Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsSaturday, October 13, 2007 9:12 PM CDT
Illinos Supreme Court will hear morning-after pill case
Advertisement

DeKALB — An Illinois pharmacist who objects to a state mandate requiring pharmacies to dispense emergency birth control will be able to present his arguments to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Luke Vander Bleek, a Morrison pharmacist who owns a majority share of two DeKalb County pharmacies and also owns pharmacies in Whiteside County, opposes the so-called “morning after” pill on moral and medical grounds.

If taken within 72 hours of intercourse, the “morning-after pill” — a higher dose of regular hormonal contraception — significantly reduces a woman’s chance of becoming pregnant by preventing ovulation or fertilization and interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg.

“I don’t believe the product is fit for human consumption,” Vander Bleek said. “I believe it can have negative effects on a live human embryo. I believe the science is not really clearly convincing that it doesn’t.”

While an appellate court denied the lawsuit earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court has decided to hear the case to decide whether he has legal standing to raise the objection.

In rejecting Vander Bleek’s claim earlier this year, appellate court judges said pharmacists had other ways to resolve the issue, so the court didn’t review the actual merits of the case.

Arguments in the Supreme Court won’t come for months, and a final decision could take months after that.

Vander Bleek initially filed the lawsuit against Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the state in 2005 after the governor issued an executive order that forced pharmacies to dispense the morning-after pill.

Three companies are plaintiffs in the suit: Morr-Fitz Inc., which owns the Whiteside County pharmacies; L. Doyle Inc., which owns the DeKalb County pharmacies; and Kosirog Rexall Pharmacy in Chicago.

Vander Bleek argued the governor’s mandate violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which allows health care providers to opt out of procedures on moral or religious grounds.

“I make no attempt to interfere with your interest or pursuit of any of these therapies,” he said. “But I shouldn’t be compelled to help you do something I find to be morally unconscionable.”

The pharmacies Vander Bleek owns stock traditional oral contraceptives, and no more than four requests have been made for the morning-after pill, he said.

The morning-after pill is not health care, Vander Bleek argued, and a healthy pregnancy is not an illness. A strong health care argument should be required for a government to compel a pharmacist to do something he or she finds unconscionable, he said, and he doesn’t see that argument in this case.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 14 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

outrageous (cont) wrote on Oct 15, 2007 9:55 PM:

" Let's get our job descriptions straight. The pharmacist knows this person for five minutes. Should we allow a pharmacist to interrogate a patient about their sexual history if he is willing to dispense these meds to those who are victims of rape, abuse or incest? Because he finds these circumstances morally acceptable? I mentioned other medications pharmacists may refuse to dispense based on moral judgment. The problem with moral judgment is everybody has a different set of moral values. Who is he or you to decide what medications are appropriate? maybe I'm Tom Cruise and refuse to dispense anti-psychotics and anti-depressants because i think we should all turn to scientology and L Ron Hubbard. Keep your morality at home and in the church where it belongs! "

outrageous wrote on Oct 15, 2007 9:54 PM:

" I am an RN and studying to be a paralegal. I know about ethics. There is a big difference between ethics and moral judgment. Moral judgment does not belong in the healthcare system. As I mentioned before, there is a legal term referred to as the "slippery slope", if we allow pharmacists to REFUSE PATIENT CARE on their own moral biases in this situation, we run the risk of bias for a whole variety of reasons. The doctor knows the the patient, the patient's history, and discusses the patient's healthcare needs. The doctor determines medical necessity, the pharmacist dispenses medication. "

Science wrote on Oct 15, 2007 10:38 AM:

" He doesn't understand the science of Plan B. He says he fills birth control prescriptions..yet birth control and Plan B work in the same way. Frightening that a pharmacist doesn't get the chemistry of these medications. "

everyone has rights wrote on Oct 14, 2007 1:20 AM:

" EVERYONE has the right to bring their moral judgement to work with them!!! That is outrageous that someone would say anyone in any profession does not. That is why Illlinois has the Health care Right of Conscious act. In medical school, nursiing school, pharmacy school you take classes on morals and ethics. It is very much a part of the healthcare profession. He does his job of dispensing medications like he said the morning after pill is not healthcare and he's not trying to ban it from the world and picketing outside of pharmacies that do dispense it, he's just saying he won't. He has that right!! If it were all the healthcare related medications you named like anti-depressants, infertility, pain medications and whatever else you said then yes that would be an issue. "

outrageous wrote on Oct 13, 2007 10:16 PM:

" Anyone member of healthcare system has no right bringing their moral judgment into work with them. It is the patient's body and nobody's business what they do to it. He is a pharmacist, his job is to dispense medications. If he doesn't want to perform this simple task, he can always make a career change. Personally I don't want to travel to fill a prescription because a pharmacist is offended, especially if there is a 72 hr window. This is what is referred to as a "slippery slope" when does the moral opinion end and who determines what is acceptable? What's next? viagra, medications to stimulate fertility, pain medications, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, and contraceptives in general? Maybe we should allow this pharmacist to question the patient about her sexual sexual activity. If it is rape, incest, or molestation, if he determines the circumstance morally appropriate, he has the discretion to fill the script. "

at least someone has morals wrote on Oct 13, 2007 7:15 PM:

" It's just the same as not all doctors will give the prescription for a morning after pill if they don't believe in it. They can refer you to a doctor that will give you that option. Pharmacists have the same right. Good for him for standing up for what he believes in even if it is not the easiest thing to do. "

to who cares? wrote on Oct 13, 2007 2:14 PM:

" The trouble comes in when you have one pharmacy in the little hick town and there's no other place for miles and miles. "

Mom and user wrote on Oct 13, 2007 1:09 PM:

" You know, it's not as bad as that dude makes it out to be. It's basically just a stronger dose of hormones like you find in regular birth control pills. It just doesn't allow the embryo to attach to the uterine wall and implant if it's been fertilized. If the pregnancy is already in progress, it doesn't do anything. What I would like to see is a lot more in-depth and continuous education to people on why/how/when to use contraceptive methods of all types. Having this as a 'just-in-case' method is okay, and I don't see what the difference is between dispensing this and the patch, the pill, the ring, whatever. If he's got a moral objection to this form of birth control, he shouldn't dispense any of it. "

who cares? wrote on Oct 13, 2007 12:47 PM:

" I say, let him do what he wants. If he doesn't want to sell those pills, I don't believe he should have to as that's his choice and we should respect that if it's his business that he owns. At the same time, we should respect the choices of those who want to take this pill and allow them to buy it where it's available. I'm sure that if he doesn't sell this pill, there are many choices of where women can buy them. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's pretty simple. "

BN Republican wrote on Oct 13, 2007 11:54 AM:

" Why would you want to abort someone who will be born into poverty and grow up to fight the wars of the Wealthy? "

Excuse me wrote on Oct 13, 2007 8:11 AM:

" "I believe it can have negative effects on the live human embryo" Isn't that the point of the morning after pill. "

pharmacist wrote on Oct 13, 2007 7:58 AM:

" You're a pharmacist, come on..... You dispense pills from rows of bottles on shelves, based upon the written instructions from a Doctor. I'ts almost clerical in it's organization. Quite trying to play like you know what these things actually do. You aren't a research scientist. Just put your little white coat back on and go to your littl office at the Wal Mart and be quiet. "

Simple Solution wrote on Oct 13, 2007 6:02 AM:

" Anytime a customer asks for this pill just tell em. You just ran out and send them to Walmart. And as added bonus tell them, if they want faster service they should use the electric powered cart/vehicle. "

plaid braisley wrote on Oct 13, 2007 2:21 AM:

" if vander bleek doesn't want to fill all legally written prescriptions ,he should turn in his pharmacy license and sell his business. "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?