The Chicago Tribune reports that the Fourth Appellate District has affirmed a trial court ruling that ruled that two Illinois pharmacists may conscientiously object to selling "morning after" pills, also known as Plan B (Levonorgestrel), under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
After initially having the case dismissed and then having to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court just to have their case heard, the two pharmacists may use the broad purpose of the act to refuse to sell or provide treatment for which they conscientiously object. 745 ILCS 70/2.
I have not seen any pleadings, but I wonder if Plan B, being an emergency to me, qualifies as an exception to the Act contained in 745 ILCS 70/6:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care."
It also seems dangerous for the pharmacists to deny emergency care based on their conscientious objections because 745 ILCS 70/12 provides a private right of action against anyone who causes actual damages, including pain and suffering, for being unwilling to provide such services OR for discriminating against a healthcare professional for conscientiously objecting to providing a service.
The litigation and political fallout from this decision will be something to watch. Both healthcare professionals and health providers should consider contacting an attorney who is knowledgeable about these laws to ensure they understand what the laws mean and how it can impact professional activities.
I have not seen any pleadings, but I wonder if Plan B, being an emergency to me, qualifies as an exception to the Act contained in 745 ILCS 70/6:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care."
It also seems dangerous for the pharmacists to deny emergency care based on their conscientious objections because 745 ILCS 70/12 provides a private right of action against anyone who causes actual damages, including pain and suffering, for being unwilling to provide such services OR for discriminating against a healthcare professional for conscientiously objecting to providing a service.
The litigation and political fallout from this decision will be something to watch. Both healthcare professionals and health providers should consider contacting an attorney who is knowledgeable about these laws to ensure they understand what the laws mean and how it can impact professional activities.
RSS Feed
