Judge says Wash. can’t make pharmacies sell Plan B

[rug]

February 23, 2012
Gene Johnson, Associated Press

In a ruling that appears headed toward appeal, a federal judge has ruled that Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.

The state’s true goal in adopting the rules at issue was not to promote the timely access to medicine, but to suppress religious objections by druggists who believe that such drugs can have an effect tantamount to abortion, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said in his ruling Wednesday.

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.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-23/lifestyle/31091824_1_pharmacies-rules-drugs

[edhopper]

1. Can a wine maker refuse to sell to the Catholic Church

for communion because he is opposed to pedophilia?

[rug]

2. If he consumed too much of his product he could.

[edhopper]

5. So it's only religious people

who get to act on their conscience?

[rug]

6. No. I'm saying your analogy is a poor one.

[edhopper]

14. Why?

If someone thinks communion wine enables a corrupt group of child molesters, why can't they refuse to sell it based on their conscience?
Or do only objections based on an organized religion have merit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Because it not really on point...

You can refuse to provide service to anyone for any reason as long as it is not prohibited by law. However, its a lot easier for you legally if you serve anyone who comes in the door. A business may choose not to offer particular merchandise for whatever reason they choose. Not every store carries Coke and Pepsi products, not every restaurant serves meat. Your wine vendor may choose not to sell it to churches for whatever reason they choose.

I am not aware of any other private business where merchandise requirements are being levied and all businesses are licensed by the state. Why just pharmacies and not others.

Rather than go down a very questionable path, protest and boycotts are the way to go here.

[Justice wanted]

3. So basically they are going to "religion" plan B out of the grasp from women.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. How many mom & pop pharmacies actually do this?

None of the chains do this.

[edhopper]

15. But now they can

if the CEO is a born again fundy, like the head of Domino's Pizza was, they can have their chain refuse to dispense this.
How many women need to be denied access for it to be a problem?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. So you favor the government requiring a private business to carry merchandise only

available from a monopoly at whatever price they set? If the state dictates what must be carried in a merchant's inventory (mostly from monopoly sources) what requirement is there that the state funds all or part of it?

This is in many ways a commerce case not a religious case. What other businesses have requirements levied on them as to what merchandise they must carry?

Pharmacies may choose not to carry some drugs for lack of demand, would that be a good enough reason not to carry Plan B?

The correct way to address this is protests and boycotts. Only a few stand alone stores do this kind of thing and can be driven out of business easily enough. It would also validate other movements like Occupy as having real power.

[edhopper]

17. I favor

single payer healthcare. With equal access by all.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Single payer will not address the troglodytes, single provider would...not sure we are ready to go

to that kind of system.

The only pharmacies doing this are a few of the mom & pop stores, which are already an endangered species. Lets kill those off and be done with it. None of the chains refuse to carry Plan B.

I believe it is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate People Power in the US that will get TPTB to take notice. Boycotts are mostly ignored in the US due to their lack of success. This could change that.

[iris27]

22. The chains do not refuse to carry it, but individual pharmacists at chains often refuse to sell it.

And to the person seeking it, the end result is the same.

The pharmacists who sued Illinois seeking a "conscience clause" after being punished for refusing to dispense were chain pharmacists - see Menges v. Walgreens and Vandersand v. Walmart.

[snot]

4. Just as Congress used its power to regulate interstate commerce to prohibit racial discrimination,

I believe it can regulate pharmacies to prohibit discrimination against women.

I'm sure racial bigots had must as much personal conviction about the rightness of their views as do anti-abortionists.

[Jim__]

7. Is he trying to overrule a decision by the 9th Circuit?

Is this ruling with respect to the 2007 case that was sent back to him? From the article:

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.

[rug]

9. I'm not sure.

Here's his opinion.

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/HomePageAnnouncements/C07-5374%20Opinion.pdf

Here's the injunction.

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/HomePageAnnouncements/C07-5374%20Permanent%20Injunction.pdf

Here are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/HomePageAnnouncements/C07-5374%20Findings%20of%20Fact.pdf

[Jim__]

12. Thanks. Reading his opinion, it sounds like the same case to me.

I don't usually read court decisions, but this case is Stormans v Selecky and from this decision:

...

The Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion reversing this Court’s injunction on July 8, 2009.
See Stormans v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2009). After rehearing by the Ninth Circuit
panel, that Opinion was vacated and superseded by an Opinion dated October 28, 2009. See
Stormans v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009). The Opinion reversed this Court’s
injunction.

In reversing the injunction, the Court of Appeals held that this Court had applied the
wrong preliminary injunction standard in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (invalidating the Ninth
Circuit’s “possibility of irreparable injury” standard as too lenient).9 Further, the Ninth Circuit
held that, based on the evidentiary record at the time, the Court should have applied a rationalbasis
test instead of an “ends/means” test, which it equated to heightened scrutiny. See
Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1131 (noting that the evidentiary record was “thin”). In considering the
merits, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed, and that the injunction
was overly broad because it applied to all pharmacists and pharmacies practicing “refuse and
refer.” The Court of Appeals further held that even if an injunction was warranted, it should
have been limited to the named Plaintiffs.

...

So, he's claiming a full examination of the evidence proves that his, Leighton's, original decision was correct. I guess it goes back to the 9th circuit.

[rug]

13. Good info. Let's see where this goes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. This has been beat to death in several other threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002339974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101458477

[rug]

10. Feel free to hide the thread.

Or, you can read the court documents themselves which seem to have erscaped the GD thread.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Just letting other people know where the earlier discussions on this topic are

[iris27]

21. Not really - there's inherent judgement in the phrase "beat to death". n/t