ACLJ Before Illinois Supreme Court on Behalf of Pro-Life Medical Professionals

Our ACLJ Senior Counsel Frank Manion was at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday as co-counsel in two very important pro-life cases. Here is Frank's report:

Morr-Fitz, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al.

The ACLJ is co-counsel for two pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois who have sued the Governor and other state officials over a 2005 administrative regulation that coerces pro-life pharmacists into dispensing Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill."  The lawsuit asks that the regulation, which provides for license revocation and steep fines for religiously-based refusals to dispense, be struck down as violative of the First Amendment, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit was not "ripe" for adjudication because the pharmacists had not yet actually suffered any concrete harm from the regulation. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review of the case.

On March 18, 2008, the case was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court.  The Court appeared to be receptive to our arguments both that the case was indeed ripe for consideration and, further, that the regulation was in apparent conflict with the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act.  A clear majority of the justices were openly skeptical of the arguments put forth by the state's attorney.  We anticipate a ruling perhaps within the next 60 days.

This case is just one of a number of related pieces of litigation that have made up the ACLJ's ongoing efforts to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals in Illinois and elsewhere.  Directly related to the Morr-Fitz case, is the case of Menges et al. v. Blagojevich, where the ACLJ represented seven individual pharmacists suing over the same regulation at issue in Morr-Fitz.  The U.S. District Court ruled that our clients had a valid claim that the regulation violated their Free Exercise rights because there was evidence that it intentionally targeted religious objectors.  After that ruling, the state agreed to enter into an agreement that the regulation did not apply to individual pharmacists (as opposed to pharmacy owners) and that it could not be applied against our clients.

In Vandersand v. Wal-Mart, the U.S. District Court held that Illinois pharmacists are clearly covered by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits discrimination against any person based on that person's refusal to participate in any form of health care contrary to his or her moral or religious convictions.  In Nead v. Bd. of Trustees, the court upheld the right of a nurse to sue under Title VII after being denied a promotion based on her opposition to dispensing the morning-after pill.  In Moncivaiz v. DeKalb County, the court upheld the claims of a part-time secretary in a county health department who refused to participate in abortion referrals.  And in 2002, we obtained a jury verdict on behalf of a pro-life nurse who was fired by her county employer for refusing to participate in abortion related procedures (Diaz v. Riverside County). 

Current litigation includes Quayle, et al. v.Walgreens, in which we are pursuing claims against Walgreens for firing four Illinois pharmacists and Baretela v. Unity Health, in which we represent a New York state social worker fired for refusing to participate in abortion referrals.

The ACLJ has been and remains at the forefront of a litigation to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of health care professionals.  No American should be forced to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.