Appeals Court Leaves Preliminary Injunction In Place Allowing Wash. State Pharmacists To Refuse To Dispense EC

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Pharmacy / Pharmacist
Article Date: 06 May 2008 - 6:00 PST

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

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday left in place a preliminary injunction that allows Washington state pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception if they have moral or religious objections, Reuters reports. In a split decision, the appeals court denied a request to block the injunction against a state Board of Pharmacy rule that established a duty for pharmacies to fill prescriptions for EC and other prescriptions (Keating, Reuters, 5/1).

The Board of Pharmacy rule, which was challenged by a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists last year, states that pharmacists cannot "obstruct a patient in obtaining a lawfully prescribed drug or device" and must make an alternative available in a timely fashion if they "cannot dispense" a prescription. It also says that pharmacists have a "duty to dispense lawfully prescribed ... drugs or medical devices." It also lists exceptions to the rule, which do not include personal beliefs. Under the rule, pharmacists who are opposed to EC can have another pharmacist fill the prescription, but only if the patient can receive the prescription during the same pharmacy visit.

In his decision to place an injunction on the rule, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton established a temporary "refuse and refer" policy that requires pharmacists to immediately refer patients to nearby pharmacies. If they do so, the state cannot punish them for declining to provide EC. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Northwest Women's Law Center appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 12/13/07). The appellate court found that the state and other plaintiffs did not show that they would experience irreparable harm if the injunction remained in place pending the appeal. The justices did grant the state's motion to expedite the appellate proceedings, which were scheduled for oral arguments on June 3 in Seattle (Reuters, 5/1).

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.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.