ACLJ: Illinois S. Ct. Affirms Rights of Pro-Life Pharmacists

We will now vigorously litigate this matter at the trial level in order to vindicate the conscience rights of our clients.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (American Center for Law and Justice) - We received great news from the Illinois Supreme Court today in a case involving the protection of the conscience rights of pro-life pharmacists in the state of Illinois.

The ACLJ is co-counsel for two pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois who sued Illinois' Governor Blagojevich and other state officials over a 2005 administrative regulation that coerces pro-life pharmacists into dispensing Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill." The lawsuit asked that the regulation, which provides for license revocation and steep fines for religiously-based refusals to dispense, be struck down as violative of the First Amendment, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit was not "ripe" for adjudication because the pharmacists had not yet actually suffered any concrete harm from the regulation. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review of the case and heard arguments in March.

This morning we learned that the Illinois Supreme Court has reversed the decisions of the lower courts and has ruled that our clients are entitled to their day in court. The Court held that the case was indeed ripe for consideration and sent the matter back to the trial court. The Court noted the impact that the Governor's rule has on pharmacists with religious objections to selling Plan B: "the simple failure by plaintiffs to make efforts to stock [Plan B] would subject plaintiffs to a range of penalties, including license revocation."

The Court also noted that Governor Blagojevich and his subordinates "have publicly stated that they will vigorously prosecute pharmacists with religious objections to drive them out of the profession and that a pharmacy must fill Plan B prescriptions without making moral judgments if it wants to stay in business."

The case is Morr-Fitz, et al. v. Blagojevich. Along with our co-counsel, we will now vigorously litigate this matter at the trial level in order to vindicate the conscience rights of our clients.

This case is just one of a number of related pieces of litigation that have made up the ACLJ's ongoing efforts to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals in Illinois and elsewhere. Directly related to the Morr-Fitz case, is the case of Menges et al. v. Blagojevich, where the ACLJ represented seven individual pharmacists suing over the same regulation at issue in Morr-Fitz.

The U.S. District Court ruled that our clients had a valid claim that the regulation violated their Free Exercise rights because there was evidence that it intentionally targeted religious objectors. After that ruling, the state agreed to enter into an agreement that the regulation did not apply to individual pharmacists (as opposed to pharmacy owners) and that it could not be applied against our clients. Today's Supreme Court ruling relied heavily on the precedent set by the Menges case.

In Vandersand v. Wal-Mart, the U.S. District Court held that Illinois pharmacists are clearly covered by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits discrimination against any person based on that person's refusal to participate in any form of health care contrary to his or her moral or religious convictions. In Nead v. Bd. of Trustees, the court upheld the right of a nurse to sue under Title VII after being denied a promotion based on her opposition to dispensing the morning-after pill.

In Moncivaiz v. DeKalb County, the court upheld the claims of a part-time secretary in a county health department who refused to participate in abortion referrals. And in 2002, we obtained a jury verdict on behalf of a pro-life nurse who was fired by her county employer for refusing to participate in abortion-related procedures (Diaz v. Riverside County).

Current litigation includes Quayle, et al. v.Walgreens, in which we are pursuing claims against Walgreens for firing four Illinois pharmacists and Baretela v. Unity Health, in which we represent a New York state social worker fired for refusing to participate in abortion referrals.

The ACLJ has been and remains at the forefront of litigation to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of health care professionals. No American should be forced to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.

****
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

---

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. This article is used with permission.