National Catholic Register - Pharmacists in Illinois Score a Victory for Conscientious Objection

by Elenor K. Schoen

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. A state judge in Illinois has ruled that pharmacists cannot be forced to dispense emergency contraceptives against their personal beliefs.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz made the decision on April 5, stating that the requirement to sell morning after contraceptives violates the states conscience law.

The ruling was the latest outcome in a six-year legal battle by pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog and the three drug stores they operate. Believing emergency contraceptives can act as an abortion-causing agent, they sued over the 2005 rule imposed by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The former governor, who is facing his own legal difficulties in connection to his alleged sale of Barack Obamas U.S. Senate seat, imposed the rule because of the refusal of a Chicago pharmacist to fill two customers morning-after pill prescriptions. . . .

. . . . American Center for Law and Justice senior counsel Francis Manion, who argued the motion on behalf of the pharmacists, said in a recent interview that if the state attorneys really do appeal, they are really facing an uphill battle because they failed to produce at trial any evidence in support of their arguments.

The district courts factual findings in this regard are explicit and will make a reversal on appeal highly unlikely, he added.

One of the things that came out at trial was the fact that Illinois officials invited Planned Parenthood to the table to assist them in writing this law, Manion continued. We know that the director of the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation the person responsible for drafting the law did not seek input from religious objectors or pro-life pharmacists because we asked them. They admitted they did not [seek such input] under oath in his deposition and at the trial. They never thought to consult with anyone from the other side.

Now that the court has found this law to be invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds, perhaps states considering similar legislation will recognize that they also need to consider the position of pro-life health-care professionals, he suggested, adding: The First Amendment demands nothing less.. . .

The complete story is available here.