# They're coming for your Plan-B **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711 "2012-02-23T06:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/481 "2012-03-07T16:30:36Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Ummm…the individuals who’s case this entire thread was about sold hormonal birth control but refused to sell plan-b. I don’t see anything in the OP’s [link](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-state-plan-b-ruling_n_1295585.html) indicating that the pharmacists in question stocked regular birth control. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/482 "2012-03-07T16:39:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t see anything in the OP’s [link](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-state-plan-b-ruling_n_1295585.html) indicating that the pharmacists in question stocked regular birth control. Go read the court documents, they only refused to sell “emergency contraception” ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/483 "2012-03-07T16:41:03Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Ummm…the individuals who’s case this entire thread was about sold hormonal birth control but refused to sell plan-b. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Go read the court documents, they only refused to sell “emergency contraception” Are you sure? I can’t find that. In the [official ruling](http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf), I found: > [@](#): > > He also freely admitted that it was common knowledge that Catholic pharmacies would not stock or dispense Plan B: “You would have to have been in a very dark place for a long time not to understand what the Catholic policy was on birth control. . . . \*t was common knowledge, they did not stock those products.” Tr. Trans. December 22, 2011, at 139. > … > First, it is clear that the Board of Pharmacy has been aware since before its 2007 rulemaking that Catholic pharmacies do not and will not stock or deliver Plan B (or, for that matter, contraceptives). but it was not mentioned anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/484 "2012-03-07T16:41:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Go read the court documents That’s not really how citations work, you know. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/485 "2012-03-07T16:43:42Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Are you sure? I can’t find that. > In the [official ruling](http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf), I found: > > but it was not mentioned anywhere else. > [@](#): > > “This case presents a novel question: can the State compel licensed pharmacies and > 20 > pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed emergency contraceptives over their sincere > 21 > religious belief that doing so terminates a human life?” It was in the first paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/486 "2012-03-07T16:47:03Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Are you sure? I can’t find that. > In the [official ruling](http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion-from-Judge-revised.pdf), I found: > > but it was not mentioned anywhere else. I really should have read that to begin with, because we could have skipped a lot of this debate. > [@](#): > > Pharmacies without the need or ability to have two pharmacists on duty at all times cannot employ a pharmacist with a religious objection to dispensing Plan B without risking a violation of the delivery rule, if a patient with a valid Plan B prescription seeks to have it filled at that pharmacy. Nor does the fact that the rules obligate the pharmacy (and not the pharmacist) to timely deliver lawfully prescribed medications permit a pharmacist operating his own pharmacy to comply with the delivery rule without violating his conscience. Because a pharmacy must fill a prescription for Plan B, if it employs a pharmacist who objects, it must staff a second pharmacist simply to ensure that the pharmacy can comply. In effect, the conscientious objector costs the pharmacy twice what a single, non-conscientious objector does. For pharmacies that need only one pharmacist per shift, such a cost is unreasonable, and the pharmacy’s only real option is to fire the conscientious objector. The delivery rule thus renders the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection illusory. The decision isn’t about conscientious objection; it’s about a right to employment. [QUOTE=rat avatar] It was in the first paragraph. [/QUOTE] Where does it say the pharmacies _do_ stock regular birth control? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/487 "2012-03-07T16:48:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I really should have read that to begin with, because we could have skipped a lot of this debate. > > The decision isn’t about conscientious objection; it’s about a right to employment. > > Where does it say the pharmacies _do_ stock regular birth control? Note this is the second time this case has been handed down to the judge, it was overturned the first time and his ruling will probably be overturned again. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/488 "2012-03-07T16:53:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I really should have read that to begin with, because we could have skipped a lot of this debate. > > The decision isn’t about conscientious objection; it’s about a right to employment. > > Where does it say the pharmacies _do_ stock regular birth control? Where does it say they stock depends or antibiotics? The entire point is that they were against emergency contraception, they believe it to be abortive because of the secondary action of preventing implantation of the zygote. I also personally know women who stopped going to that pharmacy when the original outrage happened, they use to get their birth control there. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/489 "2012-03-07T17:02:45Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Ummm…the individuals who’s case this entire thread was about **sold hormonal birth control** but refused to sell plan-b. This is your claim. Twice in the record it says that **Catholic pharmacies do not sell birth control**. Stormans Inc. is a Catholic family business. Please prove **your** assertion. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/490 "2012-03-07T17:12:32Z")
I was wrong in that case, the ones that did appeal were catholic, earlier in the case it also involved individuals who ran chain operations in a Rosauers grocery. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/491 "2012-03-07T17:19:39Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Note this is the second time this case has been handed down to the judge, it was overturned the first time and his ruling will probably be overturned again. I’m not sure I agree. The first time, it was overturned because he used the wrong standard for irreparable harm for the injunction. This is now the result of a trial and full fact-finding, and has nothing to do with what standard would apply at the injunction stage. On what basis do you believe he’ll be overturned? ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/492 "2012-03-07T17:31:00Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I was wrong in that case, the ones that did appeal were catholic, earlier in the case it also involved individuals who ran chain operations in a Rosauers grocery. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, waiting for that to be confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/493 "2012-03-07T17:52:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure I agree. > > The first time, it was overturned because he used the wrong standard for irreparable harm for the injunction. This is now the result of a trial and full fact-finding, and has nothing to do with what standard would apply at the injunction stage. > > On what basis do you believe he’ll be overturned? If by “full fact-finding” you mean excluding any scientific evidence or discussion on the actions of the drugs. It will be overturned because he is still trying to apply strict scrutiny to the law, which I believe it does not warrant. Without strict scrutiny his claims will not stand IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/494 "2012-03-07T17:53:51Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If by “full fact-finding” you include any scientific evidence or discussion on the actions of the drugs. > > It will be overturned because he is still trying to apply strict scrutiny to the law, which I believe it does not warrant. > > Without strict scrutiny his claims will not stand IMHO. Can you explain why strict scrutiny is unwarranted here? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/495 "2012-03-07T18:04:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain why strict scrutiny is unwarranted here? I can but you will need to wait until tonight, I need to go to work. But really he is claiming the lack of enforcement as proof that it was biased towards the religious. The law was inspired by the acts of the religious but the state has real concerns about refusals on other grounds. Anti-vax, anti-gay or anti-mental health cases haven’t happened in the very short time the law has been in effect but they are just as likely as religious reasons. It would be political suicide to say “We want to protect you from Bastyr graduates” in this state but the concern is very real. So the law has the immediate effect of only applying to the religious just due to the cause that caused it to be written but the law is meant to deal with a large number of growing concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/496 "2012-03-07T18:16:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain why strict scrutiny is unwarranted here? The rule, as written, applies to _pharmacies_, not pharmacists. The ruling is based on the premise that employers would fire pharmacists who asserted conscience exemptions. An _employer’s_ actions don’t implicate the Free Exercise Clause, even taken in furtherance of an enactment, as far as I can tell. Even if it was, I don’t see how this particular law is not neutral or generally applicable, and the Ninth Circuit has already ruled that it was for the purposes of injunctive analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/497 "2012-03-07T18:25:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The rule, as written, applies to _pharmacies_, not pharmacists. The ruling is based on the premise that employers would fire pharmacists who asserted conscience exemptions. An _employer’s_ actions don’t implicate the Free Exercise Clause, even taken in furtherance of an enactment, as far as I can tell. > > Even if it was, I don’t see how this particular law is not neutral or generally applicable, and the Ninth Circuit has already ruled that it was for the purposes of injunctive analysis. How about when a pharmacy and a pharmacist are one and the same, as in a sole proprietorship? And no one disputes it’s not neutral on its face. But the trial court found that, as a matter of fact, it’s not neutral in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/498 "2012-03-07T18:33:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about when a pharmacy and a pharmacist are one and the same, as in a sole proprietorship? > > And no one disputes it’s not neutral on its face. But the trial court found that, as a matter of fact, it’s not neutral in practice. How about it? The pharmacist is free to hire another pharmacist to handle prescriptions he finds objectionable, isn’t he? In any event, I would be surprised if any pharmacy is structured as a sole proprietorship, and that’s not at issue here. The plaintiffs were individual pharmacists and a corporate pharmacy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/499 "2012-03-07T18:37:40Z")
For the record, do you agree that under Yoder the pharmacists in question must have a conscience-based objection to dispensing _all_ hormonal birth control to qualify for protection? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/500 "2012-03-07T18:50:56Z")
NVM [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=26)