- Rep. Duncan Hunter: While Obama prays for Iranian change, U.S. should ready its nukes
- Best company ever? Veteran Beer Co. exists to employ vets, provide quality beer
- Iran official: Sanctions ‘utterly failed’ to stop nuclear program
- ‘Black Santa’ display at IU sparks student outrage
- Joint Chiefs chair Dempsey: Pentagon, VA too slow in merging medical systems
- Sen. Ben Cardin hits Ukraine for crackdown on Kiev protests
- Drone technology turns South, targets feral pigs to kill
- Puerto Rico caravan honoring Paul Walker ends in 6 drunken-driving arrests, 72 speeding tickets
- Better pack a lightsaber: House told space explorers could find alien life in 10 years
- Selfies gone too far? N.Y. woman snaps photo in front of suicidal man on bridge
Fed judge considers if pharmacies must sell Plan B
Question of the Day
TACOMA, WASH. (AP) - A federal judge is considering whether Washington state can require pharmacies to stock and sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, even in the face of religious objections by druggists who believe they destroy human life.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that claims state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.
Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia, Wash., and two licensed Washington pharmacists sued in 2007, saying that dispensing Plan B would infringe on their religious beliefs because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The state says the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to medicines and pharmacies, and that they promote a government interest _ the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.
The judge blocked the state dispensing rule in 2007, finding that it would violate the plaintiffs’ freedom of religion. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying that he applied the wrong legal standard and that the rule appeared constitutional because it was neutral and did not directly target religious views.
The appellate court sent the case back to Leighton, telling him to apply the correct standard. He held an 11-day trial to flesh out the matter, and in court Wednesday, he expressed little patience for the state’s enforcement of the rules, which he said reminded him of the federal government’s arbitrary enforcement of the now-repealed rule against gays serving openly in the military.
The issue is more important than many other freedom-of-religion cases, such as those concerning religious dress or other ceremonial matters, he said.
“The question of life and death is serious,” he thundered at an attorney for the state. “It’s not facial hair, it’s not a burka. … I do not know when life begins, but I will not denigrate somebody’s view of when life begins.”
Leighton said he would rule in a couple weeks, and that he intended to frame his opinion in a way that would encourage the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether pharmacists have a due-process right to refuse to provide medicine that they believe can take a life.
“Somebody at higher pay and higher station will decide this issue,” he said. “I’ll tee it up.”
Plan B had been at the center of the state’s decision in 2007 to adopt the Washington Board of Pharmacy’s dispensary requirements. The drug, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills, is effective in preventing pregnancy if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
Individual pharmacists are allowed to pass a prescription to another druggist in the same store, provided the order is not delayed. But that leaves no option for a lone pharmacist or a pharmacy owner with religious objections to a particular drug.
The pharmacists “can violate their core religious beliefs and participate in the taking of a human life, or they can lose their license,” lawyer Kristen Waggoner said during her closing argument.
The pharmacists argued they can easily and quickly refer customers to nearby drug stores willing to sell the drug, but women’s rights groups said that may not be the case in rural areas. It might also be difficult for those with disabilities if their pharmacists decide not to dispense it for personal reasons, they said.
Waggoner noted business exemptions that allow pharmacies not to stock a drug, including low demand, high cost, insurance concerns, and security reasons in cases where stocking a drug such as the addictive painkiller oxycodone could increase risk of theft. If the state allows pharmacies not to stock a drug for non-religious reasons, it should also allow them not to stock a drug for religious ones, she argued.
Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who supports the dispensary requirements, has rejected a compromise that would have allowed druggists to refer patients to other pharmacies for reasons of conscience.
By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- U.S. drops 2,000 mice on Guam by parachute to kill snakes
- Doctors say profound new HIV treatment may prove the cure
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- EDITORIAL: Motor City meltdown
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Last call: State Dept. bought $180,000 in liquor before shutdown
- MILLER: Obamas EPA closing smelter will not affect ammunition supply
- Obama: Growing income inequality 'defining challenge' of this generation
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Career Doctor Cassi Fields prescribes valuable advice for anyone looking to find a career, nail an interview or earn a promotion.
Headlines from Associated Press and around the Internet
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.