stay order was issued by a federal court halting the proceedings when state officials agreed to begin a process that would result in modifications to allow pharmacists to refer patients seeking such death-dealing drugs to other pharmacies where there isn't a conflict with religious or personal beliefs, ADF said.
The lawsuit was launched in 2007 to safeguard the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies against state rules that were intended to force them to stock and distribute the drugs.
According to ADF, the "new regulations will protect conscience rights while also benefitting patients by mandating that all referrals are 'facilitated.'" That means a referral to another location where the products are available, ADF explained.
"Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn't be punished for looking out for their patients' health – and for abiding by their beliefs," said Steven H. Aden, the senior legal counsel who worked on the case for ADF.
"The pharmacy board was right in determining that facilitated referrals work to protect the patients' best interests and that, at the same time, pro-life pharmacists shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience. This is a win-win situation," he said.
Kristen Waggoner, one of nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, said the new rules "should ensure that customers receive prescribed drugs in the most efficient manner possible while at the same time respecting the conscience rights of pharmacists, who should never be forced to participate in the risk of destroying human life just to be able to preserve their professional licenses."
The order from U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton said the trial was stayed "to allow the board time to complete its rule-making processes."
"This court will lift the stay and set trial on an expedited basis upon plaintiffs request at any point in the future if plaintiffs reasonably believe at any time during the rule-making process that the proposed rules do not allow them to engage in a facilitated referral instead of stocking or dispensing Plan B," the ruling said.
The case had claimed the state was violating the constitutional rights of pharmacists by ordering them to stock and hand out the "morning-after" abortion pill.
"Plaintiffs, pharmacists and a pharmacy owner, have a conscientious objection to stocking and dispensing Plan B, the morning after pill," the judge noted officially. He earlier had refused a state request to dismiss the case.
The district court earlier issued an injunction against the state regulations.
On appeal from the state, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state of Washington failed to demonstrate that the abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called "Plan B" drug, weren't readily available already.
The lower court's original order found "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden by the Constitution" and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception."
The case developed when Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, received a telephone call about the availability of Plan B. After discovering the abortion-inducing results, Stormans, a Christian, decided his store would not stock the product.
Activists then launched a picketing campaign against him and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. Eventually his company, along with two individual pharmacists, was forced into the court action.
About that time, Democrats in Congress suggested fines of up to $500,000 if the pharmacists follow their conscience and decline to dispense abortifacient chemicals.
"Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said at the time. "The FDA has been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients' lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.
"Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their ethical duty," she said.
The bill, called the "Access to Birth Control Act," was pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Among the groups supporting the requirement were NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
The plan was to let "any person aggrieved" file a civil lawsuit for "appropriate relief, including actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and cost."
Plan B essentially is a very high dosage of birth-control chemicals taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or implantation. If ovulation is prevented, no egg is fertilized and no pregnancy occurs. But if ovulation has taken place and the egg is fertilized, the morning-after pill works to block implantation by the early embryo in the mother's womb. The embryo is aborted, making dispensing prescriptions for the pill a matter of conscience for pro-life pharmacists.
Pharmacists For Life International, a group that opposes abortion, cites a study showing seven of 10 pharmacists believe they have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that violate their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: July 15, 2010
