Illinois Appeals Court: State Cannot Punish Pharmacists with Religious Objections to Abortion-Inducing Drugs

Quote

Source: Becket Fund.

Springfield, Illinois – Today, after more than seven years of litigation, an Illinois appellate court agreed that the state cannot force pharmacies and pharmacists to sell abortion-inducing drugs in violation of their religion.

“This decision is a great victory for religious freedom,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund, who has represented the pharmacists since 2005.  “The government shouldn’t kick business owners out of the market just because it dislikes their religious beliefs.”

The case has its roots in former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s April 2005 mandate that all pharmacies and pharmacists sell Plan B (the “morning after pill”).  The Governor argued that pharmacy owners and pharmacists with religious objections should “find another profession” if they did not share his moral views about the drug.

In 2011, the trial court entered an injunction against the rule.  The court found that there was no evidence that a religious objection had ever prevented anyone from getting the drugs.  The court further found that the law was not neutral because it was designed to target religious objectors, and because it allowed pharmacies to refuse to sell drugs for a host of “common sense business reasons” but not for religious reasons.

In affirming the injunction, the court of appeals noted that Illinois law “prohibits discrimination in licensing” against a person or business who cannot provide healthcare services because of a religious objection.  Accordingly, the court prohibited the state from enforcing the mandate against the plaintiffs.

This victory for pharmacist conscience rights comes on the heels of the Becket Fund’s victory defending small business owners in Washington State from a similar rule in Stormans v. Selecky.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Jeff Gasser, Communications Associate, at jgasser@becketfund.org or call 202.349.7201.

Additional Information:

Judges Opinion

Case Page

 

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The New Sexual Predators

Quote

Source: Public Discourse

Young women now have to defend themselves not only from stereotypical sexual predators, but also from older women and gay men who seek their eggs.
Value depends on scarcity. In the world of human reproduction, the most valuable entity is the fertile female—specifically, her eggs and her womb.

The fierce politics surrounding female fecundity and women’s reproductive rights rests not only on a woman’s ability to create new life, but also on the incredible amount of commitment and risk involved when her eggs and her womb are accessed for procreation. Since women are fertile for a shorter period than men, since gestation takes forty long weeks, and since labor and delivery pose life-threatening risks, young women always will face disproportionately high demands for access to their bodies. But those demands are rising in unexpected ways, and from unexpected people.

Historically, it was understood that sex created babies. Cultural scripts thus emerged that valued and preferred certain types of sex and male-female relations. The profession of prostitution has always been highly stigmatized for this reason. As we’ve learned the hard way, when female prostitutes engage with their clients, fatherless children can be born, and grow up distinctly disadvantaged.

By far, men have always been the main buyers of sexual access to fertile females. Women virtually never pay for sexual access to either gender. Women and girls make up the overwhelming majority of prostitutes and escorts, and men overwhelmingly make up the clientele. This is true for every human culture, in every period in history. And it has everything to do with reproduction and the scarcity of the fertile female.

Alana S. Newman is founder of The Anonymous Us Project.

The New Sexual Predators « Public Discourse.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

In Praise of Vengeance…

Quote

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the eponym ...

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the eponym of Thomism. Picture by Fra Angelico (c. 1395-1455). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

[V]engeance is not essentially evil and unlawful….

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.  Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger.  For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men.  Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.” 
If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.
Read the rest here.
Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Strange Bedfellows: The Catholic Church and Secular Social Scientists?

Quote

From David Deavel’s review of Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution:

G. K. Chesterton wrote in his 1908 classic Orthodoxy, “The unpopular parts of Christianity turn out when examined to be the very props of the people.” The outer crust of Christian reality is a moral sternness that seems ugly, but makes possible “pagan freedom.”  Neo-pagans wishing to excise those outer morals have brought on themselves “despair within.”

This is one of the central paradoxes of Mary Eberstadt’s new book “Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution.” The sexual revolution made possible by modern, more reliable contraception came with promises of a world that was emancipated, free-spirited, and happy. Instead, everywhere embraced, the revolution has brought a shrinking, aging general population, scores of abused, abandoned, and aborted children, and unhappiness for men and—most strikingly—for women.  The despair is within, but its ugly fruits are everywhere to be seen in anecdotal form and even in the hard data of thoroughly secular social scientists.

What does the data say?  In contrast to scholars who argued in the Sixties that contraception would reduce abortion and child abuse, stabilize marriages and be a barrier to poverty, Eberstadt cites the work of Lionel Tiger, which linked contraception to “the breakdown of families, female impoverishment, trouble in the relationship between the sexes, and single motherhood.”  Tiger, who views all religion as “toxic,” also explicitly argues that “contraception causes abortion.”

Even Pope Paul VI did not make that last argument in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, reiterating Catholic teaching on contraception. But he did make four specific predictions: lower moral standards in society, more infidelity, less respect by men for women, and coercion by governments to get people to use reproductive technologies. In all four cases, the Church was right.

Eberstadt brings to this book not only a comprehensive knowledge of social scientific research and a discerning eye for popular culture, but a wicked sense of humor that helps one laugh a bit at the data that would otherwise brings tears. She also brings an eye of sanity that is surely connected to her experience as a wife and mother of four (her husband, demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, is also a serious Catholic scholar). This book is a must-have for those who want arguments to use against people who think the sexual revolution a grand thing. It is also useful to give to Catholics and other Christians who want to reject the more outlandish aspects of the revolution but keep contraception. Eberstadt shows it is, after all, a bitter pill.  And she has the data of social scientists—who don’t necessarily like the Church that teaches this truth—to back her up.

Read the whole review here: Strange Bedfellows: The Church and Secular Social Scientists?

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Anthony Esolen: Tolerance and Reciprocity

Quote

Source: Public Discourse

What’s not so often acknowledged is that tolerance implies reciprocity from the person whose behavior is tolerated. For tolerance of wrongdoing is freely given; it is an act of graciousness, and not the paying of a debt. Therefore it rests with the offender, at the very least, to refrain from aggravating the burden of tolerance.

Suppose my neighbor has left his wife for another woman. It’s not against the law, although perhaps it should be. But it is a wrong. He can complain all day about how exasperating his wife is, but that won’t change the fact that he is breaking a vow, and doing his part to undermine the fundamental institution of society. I like my neighbor, poor man. He’s on the brink of a nervous breakdown. His mother is very ill. For these and other reasons I decide to tolerate his behavior. I am not going to take him to the woodshed. But I’m not going to give him my approval, either.

No matter whether my tolerance in this case is prudent or only timid, it demands reciprocity from my neighbor. He will refrain from bringing the new woman to my house, to meet my wife and children. He will refrain from lounging with her in his front yard, in affectionate embrace. He will refrain from publicizing the adultery. He will certainly not celebrate it.

The discretion he must practice is, as it were, tolerance’s doppelganger. I tolerate his vice; he “tolerates” my tolerance, and owes it to me to do so.

There are things we are better off not knowing about. But there’s more. The man who parades his temptation may be seeking approval. …  And then it is a small step from approving the brave fellow who makes his temptation conspicuous and conspicuously averts the sin, to suggesting that perhaps the sin isn’t really so bad after all, if such a conspicuously virtuous fellow is tempted by it.

That too is an offense against tolerance. It is to make one’s neighbor always aware of his tolerance: to weary him with it, to pester him little by little into giving in, because it is so much easier to condone than to tolerate. So it is that the most intolerant among us frequently preach about tolerance—to nag their opponents into submission, and to get their way.

Anthony Esolen is Professor of English at Providence College in Providence Rhode Island.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Abel the Righteous Entrepreneur

(Source: Acton PowerBlog)

Jordan Ballor of Acton writes:

Hazony points to some really important ideas in this short video. In many ways the culture war, so to speak, really comes down to a clash of worldviews about what work is and ought to be. For a narrative that sets the problem up the same way, but favors the “Leavers” over the “Takers,” see the work of Daniel Quinn, particularly his novelIshmael.

I’m looking forward to checking out Hazony’s book, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.

I agree, the book sounds interesting and I’m looking forward to reading it (someday!).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The crude and nursery-like belief in objective values…

Quote

C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.  If we do, we may live, and such a return might have one minor advantage.  If we believed in the absolute reality of elementary moral platitudes, we should value those who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion.  While we believe that good is something to be invented, we demand of our rulers such qualities as “vision,” “dynamism,” “creativity,” and the like. I f we returned to the objective view we should demand qualities much rarer, and much more beneficial – virtue, knowledge, diligence and skill.  ’Vision’ is for sale, or claims to be for sale, everywhere.  But give me a man who will do a day’s work for a day’s pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job.

 

“The Poison of Subjectivism, ” in C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, p. 81

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 6.2/10 (5 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

Greed is Wrong, But What About Wealth Itself?

After Liturgy on Sunday I had a brief but interesting conversation with two people about the pursuit of wealth.

Our conversation began with a question: Is it morally wrong to pursue wealth? The question was asked because both of my conversation partners had heard from different priests that in fact, yes, the pursuit of wealth is wrong. Christians especially, we are frequently told, should not seek to become wealthy but focus our lives on more noble goals.  On the one hand I agree with this. Wealth is not an end in itself and to make becoming wealthy the sole, or even central, goal of one’s life is not compatible with a wholesome human life much less the Gospel.

While granting that working to become wealthy simply for the sake of becoming wealthy is immoral, does this mean that is it morally wrong to pursue wealth? In other words, it is sinful to want—and so to work to become—wealthy? What I said on Sunday, is that it is not wrong to be or want to become wealthy. Why do I say this? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Promiscuity and Inequality

Quote

though the White House touts women’s equality as freedom from childbearing (celebrating the anniversary of the abortion decision, Roe v.Wade, President Obama stated: “Our daughters must have the same opportunities as our sons”), the social and economic literature is clear that achieving this result through large-scale birth control and abortion programs also means more casual sex, more nonmarital pregnancy, and more abortion (all of which America is witnessing). Yet a main driver of male-female commitment is parents’ care for the babies they make together. And the literature is equally clear that increases in casual sex, nonmarital pregnancy, and single parenting are the most important correlates of inequality in America—inequality between men and women (as most poor, single-parent households are run by women), and between blacks and whites.

Read the rest here: The White House and Sexualityism « Public Discourse.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Ruth Institute Blog » Religious Liberty

Rev. Dale S. Kuehne, Ph.D., the  Richard L. Bready Chair in Ethics, Economics, and the Common Good at Saint Anselm College writes:

Freedom is not the absence of restraint, but the exercise of judgment that considers what is best for the common good. Possessing a right is a moral obligation to do good with the freedom that comes with it. Rights do not exist to allow us to do what we wish; rather they provide us the freedom to do what is good. The freedom of speech can only protect speech that serves the common good. It cannot protect the freedom to tell lies, because lying undermines the mutual trust on which a free society is based. We can live freely with our fellow human beings when we can trust each other to do the right thing when no one is watching. The more people use freedom for their own selfish ends, the less liberty a government can extend to its citizens. Freedom exists when people can be trusted to use it for the common good. Freedom is a moral category and not merely a procedural one. A free national cannot exist apart of the goodness of its citizens. As someone once said, “American is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, America will crease to be great.”

Read the rest here.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)