'Morning-after' pill focus of court case

Belleville News-Democrat

March 19, 2008

--

An attorney representing a group of Madison County pharmacists hopes arguments presented Tuesday to the Illinois Supreme Court will end a state rule that requires pharmacies to dispense the so-called 'morning-after' pill.

The Madison County pharmacists were not part of the case that was before the high court. However, they filed their own lawsuit, which might lead to a rule that would allow individual pharmacists to avoid distributing the emergency contraception if they object on moral grounds.

A group of pharmacies on Tuesday asked the Illinois Supreme Court to throw out a rule that forces them to dispense the pill despite moral objections, claiming it amounts to illegal coercion.

'They asked some probing questions,' said attorney Frank Manion, who is co-counsel for the pharmacies. 'We're hopeful.'

In separate litigation that involves the same issue, Manion represents pharmacists Carol Muzzarelli, of Collinsville, Kelly Hubble, of Belleville, G. Richard Quayle, of Highland and John Menges, formerly of Edwardsville. They are suing Walgreens in Madison County because they were suspended for refusing to dispense the medicine.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued the rule in spring 2005, prohibiting pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraception. The medicine is a higher dosage of typical hormonal contraception which, if taken within 72 hours of intercourse, prevents ovulation or fertilization. It also interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg, which some consider the equivalent of abortion.

In the Supreme Court case, the pharmacies argued that Illinois law protects them from choosing between violating their consciences and losing their licenses.

Laura Wunder, a lawyer for Blagojevich, argued the pharmacies in the lawsuit don't even stock so-called 'morning-after' medication so it's unlikely they would violate the rule.

But in oral arguments, justices bluntly pointed out to Wunder that the pharmacies must get the drug if requested -- putting their licenses at risk if they don't comply.

'If 'place the order' wasn't in the rule itself, I would imagine the pharmacies that have a problem with dispensing the drug would just not stock it, and if they didn't have to order, what's the problem?' Chief Justice Robert Thomas said. 'But the rule does say they have to order it if the customer asks them to.'

The pharmacies' lawyer, Mark Rienzi, argued they are protected by two state laws: one that prohibits forcing health care decisions over moral objections, and one insulating citizens from religious interference.

'They are designed to protect people from coercion and burden,' Rienzi said. 'They are not only designed to protect people after the ax has fallen, after your license is taken away, after your career is ruined.'

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case include pharmacists who own pharmacies.

Muzzarelli hopes the court sides with the pharmacies. 'If the person who owns the store has the moral objection to selling it then they shouldn't have to have it in stock. I back my fellow pharmacists,' she said.

The rule prompted several Illinois lawsuits, including one in federal court that was tentatively settled by a compromise in which objecting pharmacists wouldn't have to participate in filling the prescription. The Madison County pharmacists, along with Walgreens, were the plaintiffs in that suit. However, the pharmacists in October withdrew from the suit on grounds that the settlement would still require objecting pharmacies to stock the product.

Since the pharmacies sued in 2005, one in Prophetstown closed because no pharmacist would work there under the state's threat of license revocation.

Wunder argued that the law allows pharmacies to seek exceptions to the rule.

Justices responded that there are no directions on how to seek such a variance.

Blagojevich's rule prompted some pharmacies, including Walgreens to suspend pharmacists who refused to follow it. That led to the local pharmacists' federal lawsuit, which Walgreens joined. The compromise reached in October in the federal lawsuit allows a secondary pharmacy employee -- who need not be a pharmacist -- to call another pharmacist and follow instructions for filling the prescription.

That rule needs approval from the legislative Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which could decide next month.

The Associated Press provided information for this story.

Copyright © 2008 Belleville News-Democrat, All Rights Reserved.