Project Logo

Protection of Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org

Service, not Servitude
Subscribe to me on YouTube

News Releases: 2005

Pro-life medical groups appeal to higher court to protect their right of conscience

 

Alliance Defense Fund, San Francisco, California

 

December 13, 2005, 4:50 PM (MST)

"The government shouldn't force pro-life medical professionals to participate in abortions against their conscience," said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Christian Legal Society filed a brief today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to support their appeal of a lower court's decision that denied California healthcare professionals the opportunity to intervene in a case affecting their right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.

"The government shouldn't force pro-life medical professionals to participate in abortions against their conscience.  Unfortunately, that's exactly what the state of California wants to do by pursuing this lawsuit," said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

ADF and CLS filed the motion to intervene in June on behalf of members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants in the case State of California v. United States of America.  The three groups are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests by defending the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.

Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the "Weldon Amendment" in December 2004.  The statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.

"The Weldon Amendment is a critical protection of healthcare professionals' rights of conscience, and we hope that the 9th Circuit will allow these same medical professionals to defend the statute against California's challenge," Mattox explained.

Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in January, claiming the Weldon Amendment is unconstitutional because it prevents the state from applying its own laws requiring healthcare professionals to provide abortions in some cases.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.  

 

Pharmacist appeals Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board's Final Disciplinary Decision

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

4 November, 2005

Neil Noesen, the Wisconsin pharmacist disciplined earlier this year by the Wisconsin State Pharmacy Examining Board has filed an opposing brief November 1st in Barron County Circuit Court. 

The brief argues that Noesen fulfilled the standard of care in his fair disclosure to his employer and in his professional service to the patient's health, safety, and well-being.  Furthermore, it is argued that Board's standard of care is unconstitutional and that the Board made a critical omission of law in failing to prudently examine Wisconsin State Statute Chapter 941.

In July 2002, Noesen conscientiously objected to cooperate with the filling of an order for a patient to use Loestrin FE 1/20 as a contraceptive agent.  The Board admits that Loestrin FE 1/20 may decrease the likelihood of implantation.

Implantation is when an embryo bonds to the endometrium, the wall of the uterus.

 

Noesen states in this new brief that this decreased likelihood of implantation constitutes unlawful reckless endangerment of the safety of an unborn child, "under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life" according to Wisconsin Stat. § 941.30(1).

 

"The standard of care set forth by the Board is not in accordance with the timeless philosophy of our profession to care for the sick and the suffering.  As privileged servants to the health of the public we have a duty to defend the values that ennoble man." Noesen states.

 

The State Attorney General's office will have until December 1, 2005 to reply to Noesen's appeal.Contact: William Goodman Phone: (715) 341-4034
Belgium: Redefining Palliative Care and Forcing Physicians to Refer for Euthanasia

Protection of Conscience Project

For Immediate Release
31 October, 2005

Physicians must refer patients for euthanasia, and euthanasia is part of palliative care in Belgium, according to a joint statement issued by the Catholic University of Leuven, the University of Ghent and the Belgian Association of General Practitioners.

Concerned about the implications of the statement for freedom of conscience, the Protection of Conscience Project wrote to the Association in July, 2004 to initiate a dialogue on the subject.  The Association answered the first letter but failed to respond when the Project attempted to continue the discussion.

"Referral is contentious for many objectors," said Project Administrator, Sean Murphy.  "A Belgian doctor is legally required to transfer a medical file to someone chosen by the patient.  But neither Belgium's Euthanasia Act nor its Patients' Rights Act require physicians to actively facilitate the procedure, so the Association and universities appear to be over-reaching."

Murphy noted that this is not unusual, as demands for referral for controversial services that are made in other countries are often without legal or ethical foundation.  "We encounter demands that objectors refer patients for contraception, the morning-after pill, or abortion, for example," he explained.  Citing the case of a medical student whose professors attempted to fail him for refusing to provide or refer for such services, Murphy commented that it was most interesting to see that their reasons were essentially the same as those given to force Belgian physicians to refer for euthanasia.

"Whether or not they realize it," he said, "these professors are laying the foundations for compulsory referral for all controversial procedures, including euthanasia or assisted suicide, if such procedures were to be legalized."

Murphy said that the incorporation of euthanasia into palliative care is also problematic from the perspective of freedom of conscience.

"Many people working in palliative care entered the field with the understanding that it does not include euthanasia or assisted suicide," he observed.  "It would be most unfair to incorporate the procedure into the discipline without very substantial legal safeguards to protect conscientious objectors."

The joint statement, related documents and correspondence between the Project and the Belgian Association of General Practitioners are available in English and in Dutch on the Protection of Conscience Project website.  The accompanying commentary introduces the documents and outlines the issues.

 


Family Life Praises Doctor's Contraception Decision

Family Life International (New Zealand)

Sunday 16th October, 2005

The bold and important decision of Dr Joseph Hassan to cease prescribing contraceptives to his patients is to be praised

Catholic pro-life and family organisation, Family Life International, commends the stand taken by Nelson GP, Dr Joseph Hassan, to stop prescribing contraceptives to his patients.

In July of this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared that they rate the combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen.

A Group 1 rating is the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only "when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans." (Emphasis theirs)

Combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives are the most commonly prescribed forms of contraceptives. According to the IARC "worldwide, more than 100 million women - about 10% of all women of reproductive age - currently use combined hormonal contraceptives."

It has also been well documented that most oral contraceptives are abortifacient in nature, which means that they actually chemically abort a newly conceived child rather that preventing the conception of a child from occurring.

Dr Hassan is to be praised for his bold and important action, which shows true respect and holistic concern for the health and wellbeing of his female patients and a great respect for the sanctity of all human life.

Our hope is that other medical professionals will be encouraged by the example of Dr Hassan, and take a stand to cease promoting contraception to their patients as well.

Governor Vetoes Conscience Protection Act
Placating Pro-Abortion Movement Trumps Protecting Conscience Rights

Wisconsin Right to Life

14 October, 2005

This afternoon, Governor James Doyle vetoed Assembly Bill 207 (The Conscience Protection Act) authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh).

"The Governor has once again decided that it is more important to please his allies in the abortion industry than it is to protect health professionals and facilities from being forced to participate in activities that deliberately destroy human life," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life, the lead organization promoting AB 207.

AB 207 would protect the right of health care professionals, medical students, health care facilities and medical schools to not be forced to participate in activities that involve the deliberate destruction of human life. The legislation clearly outlines what those activities are - abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research or other purposes, and the use of the body parts of aborted babies.

The legislation would not provide conscience protections for any other activities and the legislation does not prohibit those activities from taking place. Rather, it simply provides conscience protections for those particular health care facilities and facilities that have an objection to the deliberate destruction of human life in these particular ways. In no way would AB 207 prevent any health care professional or facility from engaging in the activities outlined in the bill if they wish to.

"It was an outrage that the governor characterized the legislation as giving the health care community the opportunity to 'deny health care based on ideological beliefs,' " said Armacost. "The governor apparently believes that abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of human embryos and the use of the body parts of aborted babies constitute health care. He is truly out of sync with the public on these issues."

"It is clear that we need an individual as governor who respects human life," said Armacost. "We will be back next session with this issue with renewed vigor to see that this measure becomes law."

Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
Cell: 414-840-2097
A Narrow and Totalitarian View of Professional Practice

Protection of Conscience Project

17 September, 2005
For Immediate Release

An "invitation only" focus group will meet in Windsor, Ontario, on 20 September to consider a proposal that includes a draft code of ethics for Ontario's pharmacists. Its response may determine how far the Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP) can go in suppressing freedom of conscience.

The draft code obliges pharmacists and technicians to respect human rights and avoid discrimination. But Principle 4 goes on: "No patient shall be deprived of pharmaceutical services because of the personal convictions or religious beliefs of a pharmacist or pharmacy technician."

"This would authorize persecution of any pharmacist who refuses to dispense drugs for reasons of conscience," says Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "This is alarming, especially since professional and regulatory authorities have been markedly hostile to freedom of conscience in the profession."

Reporting his discovery of the draft code, Iain Benson of Canada's Centre for Cultural Renewal protested what he called the "narrow and frankly totalitarian view of professional practice" that prevails among pharmacists. He added that "this blunt and unfair kind of principle" would not be endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association.

Murphy points out that the CMA, the Canadian Health Association and the Canadian Nurses Association agree that health care providers should not be expected to act contrary to their conscientious convictions, nor should they be discriminated against for acting upon their beliefs.

Murphy is disturbed that the Ontario Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council is seeking the endorsement of anonymous, invitation-only 'focus groups' to abrogate a fundamental freedom recognized by the Charter of Rights. He is also troubled that representatives of conscientious objectors were excluded from the process that produced the controversial draft.

"By the time they heard about the proposal, the deadline for submissions had already passed," he said. "The Project has asked the HPRAC to extend the deadline. I am waiting for an answer."

Nation's Most Comprehensive Medical Conscience Rights Legislation to Receive Public Hearing

Wisconsin Right to Life

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 14, 2005

Christian Wire Service/ -- Tomorrow, Thursday, September 15, the Conscience Protection Act  (AB 207) will receive a public hearing before the Senate Health, Children, Families, Aging & Long Term Care Committee.  The legislation is authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh). Assembly Bill 207 has already passed the Assembly.  "We look forward to swift State Senate action on this important legislation," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life, the lead organization promoting the Conscience Protection Act.

Armacost said that a number of physicians, nurses, and medical students will be testifying in support of AB 207  at tomorrow's hearing.  The legislation would protect medical professionals, medical students, health care facilities and medical schools from being forced to participate in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research and the use of the body parts of aborted babies. 

The major opposition to AB 207 is coming from pro-abortion organizations who continue to make a number of false claims regarding the legislation.  The following is a memo sent to Committee members from Susan Armacost that addresses a number of the fabrications being circulated by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations.  

Contact: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director, Wisconsin Right to Life, 414-778-5780 

 

CMA Doctors Fault ACOG Hypocrisy on Abortion "Choice"

Christian Medical Association (USA)

Washington,DC,
September 12, 2005

The 17,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA) today highlighted the hypocrisy of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in pushing for legislation to force conscientiously opposed physicians into referring their patients for abortions.

CMA Executive Director Dr. David Stevens said, "For years now, ACOG has tried to promote abortion on demand as a matter of free choice. We've always known that abortion affords no choice or rights to a developing baby. Now we learn that ACOG would also strip choice and rights away from the very physicians it claims to represent. This is not only the height of hypocrisy; it is also a sure-fire way to lose more physician members who value their constitutional and professional rights of conscience."

In an Aug. 30 letter to U.S. senators from ACOG president Dr. Michael T. Mennuti, ACOG asserted, "Doctors who morally object to abortion should be required to refer patients to other physicians who will provide the appropriate care." In his letter, Mennuti advocated that the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act  , which Congress passed to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals and institutions, be changed to force physicians to refer patients for abortions.[See

Stevens noted, "If a physician is morally opposed to abortion, why would that same physician violate his or her conscience by referring a patient to an abortionist to end the baby's life? And what kind of nation would force its physicians to violate their consciences and their Hippocratic oath by mandating participation in abortions?"

CMA Associate Executive Director Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician and gynecologist, observed, "For years, many of us who have belonged to ACOG have hoped to change the organization from within, hoping that reason and Hippocratic values would prevail over the organization's strident and inappropriate abortion advocacy. It has become clear that in the blind pursuit of abortion at any cost, the ACOG leadership is ready to sell out its own membership by advocating laws that remove the rights of physicians. With more and more physicians morally opposed to abortions, this move for mandates simply shows the desperation of abortion advocates to enforce their agenda by any and all means."

To schedule an interview, please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047 or by e-mail: margie.shealy@cmda.org. The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines.

Manzullo: Pharmacists Shouldn't Be Forced to Choose Between Their Business, Beliefs

Monday, July 25, 2005

(WASHINGTON) House Small Business Committee Chairman Don Manzullo (R-IL) today said pharmacists in several states face fines and possibly the loss of their business if they refuse to dispense certain birth control drugs that are against their beliefs.

 

Manzullo, who held a full committee hearing on the issue today, said five states currently require pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even if they oppose it on moral or religious grounds. At least two bills have been introduced in Congress to carry the mandate throughout the nation, even though several other states have specifically given pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense medication if they oppose it on moral or religious grounds.

 

Failure to comply with the proposed federal legislation and the state mandates could cost pharmacists heavy fines and even revocation of their licenses.

 

"Pharmacists shouldn't be forced to choose between their business and their beliefs," Manzullo said.

 

Instead of creating rules to punish pharmacists and put their businesses at risk, the states should seek ways to diffuse the confrontation between pharmacists and their customers. Manzullo suggested creating a list of pharmacists who will fill certain prescriptions that doctors can share with their patients before they try to have their prescriptions filled.

 

"The confrontation could be avoided completely if a patient knew for sure that a certain pharmacist would fill his or her prescription," Manzullo said.

 

Islamic Medical Association of North America logo

The Use of Physicians for Human Torture

Islamic Medical Association of North America

6 July, 2005

The Islamic Medical Association of North America (www.imana.org) is opposed to the use of physicians for torture of inmates irrespective of their faith, race, gender, nationality or alleged crime. Thus IMANA recommends that its members and all Muslim physicians not participate in the delivery of inhumane treatment, lethal injection, non-surgical amputation or torture of inmates by any means when ordered by their employers, government or private agencies or on their own. When asked to do so, not only they should refuse to comply but also notify Human Rights organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights. 

Muslim physicians are reminded that they are to uphold the sanctity and dignity of human life and be instrument of God's healing and compassion. They are further reminded that they will be held accountable to God for their actions in this life.

Shahid Athar, MD,FACP, FACE
Chair, Medical Ethics Committee,
Chair, Board of Regents.
Islamic Medical Association of North America
101 West 22nd Street, Suite 106
Lombard, IL 60148
630-932-2000, 630-932-2005(fax)
CMA Doctors Counter AMA Position on Abortion and Conscience

Washington, DC

 27 June, 2005

 Christian Wire Service/The nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians today spoke out in opposition to the American Medical Association's recent stance regarding forcing the filling of prescriptions for drugs that can cause abortions.

Christian Medical Association Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist, noted, "The key issue here is not even the important question of the ethics of birth control, but the fundamental freedom to follow the dictates of one's conscience and of the teachings of one's religious faith."

AMA policy makers last week passed a resolution calling on pharmacists to fill or help fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the "morning-after pill". Some pharmacists conscientiously oppose participating in such prescriptions because of the drugs' post-fertilization effects--preventing an early embryo from implanting in the uterus.

Dr. Rudd added, "Regardless of whether we would personally take that position, it is important to defend the rights of those who do. Instead of limiting the rights of healthcare professionals, true patient advocates should insist that contraceptive makers and marketers insure patient informed consent--by providing full information on the product so the patient realizes exactly what it does and what the risks are. Many women would be devastated to realize that so-called 'emergency contraception' can actually end early developing life.

"There is simply no reason to trample over the consciences of pharmacists to fill these prescriptions. This is often framed as a matter of patient rights and access to healthcare when it in fact is an issue of patient convenience. Patient convenience is a good goal, but it cannot trump fundamental rights of conscience. It is clear that abortion advocates will not tolerate anyone who opposes their doctrine. It is ironic that while they appeal to principles of freedom of choice, abortion advocates are willing to eliminate the choice of those who hold opposing views.

"What we are seeing in this country is a wholesale movement to deny healthcare professionals the right to follow their own consciences, especially in matters regarding reproduction. Mandating abortion training for New York City residents in training, forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions that violate their consciences, and requiring faith-based organizations to violate their religious teachings are not only morally objectionable, they violate our constitutional freedoms of speech and religion.

"History teaches us that denying the freedoms of one group is a threat to the constitutional freedoms of every one of us. As Martin Niemoller said of failing to oppose the Nazi regime, 'First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.'"

To schedule an interview please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047 or by email at Margie.Shealy@cmda.org.


Louisiana nurse fired for refusal to administer "morning after" abortion pill

Alliance Defense Fund

Covington, Louisiana USA
June 23, 2005, 11:34 AM (MST)

"The hospital's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly's sincerely held religious beliefs and their termination of her full-time job is unlawful," said ADF attorney Mike Johnson. 

COVINGTON, La.-Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund have filed suit against St. Tammany Parish Hospital for terminating the employment of a nurse who refused to administer the "morning after" abortion pill.  The suit argues that the hospital's actions violate the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law.

The nurse, Toni Lemly, had informed hospital supervisory staff that she objected to administering the "morning after" abortion pill because of her sincerely held religious beliefs.  St. Tammany Parish Hospital responded by firing her from her full-time position and reducing her to part-time status, working only three days a week.  The demotion to part-time status caused a substantial reduction in her pay as well as loss of employee benefits.

"This case is about the protection and freedom of conscience," said ADF attorney Mike Johnson.  "The hospital's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly's sincerely held religious beliefs and their termination of her full-time job is unlawful."

Lemly had offered a number of reasonable suggestions to the hospital that would enable the facility to continue administering the "morning after" abortion pill while still allowing her to abstain from dispensing the pill herself.  The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions.

"St. Tammany Parish Hospital should have reversed its course and complied with the law.  Had they done so, this lawsuit would not be necessary," Johnson said.  "Ms. Lemly, a nurse of 23 years, loves her work, and she does not deserve to be discriminated against because of her religious beliefs.  All that she asks of the hospital is to respect her freedom in choosing to not participate in the taking of a human life."

The lawsuit, Lemly v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1, was filed in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. 


ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Pro-life medical groups seek to defend right of conscience in California

Alliance Defense Fund

San Francisco, California, USA
June 17, 2005, 12:05 PM (MST)

The Alliance Defense Fund and the Christian Legal Society filed a motion to intervene Thursday in State of California v. United States of America on behalf of California healthcare professionals to defend their right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.

"Forcing pro-life healthcare workers to provide abortion services is hardly 'pro-choice,'" said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

"The State of California says it would require them to offer abortions only in 'emergency' cases.  The problem is that California law assumes that every abortion after viability is a 'medically necessary' abortion.  Hence it is always an 'emergency' because there is always some risk to the mother's life or health in carrying a pregnancy to term," Aden said.

ADF and CLS filed the motion on behalf of members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants.

The three groups are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests.  They seek to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals by defending the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.

"California is trying to use this lawsuit not only to strike down the Weldon Amendment, but also to take steps to completely nullify any right of conscience in California," Aden explained.  "Congress overwhelmingly passed this amendment to protect pro-life doctors and nurses from this very thing."

Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Weldon Amendment in December 2004.  The statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.  Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in January, claiming the Weldon Amendment is unconstitutional.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. 

Motion to intervene


ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
 

ACLJ Files Federal Suit Against Illinois School After Nurse Rejected for Promotion Because of Objection to Morning-After Pill

American Center for Law and Justice

Urbana, Illinois, USA
June 8, 2005

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today filed a federal lawsuit against Eastern Illinois University after a nurse who was working at the University's Health Services Department was not promoted because of her pro-life beliefs and her objection to dispensing the morning-after pill.

"It is not only wrong to deny an applicant a position based on her religious beliefs, it is a violation of the law," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the nurse.  "There appears to be a systematic pattern in place in the state of Illinois designed to punish pro-life health care professionals who merely want to fulfill their professional obligations without violating their religious beliefs.  This hostility toward pro-life health care professionals is very troubling and we are confident that the court will uphold the constitutional rights of our client in this case."

The ACLJ today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Urbana, Illinois on behalf of Andrea Nead, who has been employed as a part-time nurse at the Health Services Department of Eastern Illinois University since 2000.  When a full-time position became available in October 2004, Nead applied for the promotion.  She was asked a number of questions including whether she would be willing to dispense the morning-after pill.  Nead told the interviewer that the morning-after pill violates her religious beliefs because she believes it is a form of abortion by preventing a newly conceived human life from implanting to the uterine wall.  The complaint contends that the interviewer told Nead that another applicant - who eventually was hired for the position - did not oppose dispensing the morning-after pill.  The complaint contends that the decision not to hire Nead was based on her religious beliefs regarding the morality of dispensing the morning-after pill.

The suit names as defendants the Board of Trustees of Eastern Illinois University and the Director of Health Services for the university.  The suit contends that denying Nead the promotion violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The suit requests a trial by jury and unspecified damages.

The suit comes just weeks after the ACLJ filed a lawsuit in state court challenging an amendment to the state code issued by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich that requires pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs.  The ACLJ represents six pharmacists in that case.

The ACLJ has had success in protecting the rights of pro-life health care professionals in Illinois in the past.  In 2003, the ACLJ filed a federal suit against the DeKalb County, Illinois Health Department on behalf of a health department employee who was denied a promotion because she expressed reluctance to participate in abortion counseling at the center.  The case was resolved after an agreement was reached and the county paid $40,000 to settle the employee's claims. 


Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.


AUL Files Suit Against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Over Rule Requiring Pharmacies to Dispense Morning-After Pill

Americans United for Life

For Immediate Release
8 June,2005

Today, Americans United for Life filed suit on behalf of pharmacy owner Luke Vander Bleek of Morrison, Illinois against Gov. Rod Blagojevich over his emergency rule issued April 1, 2005 requiring pharmacies to dispense contraceptives and abortifacient drugs such as the morning-after pill "without delay."

The suit alleges in part that the Governor's emergency rule violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act by compelling pharmacy owners who do not want to carry drugs such as the morning-after pill that can cause abortions to act against its ethical and moral beliefs in dispensing such drugs. The suit also challenges the ability of the Governor to require health care providers to violate their conscience or choose another career.

AUL attorneys believe that if the Governor's rule is allowed to stand, the rights of conscience of all health care providers in the state are in jeopardy.

Edward R. Martin, Jr., attorney and director of the Center for the Rights of Conscience at Americans United for Life said, "Luke Vander Bleek is suing to protect his rights as an American-his right to build a business, contribute to society as a health care professional, and to live according to his principles. The Governor is trampling the rights of health care professionals and small business owners through his emergency rule."

Martin continued, "This case seeks to defend the right of individuals to be free from the Governor's coercive and politically-motivated action. No longer can people like Luke Vander Bleek decide to not participate in an act they find to be morally objectionable without shuttering their business and changing careers."

Contact:
Daniel McConchie
Director of Public Relations and Public Policy
(312) 492-7234, Ext. 213

Americans United for Life (AUL) is the leading public-interest law firm dedicated to providing legal expertise and strategy in the field of life-affirming legislation, litigation, and public education. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, AUL's fields of legal expertise include abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, destructive embryo research, and human cloning.

 

Good medicine: Albertsons agrees to respect pharmacists' right of conscience

Alliance Defense Fund

Waukegon, Illinois, USA
June 07, 2005, 10:57 AM (MST)

WAUKEGAN, Ill.-Albertsons Corporation has agreed to accommodate its pharmacists' right to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious or moral beliefs.  The accommodation came on the heels of a lawsuit filed by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society against the employer and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of pharmacist David Scimio.

"The right of conscience is an important component of religious liberty.  Pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for the 'morning after' abortion pill if it violates their conscience," said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of CLS's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

"We applaud the decision by Albertsons to restore to Mr. Scimio and other Albertsons pharmacists the same rights they had prior to the governor's action and allow them to be true to their beliefs about the sanctity of human life," Aden said.

Shortly after ADF and CLS filed suit, Albertsons distributed a memo to all of its Illinois pharmacists stating that it would accommodate their pharmacists' right of conscience by permitting them to refer prescriptions to which they conscientiously object to another Albertsons pharmacist or to a competitor to be filled within two hours.

ADF and CLS attorneys filed the case, Scimio v. Blagojevich, in Illinois state court April 15 on behalf of Scimio, a pharmacist who objects to filling prescriptions for abortifacients on religious grounds.  Blagojevich's "emergency rule" stating that a pharmacist "must dispense... without delay" contraceptives, including so-called "emergency" contraceptives such as the "morning after" pill, prompted the suit, which ADF and CLS will voluntarily dismiss at a hearing in the case today.

"Given Governor Blagojevich's claim that the emergency rule applies only to pharmacies and not pharmacists themselves, we expect that he will agree that Albertsons' desire to respect the convictions of its pharmacists is legitimate under the law," Aden said.

Edward Martin of Americans United for Life and ADF-allied attorneys John Mauck and Jason Craddock of the Chicago law firm Mauck and Baker also represent Scimio in the case.


ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
ACLJ Adds Pharmacists to Lawsuit Against Illinois Governor Challenging Order Requiring Pharmacists to Dispense Morning-After Pill

American Center for Law and Justice

(Springfield, IL)
26 May, 2005

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today filed an amended complaint in state court in Illinois adding four additional pharmacists to its lawsuit challenging Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's emergency amendment to the state code requiring pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs.  The ACLJ initially filed suit in mid-April on behalf of two pharmacists and today's action brings the total to six pharmacists who contend the Governor's order is unenforceable.
 
"The Governor's directive continues to cause concern for a growing number of pharmacists who don't believe they should have to put their religious beliefs aside to keep their jobs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the pharmacists.  "The law is clear:  pharmacists should not be punished for adhering to their religious beliefs.  A growing number of pharmacists believe the Governor's directive forces them to dispense abortion producing drugs - something that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.  We're hopeful that the court will recognize that the Governor's directive is legally flawed and will move to protect the constitutional rights of pro-life pharmacists."
 
The ACLJ today filed an amended lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Springfield, Illinois adding the names of four pharmacists to the two plaintiffs represented in the April filing. 
 
The ACLJ already represents Peggy Pace, who works in Glen Carbon, and John Menges, who works in Collinsville.  With today's filing, the ACLJ also represents Gaylord Richard Quayle of Belleville, Amanda Varner of Carbondale, Jim Lynch who works in southern Illinois, and Michael Melvin who works in Carbondale.  The lawsuit contends all six pharmacists are opposed to dispensing the morning-after pill and/or "Plan B" medication because of their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs.  The pharmacists believe the drugs are abortion producing medications. 
 
The lawsuit contends that the Governor's emergency amendment is unenforceable because it violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which makes it unlawful for any public official to discriminate or punish any person who refuses to "participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience."  The suit also charges the emergency amendment violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The suit requests the court grant an injunction preventing the measure from being enforced and asks the court to declare the directive unenforceable and null and void.
 
The ACLJ also is defending a national law protecting health care workers from discrimination.  The measure, which is being challenged in the federal courts, bars federal funds from going to federal or state programs that discriminate against health care professionals who do not participate in abortion services.  The ACLJ represents members of Congress - including Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the sponsors of the measure.


Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.

Senate Committee to Hear Pharmacists Conscience Clause Bill
Convenience should not trump conscience, says Pro-Life Wisconsin

Pro-Life Wisconsin

For Immediate Release
16 May, 2005

The Senate Committee on Labor and Election Process Reform will hold a public hearing Tuesday, May 17 at the State Capitol highlighting legislation to provide much needed job security for pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing drugs that they believe would be used to cause death through abortion, euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide. 

"No pharmacist should be forced to check his or her conscience at the workplace door," said Matt Sande, legislative affairs director for Pro-Life Wisconsin.  "Like doctors and nurses, pharmacists are valued members of the professional health care team.  This bill simply recognizes that employers must not force pharmacists to participate in what they know to be the killing of another person.  One person's convenience should not trump another's conscience."

Current Wisconsin law already protects health care employees, including physicians, nurses, and hospital employees, from being fired or otherwise discriminated against based on a conscientious refusal to participate in surgical abortion and sterilization.  Senate Bill (SB) 155, authored by State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis), would extend that conscience protection to pharmacists who refuse to participate in chemical abortion and euthanasia. 

"Assaults on human life are increasingly chemical in nature, not surgical," said Sande.  "Abortion techniques focusing on chemical means to end the life of pre-born babies, such as the morning-after-pill, have received FDA approval.  While abortion was formerly relegated to a clinical setting, it is now possible to receive life-ending drugs in a pharmacy, thus compelling pharmacists to be party to abortion. Just as a woman's legal right to a surgical abortion should not compel a hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortifacient drugs and devices should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them."

Under SB 155, a licensed pharmacist cannot be required to dispense a prescribed drug or device if the pharmacist believes the drug or device will be used for causing an abortion or causing the death of any person, such as through assisted suicide or euthanasia.  Specifically, pharmacists would be exempt from professional liability or disciplinary action and would be shielded from employment discrimination based on creed - including refusal to hire a pharmacist or termination of the pharmacist's employment. 

The pharmacists conscience clause bill is the ONLY bill that protects pharmacists who conscientiously refuse to dispense the morning-after pill and other abortion-causing "hormonal contraceptives."

Opponents of Senate Bill 155 claim that it would ban birth control in Wisconsin.  "This is not true," said Sande.  "Senate Bill 155 does not ban birth control.  It will not make drugs such as the morning-after pill and other abortifacient birth control drugs illegal or unavailable.  It is a labor protection bill, and thus reaches a middle ground where the pharmacist can be protected and the woman can access her prescription."

The issue of pharmacists being fired for conscientiously refusing to dispense abortion-causing birth control has received national and international attention.  The BBC News, USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, CBS Evening News, and CNN, to name just a few media sources, have all reported on documented "real-life" cases in which pharmacists have been put in the position of either leaving their jobs or compromising their beliefs.

"These attacks on pharmacists are an infringement on their free exercise of religion, and in the long run will serve only to aggravate the already acute shortage of qualified pharmacists by discouraging people of faith from entering the field," said Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.  "People who call themselves 'pro-choice' should especially appreciate the intent of this bill.  Pharmacists should have the right to choose not to be complicit in the taking of innocent human life."

The pharmacists conscience clause bill is modeled after a South Dakota law enacted in 1998.  Other states with specific and comprehensive pharmacist conscience clause laws include Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  Many other states are actively considering this legislation including North Carolina, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas, New York, Arizona and Washington.

The public hearing on SB 155 will be held in Room 201 Southeast of the State Capitol Building in Madison at 11:00 a.m.

Contact:  Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs
(262) 796-1111, (262) 352-0890 or info@prolifewisconsin.org

Illinois governor writes prescription for trouble, CLS and ADF file suit on behalf of pharmacist

Alliance Defense Fund

Waukegon, Illinois, USA
April 15, 2005, 2:23 PM (MST)

WAUKEGAN, Ill.-The Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund filed suit today against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of a Lake County pharmacist.  Blagojevich's "emergency rule" filed this month compels pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of any moral objections they may have.

"The governor's order is a bitter pill that no one should have to swallow," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.  "It is not legitimate to force a pharmacist to violate his conscience in this manner.  A patient ordering 'morning after' pills can easily be referred to another pharmacist who has no moral objection to filling the prescription."

The lawsuit, David Scimio v. Rod R. Blagojevich, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois.  Scimio, a Christian pharmacist whose conscience would be violated by filling prescriptions for abortifacients, decided to file suit after Blagojevich filed his "emergency rule."

The lawsuit contends that the rule violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which states that the public policy of Illinois is to "respect and protect the right of conscience" of health care professionals.  The act also prohibits "all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability, or imposition of liability" upon persons who refuse to deliver such services based upon a matter of conscience.

"Governor Blagojevich must not be allowed to ignore the law and elevate convenience over individual rights of religious belief and moral conscience," said CLS Litigation Counsel Casey Mattox.  "We are hopeful that the judicial department of the State of Illinois will fulfill its proper function by restraining the governor from remaking state law in the image of his own personal political viewpoints."

The lawsuit also contends that Blagojevich also violated Illinois law by not allowing any public hearing on his rule and by failing to obtain proper authorization from a majority of the Board of Pharmacy.  The suit additionally argues that the rule violates Scimio's religious freedoms guaranteed under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

Wisconsin Pharmacist Punished for Exercising Religious Beliefs

Pro-Life Wisconsin

13 April, 2005
For Immediate Release

Today the state Pharmacy Examining Board (PEB) approved in full last month's recommendation from Administrative Law Judge Colleen Baird to reprimand and limit the license of Wisconsin pharmacist Neil Noesen.  The PEB's decision followed an October 2004 administrative law hearing on charges of unprofessional conduct relating to Noesen's refusal in 2002 to refill a script for birth control pills at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wisconsin.  In response, Pro-Life Wisconsin State Director, Peggy Hamill, issued the following statement:

"Punishing a medical professional for exercising his deeply held religious convictions is wrong and is simply un-American.  One person's convenience should not trump another's conscience.  Not only is the Pharmacy Examining Board's action an unconstitutional infringement on Neil Noesen's free exercise of religion, it will serve only to aggravate the already acute shortage of pharmacists in this state by discouraging people of faith from entering the field.

"In adopting Judge Baird's recommendation, the Board clearly recognizes a pharmacist's basic right to conscientiously object to dispensing drugs that he or she may find morally objectionable.  Recognizing this basic right, however, the Board then reprimands Noesen and places the burden on him to ensure that his patients receive their medication.  This is confusing.  It should be the responsibility of the pharmacy employer - not the pharmacist - to accommodate a pharmacist's conscientious objection.  Noesen's case should therefore be dismissed. 

The Noesen case is entirely about conscience and religious freedom.  No one in the case - the prosecution, the defense, or the judge - has disputed Noesen's basic right to a conscientious objection.  The only ones disputing it are Planned Parenthood, Inc. and NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin.  Why, then, is the Board punishing Noesen?  The question being raised is:  How did Noesen go about exercising his conscientious objection?  The Board is contending he did it inappropriately.  But there is nothing in the law pointing to how to do it appropriately.  There is no state law, code or regulation that governs how a pharmacist is to exercise his or her conscientious objection.  So how can Noesen be charged with a violation of conduct when the Board cannot point to any protocols he specifically violated?

Noesen's case highlights the critical need for passage of the Pharmacists' Conscience Clause Bill.  Current law already protects health care employees from being fired or otherwise discriminated against based on a conscientious refusal to participate in surgical abortion and sterilization.  The pharmacists' conscience clause bill would extend that conscience protection to pharmacists who refuse to participate in chemical abortion and euthanasia. The morning-after pill - which is simply a double dosage of the typical birth control pill - and other hormonal 'contraceptives' will often act to cause early chemical abortion by preventing a newly conceived child (human embryo) from implanting in the womb. 

No pharmacist should be forced to daily check his or her conscience at the workplace door.  Just as a woman's legal right to surgical abortion does not compel a hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortion-causing drugs should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them.

The bill will not ban drugs such as the morning-after pill and the birth control pill.  It simply recognizes that employers cannot force pharmacists to directly participate in what they know to be the killing of another person.  It thereby reaches a middle ground where the pharmacist can be protected and the woman can access her prescription.

Contact:
State Director Peggy Hamill
Director of Legislative Affairs Matt Sande
(262) 796-1111, (262) 352-0890 or info@prolifewisconsin.org
ACLJ Files Suit Against Illinois Governor Over Directive Discriminating Against Pro-Life Pharmacists

American Center for Law and Justice

Springfield, Illinois, USA
13 April, 2005

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today filed a lawsuit in state court in Illinois on behalf of two pharmacists challenging Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's emergency amendment to the state code requiring pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs.  The ACLJ lawsuit charges that the Governor's order is unenforceable and urges the court to declare it null and void because it violates state law including the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

"This directive is not only legally flawed but it puts pharmacists in the untenable position of having to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs and violating a law that could cost them their jobs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the two pharmacists.  "There are protections in place to prevent employees from being punished because of their religious beliefs.  The Governor's directive is out of step with state law and we are urging the court to issue an injunction that would block the enforcement of this directive and ultimately declare the Governor's action null and void."

The ACLJ today filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Springfield, Illinois on behalf of Peggy Pace and John Menges, two registered pharmacists who will not dispense the morning-after pill and/or "Plan B" medication because of their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs.  Both Pace and Menges believe the drugs are abortion producing medications.  Pace is a staff pharmacist at a retail chain in Glen Carbon and Menges works as a staff pharmacist at a retail chain in Collinsville.

The lawsuit contends that the Governor's emergency amendment is unenforceable because it violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which makes it unlawful for any public official to discriminate or punish any person who refuses to "participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience."

The suit also charges the emergency amendment violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The suit requests the court grant an injunction preventing the measure from being enforced and asks the court to declare the directive unenforceable and null and void.

"The religious beliefs of those in the health care industry must be protected," said Manion.  "The pro-life pharmacist who chooses not to dispense abortion producing drugs should not face punishment and discrimination for abiding by those convictions."

The ACLJ, which specializes in pro-life litigation, is defending a national law protecting health care workers from discrimination.  The measure, which is being challenged in the federal courts, bars federal funds from going to federal or state programs that discriminate against health care professionals who do not participate in abortion services.  The ACLJ represents members of Congress - including Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the sponsors of the measure.


Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.

Rep. Stephens Opposes Governor's Executive Order to Fill Contraceptive Prescriptions

5 April, 2005

For Immediate Release 

Springfield, IL…The governor has overstepped his boundaries when he issued an executive order requiring all pharmacists to fill contraceptive prescriptions regardless of religious or moral beliefs according to State Representative Ron Stephens (R-Greenville).

"Previously, it has been our understanding as a matter of conscious or religious convictions, pharmacists are included in the conscience clause and may opt out of filling contraceptives," said Stephens. "Now the governor is excluding all medical professionals except physicians from this clause, infringing on our right to practice our beliefs."

The reaction from Rep. Stephens, a local pharmacist, came after the governor issued an executive order which requires all pharmacists to fill contraceptives including the morning-after pill. Stephens said he refuses to sit idly by and let the governor dictate the beliefs of all Illinois citizens.

"Apparently the governor now believes he has the power to override all matters of religious conviction," said Stephens. "He is setting a precedence that is harmful to our personal and religious rights as citizens of this country. He must be stopped."

Rep. Stephens said he plans to contest the executive order and will continue to fight the governor's threat to revoke the license of those who don't comply. "I refuse to give in to the governor's demands without a fight and thousands of my colleagues join me in my efforts," said Stephens. 

"On matters of conscience, I trust my own beliefs…not the governor's," Stephens said.

Contact: Rep. Ron Stephens (618) 651-0405