Illinois Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Case Over State EC Rule

Main Category: Medical Malpractice / Litigation
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Pharmacy / Pharmacist
Article Date: 21 Mar 2008 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case over a state rule intended to increase access to emergency contraception in pharmacies, the Springfield State Journal-Register reports. Two pharmacy owners asked the court to dismiss the rule because they claim that it poses a threat to the religious freedom of business owners and pharmacists and that pharmacies are protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (Olsen, Springfield State Journal-Register, 3/19).

Under the rule, which has been in effect for two-and-a-half years, state pharmacies are required to dispense EC if they stock any FDA-approved contraceptive or risk losing their licenses. If any prescribed contraceptive is out of stock, pharmacies must provide an alternative, order the drug, make arrangements for another local pharmacy to fill the order or return the prescription to the customer. The rule allows pharmacies to opt not to sell any contraceptives (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/12/07).

Laura Wunder, an assistant state attorney general, during the hearing argued that the pharmacists in the lawsuit do not have standing to sue because the state has not enforced the law. She added that the pharmacies do not even stock EC, so it is unlikely they would violate the rule. Wunder also said that the pharmacies have been unable to show that they are at risk of state penalties because it is unlikely that a customer would ask a pharmacy to order a drug that is needed immediately.

Mark Rienzi, the attorney for the pharmacists, said his clients should be able to sue even if they have been affected by the law. He added that the pharmacists are protected by two state laws: one that protects citizens from religious interference and one that bars forcing health care decisions over moral objections. The laws are "designed to protect people from coercion and burden," Rienzi said, adding, "They are not only designed to protect people after the ax has fallen, after [a pharmacist's] license is taken away," or after their careers are "ruined" (AP/International Herald Tribune, 3/18). "The illegal coercion of this rule has gone on long enough," Rienzi said. He added that striking down the rule would not necessarily result in women being denied EC. "If the state wants to make it more available ... the state could give it out for free," he said (Springfield State Journal-Register, 3/19).

According to Sue Hofer, spokesperson for the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the General Assembly's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules is scheduled next month to consider a proposed change to the rule. The change would allow pharmacists who object to dispensing EC to let another person on staff fill the prescription. Under the proposed change, a trained technician or store owner could contact a pharmacist at another location and follow his or her directions for dispensing EC. Rienzi said approval of the change would help individual pharmacists to opt out but would require all pharmacies to stock EC. Rienzi added that his clients are pharmacy owners who do not want EC in their stores at all (AP/International Herald Tribune, 3/18).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.