Illinois Supreme Court Allows Pharmacies’ Right Of Conscience Case To Go Forward

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that pharmacies have legal standing to challenge an administrative rule requiring pharmacies to dispense ‘Plan B (the so-called “morning after pill”)’, which abortion activists call “emergency contraception,” regardless of their religious, moral, or conscientious beliefs.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich reversed two lower courts that had previously ruled pharmacy owners did not have legal standing to challenge the rule.Thomas More Law Center attorney Kim Daniels, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Illinois Pharmacists Association and American Pharmacists Association, stated, “Since Governor Blagojevich promulgated this rule, Illinois pharmacists have been in  legal limbo regarding whether the state can force them to violate their consciences despite long-standing legal protections against just such government coercion.  This ruling clears the way for Illinois courts to determine whether the plain language of state and federal law protects the rights of these professionals not to be forced to act against their most deeply-held beliefs.” 

Governor Blagojevich, in referring to his executive order, infamously stated, “Rather than try to get the legislature to pass something – because we attempted to and they didn’t do it – on my own, through executive order action, I forced these guys to fill prescriptions for birth control for women who come in with prescriptions from their doctors.”  The Governor went on to say that pharmacists and pharmacy owners either had to dispense the abortifacient pill or leave the profession.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Pharmacy owners should not have to stock ‘Plan B’ against their conscience.  These types of rights to conscience cases are blossoming all over the country due in large part to efforts of the pro-abortion lobby to force medical professionals to act against their moral and religious beliefs.”

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • DRF

    The most recent studies show that the Plan B pill does thin the uterine lining but not enough to prevent implantation. That puts Plan B solidly in the “contraception” category and not the “abortion” category. I gather we don’t like that either, but I’m pretty sure fewer pharmacists will have problems of conscience once the word gets out.

  • momof11

    DRF:
    If something is contraceptive, it prevents conception (the joining of the sperm and the egg and the forming of a new being (in this discussion human). Implantation is not the beginning of a new life, conception is. In fact many if not all “contraceptive” pills can act as abortifacients should they fail to prevent the release of an egg. If the action of the pill is to make the environment of the womb hostile to the child conceived, whether it prevents implantation totally, or just makes the lining of the uterus too thin to provide the necessary nourishment for the new life until the placenta has time to form. it is an abortifacient. If a Landlord keeps conditions of an apartment building such that it is possible for a person to live, but not healthy…no heat, unsanitary plumbing etc…would we not consider the landlord culpable for the death of a tenant?

  • Mary Kochan

    No, we would not consider the landlord guilty for the death of a tenant unless he forced the tenant to live there. The just-conceived infant has no choice. The tenant of an apartment can move.

  • c-kingsley

    DRF wants to go along with the “new and improved” definition of conception, equating it with implantation. Catholic moral theology hasn’t bothered to keep up with the latest fads, and stubbornly calls “an abortion” anything that deliberately harms an embryonic human after the fusion of egg and sperm. Preventing implantation still is abortion, in spite of word games.

  • Cooky642

    AMEN, c-kingsley!

MENU