Friday, August 03, 2007


OK, first let's keep in mind that there are two issues here, only one of which pertains to this case. First (and it is this case), can an employer discipline an employee for refusing to fill a "morning after" pill on grounds of conscience? This is a question of statutory interpretation and has no real constitutional implications.

The other little beauty that is floating around out there does have constitutional implications: Does the State have the right to mandate filling of the MA pill, as a condition of licensure and irrespective of conscience?

Judge Scott's decision is a very preliminary decision but keeps the case alive. It will be reinterpreted (broadened) by every "Pro-Life" (as opposed to "Pro-Death") advocate out there. Would expect to see it on Fox in some contorted form tonight.

I' m interested in anyone's view as to the implications of this decision for licensed personnel and What the Defendant should do in proving the case to get around the preliminary finding of protection. Not to be offensive, but I'm not particularly interested in anyone's view of abortion or the Government's role in it. I already served my Sophomore year and the deep discussions leading nowhere that accompany it.

FWIW, I think the J-R does a very good job with Federal Court Stories and this one is no exception.

One other thing. Judge Scott is a really good, down-the-middle, high integrity Judge. I hope this doesn't turn her into some kind of National "right to life" poster child. She doesn't side in with any constituency, just calls 'em like she sees 'em.


At 9:33 AM, August 03, 2007, Anonymous Sean Heeger said...

I guess kids aren't kids until they're kids. Morality and law never mix very well. So who knows?

Morality is like organized religion. There's always one true moral...and that depends on who you ask.

Pharmacist need to get a different occupation if they can't deal with the living tree.

At 12:38 PM, August 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it were a Muslin pharmacist it wouldn't even get that far.

At 7:25 PM, August 04, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folk need to boycott the pharmacy and let the market decide. "Pass them by foks," What a pain in the neck these people are.

At 12:29 PM, August 05, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Which Peeps are you talking about.

"Pro-Life", "Pro-Death" or WallyWorld?

At 3:47 PM, August 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry - writing about the pharmacist who will not fill the prescription. The least the drug store can do is put a sign in the window "Will not fill birth control or morning after pills."

At 3:16 PM, August 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fire the pharmacist if they can't do their job.
I am an atheist. If I make a decision to turn down potential business from a church based on my beliefs you can bet your ass my employer get rid of me. How is this different?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home