Until last April, Pharmacists in Illinois could deny filling birth control
prescriptions under the ´conscience clause,´ stating moral objection to
the
medication.

Last February, a Jewel-Osco in Chicago refused to refill a birth-control
prescription. Under federal "conscience clause" laws, a pharmacist is not
required to participate in filling prescriptions which jeopardize their
"moral or religious obligations."

Until April, it was therefore legal for a pharmacist to deny a refill of
medication that was in stock. As a direct result of the Chicago
controversy, an emergency rule was approved by Gov. Blagojevich on Apr. 1,
requiring pharmacies to refill birth control prescriptions.

s.Deny.Filling.Birth.Control-1046976.shtml
[excerpt]

Can pharmasists deny filling birth control?

By Una Delic
Published: Monday, November 7, 2005


Until last April, Pharmacists in Illinois could deny filling birth control
prescriptions under the ´conscience clause,´ stating moral objection to the
medication.

Last February, a Jewel-Osco in Chicago refused to refill a birth-control
prescription. Under federal "conscience clause" laws, a pharmacist is not
required to participate in filling prescriptions which jeopardize their
"moral or religious obligations."

Until April, it was therefore legal for a pharmacist to deny a refill of
medication that was in stock. As a direct result of the Chicago
controversy, an emergency rule was approved by Gov. Blagojevich on Apr. 1,
requiring pharmacies to refill birth control prescriptions.

"Your state is one of the good ones," Sara Ryan, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State Youth and Campus Organizer, said in her
presentation at UIC on Thursday, Oct. 27.

From Washington D.C., Ryan is traveling across the country to visit
campuses and educate students about the current controversy over the
filling of contraceptive prescriptions. Although her lecture was entitled
"I Will Not Sell You Legal Contraceptives," the topics Ryan covered were
broader and more diverse in order to cover several developments that have
led up to the present issues.

"In 1996, the federal government approved funds for religious organizations
to provide public services," Ryan said. "Should tax dollars be going to
non-scientific ideologies?"

Under the Bush administration, Ryan explains, abstinence-only programs have
been promoted through federal funding through the Office of Faith Based
Initiatives. For some states, including Illinois (which have no set
regulations for sex education) the development may pressure public schools
to exclude information regarding safe sex and contraceptive options from
the curriculum.

According to Ryan, hospitals are going bankrupt, which is forcing ownership
merges with more affluent religious hospitals that may not provide abortion
or contraceptive options. Often, the names of these hospitals stay the
same, making them difficult to identify.
[end excerpt]


*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************