February 23, 2012 in Region

Required Plan B dispensing takes hit

Judge: Pharmacy rule singles out religious objections
Gene Johnson Associated Press
 
Associated Press photo

Kevin Stormans, a store owner who sued over the pharmacy law, talks to reporters Wednesday.
(Full-size photo)

Plan B ruling

Narrow scope

Leighton did not strike down the rules but said they were applied unconstitutionally to the plaintiffs in this case. Washington remains free to try to enforce the law against other pharmacies that violated the rules.

TACOMA – Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state’s true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists – not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton sided with a pharmacy and two pharmacists who said state rules requiring them to dispense Plan B violate their constitutional rights to freedom of religion because such drugs can destroy a fertilized egg, which they consider equal to abortion.

Washington’s rules require that pharmacies stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand. The state adopted the dispensing regulations in 2007, following reports that some women had been denied access to Plan B, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills and is effective if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

State lawyers argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies and because they promote a government interest – the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.

But Leighton ruled that the state allows all sorts of exemptions to the rules. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it’s likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.

“The most compelling evidence that the rules target religious conduct is the fact the rules contain numerous secular exemptions,” the judge said. “In sum, the rules exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from stocking and delivering lawfully prescribed drugs for an almost unlimited variety of secular reasons, but fail to provide exemptions for reasons of conscience.”

Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, did not strike down Washington’s rules but said that the way they were applied to the plaintiffs in this case was unconstitutional.

The state remains free to try to enforce the law against other pharmacies that violated the stocking and dispensing rules, whether for Plan B or other drugs; it remains unclear whether courts would reach a similar conclusion if pharmacies objected to selling other drugs for religious reasons.

“I remain concerned about the impacts on patients if pharmacies are allowed to refuse to dispense lawfully prescribed or lawful medications to patients,” said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who insisted on the dispensing rule’s adoption. “I am especially concerned about those living in rural areas, many of whom may have few alternatives and could suffer lengthy delays in receiving medication or go without entirely.”

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state’s dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.

Further appeals were expected, both from the state and from groups that intervened on the state’s behalf. Before taking more than an hour to read his 48-page opinion in court, Leighton acknowledged that he crafted it for the benefit of a “skeptical” appeals court.

The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it – one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy – as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.

“The question really is whether the patient’s rights come first or the pharmacist’s rights come first,” said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser said Leighton’s ruling was “more detailed” but made the same mistake he made in 2007.

Margo Thelen, of Woodland, one of the pharmacists who sued over the rules, said she had to leave one job because she refused to dispense Plan B – and now she can continue working at her new job without fear of being fired.

“Speak to anyone who shops in a pharmacy,” she said. “Their product isn’t always available.”

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Get stories like this in a free daily email


Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus