CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
9th Circuit Fills Prescription for Religious Refusals at the Pharmacy(Originally posted at RH Reality Check.) Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction (PDF) on the Washington State pharmacy rules that protect a patient's right to access medication without discrimination or delay. This is good news for the millions of women seeking to purchase contraception at pharmacies. Across the country, we hear stories of individual pharmacists and pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions based on a religious objection. Many times these stories come from patients trying to fill prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception. Because the ACLU is committed to the health care needs of patients and the religious freedom of individual pharmacy employees, we advocate for solutions that protect both. So we were quite pleased when the Board of Pharmacy in Washington State issued rules that do exactly that. These rules, passed in 2007, make it clear that pharmacies have the responsibility to fill all valid prescriptions and satisfy all lawful requests for drugs like emergency contraception that certain patients can get without a prescription from behind the counter. An individual pharmacist with a religious objection will be able to ask another pharmacist on duty to provide the medicine, but in all cases, the pharmacy must provide the medication in a timely manner. Our excitement for the rules was replaced with bewilderment when a federal district court blocked their enforcement pending trial; in Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, the court said that the rules likely violated the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. And we weren't the only ones who disagreed with the district court's analysis: on Wednesday, the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction on Washington State's pharmacy rules and found that the trial judge abused his discretion. The 9th Circuit held that the purpose of the rules "was not to eliminate religious objections to the delivery of lawful medicines, but to eliminate all objections that do not ensure patient health, safety, and access to medication." The court noted that "the rules actually provide for religious accommodation — an individual pharmacist can decide whether to dispense a particular medication based on his religious beliefs and a particular pharmacy may continue to employ that pharmacist by making appropriate accommodations." Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, was filed by two individual pharmacists and a pharmacy. Seven Washington patients, represented by Legal Voice and Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, intervened in the case to help the state defend the rules. The case now returns to the district court.
Science Returns to FDA Decision-Making!The Associated Press is reporting that Plan B (emergency contraception) will soon be available without a prescription for teens 17 and under. We expect the FDA to shortly announce its compliance with the court decision we reported on last month that slammed the FDA for its politically driven decision to impose an age restriction. We hope that this is the first step in making Plan B accessible and affordable for all women who need it.
Do the Right Thing: Make Emergency Contraception Accessible and Affordable(Originally posted on The Hill's Congress Blog.) A federal court yesterday called on the FDA to do the right thing and revisit its politically motivated decision to unnecessarily restrict access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B. Often referred to as the “morning-after pill,” Plan B is a concentrated dose of the birth control pills millions of women take every day. And as yesterday’s court duly noted, the science is clear: women of all ages do not need a prescription to safely and effectively use Plan B to prevent pregnancy. The story of Plan B is a long one, filled with, as the court puts it, “repeated and unreasonable delays,” “political considerations,” and “implausible justifications for decision-making.” In 2001, a group of 70 medical and public health organizations filed a petition with the FDA to make Plan B available without a prescription. The approval process was unlike any in recent FDA history. An aberration not missed by yesterday’s court: FDA upper management, including the Commissioner, wrested control over the decision-making on Plan B from staff that normally would issue the final decision on an over-the-counter switch application; the FDA's denial of non-prescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had empanelled to advise it on Plan B; and the Commissioner — at the behest of political actors — decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews.Thwarting science and their own protocols, when the FDA finally decided to allow pharmacies to sell Plan B without a prescription, they limited access to women 18 and older with government-issued proof of age. For everyone else — teens under the age of 18 and women without government-issued proof of age — emergency contraception would continue to be available only with a prescription. Yesterday, federal Judge Edward Korman held that "the FDA's decision was not the result of good faith and reasoned agency decision-making" because of "improper political interference" and departure from standard FDA policies. It ordered the FDA to expand over the counter access to 17 year olds and to reconsider its decision requiring any age restriction. This decision helps restore the American value of scientific integrity in our government. The FDA can again be an advocate for increasing access to health care, rather than an enforcer of political ideology at the expense of women's health. However, this is only the first step. More work is needed to make sure that all women have true access to emergency contraception. Even if the FDA makes Plan B available to all women without a prescription, we remain concerned about the high cost of over-the-counter emergency contraception. Most state Medicaid plans, for example, currently don't cover Plan B, meaning that many low-income women who rely on Medicaid for their health care needs currently can't afford access. And with the mounting cost of health care in general coupled with our tough economic times, more and more women — many of whom don't qualify for Medicaid — will find it difficult if not impossible to cover the costs of Plan B when they need it. Yesterday's court decision has given us the opportunity not only to put science and health care back into the FDA decision making process, but to simultaneously reconsider ways to make Plan B accessible and affordable for all women who need it. — Sondra Goldschein, Director of State Advocacy, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Vania Leveille, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
South Dakota Abortion Ban, Here We Go Again(Originally posted on Daily Kos.) It's like nothing has changed since 2006. South Dakota has another abortion ban on its ballot. And I returned this past weekend to Sioux Falls to volunteer again with the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families. There I was sitting in the car, still incredibly nervous about knocking on a stranger's door to talk about why he or she should vote against Measure 11 and let families decide personal matters for themselves. Again, I learned the same not-so-obvious lesson I was taught in 2006: elections are decided by people. Not television ads, lawn signs, or press conferences. What matters are the face- to-face conversations that happen at the supermarket, with your family, or on your doorstep on a sunny Saturday in October. Throughout the weekend, my fellow volunteers and I had the opportunity to really explore with folks why they're voting either against or for the ban. Our presence was extremely appreciated by South Dakotans questioning Measure 11. By proudly and publicly voicing our strong opposition, we showed those opposing this intrusive measure that they're not alone. These personal reassurances should not be underestimated. On Sunday morning, I spent an hour jumping up and down like a madwoman at a major Sioux Falls intersection every time a car driver honked his or her support. But the incredible rush I felt each time a horn went off is not what I'll remember. Instead, it will be the personal conversations. I had the privilege of meeting Tiffany Campbell, a South Dakotan mother who strongly opposes the ban. Two years ago, a pregnant Tiffany had to abort one of her twins to save the life of the other. Tiffany is working with the Campaign to ensure that all women have the freedom to decide what is best for themselves and their family. I am so moved by Tiffany's courage and strength. Like many of you, I have been reading about the South Dakota abortion ban in the newspapers and on the blogs. I know that it is a ban on virtually all abortions. I know that South Dakotans decisively defeated a similar ban only two years ago. And I know that it is an attempt by anti-abortion activists to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I had forgotten what one weekend of volunteering in Sioux Falls could do to stop this initiative from becoming law. And by writing this blog and talking to my friends and family about my experience, I remember how important it is that we continue to keep talking both on doorsteps in South Dakota and in our own homes. It is a critical component to defeating this dangerous measure come November.
Desperately Seeking Sunshine
This week is Sunshine Week: seven days of events and activities organized by a coalition of advocacy groups to put a spotlight on the need for more openness in government.
 Good open government policies, like the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), are fundamental to the ACLU's work. The FOIA law allows organizations like the ACLU, reporters, and ordinary citizens to demand release of government records. On the national security front, among the FOIA requests and FOIA lawsuits we've filed include queries seeking information about the Bush administration's torture of detainees in U.S. custody, the murders of innocent civilians in Iraq, FBI spying on anti-war protestors, the CIA and Defense Department's use of National Security Letters, and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Right now, we're pursuing the release of unredacted transcripts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearings in order to see Guantanamo detainees' first-hand descriptions of their abuse and torture in U.S. custody. We've made good use of the FOIA and we're making sure that everyone else understands this incredibly important tool as well. While we have succeeded in gaining access to a lot of important information about government policies through the FOIA, government secrecy has impeded our work in serious ways. For example, because of the government's blithe and repeated invocation of the state secrets privilege to cover up egregious and systematic misconduct like the NSA warrantless wiretapping or the kidnapping and torture of foreign citizens, we've repeatedly had the courthouse doors slammed shut in our faces when we've tried to challenge the government's surveillance and rendition practices. So on Capitol Hill, our Washington Legislative office is actively lobbying for the passage of more good open government legislation. Right now, we're supporting the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008, introduced just last week by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Thomas Petri (R-Wisc.), John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.). Senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) introduced S. 2533, similar legislation in the Senate, in January. Conyers said in a release on the House bill: The current administration has too frequently used the state secrets privilege to cloak its activities involving rendition, torture, and warrantless surveillance.While matters of national security require the protection of classified information, our court system is clearly capable of handling this information with the appropriate discretion and care. The executive branch should not be able to escape accountability in the courts and congressional oversight by abusing the state secrets privilege and an independent judge would ensure that does not happen.Clearly, Congress has a greater understanding of the need for a more open and accountable government than our current president, who just a few weeks ago weakened FOIA by refusing to fund the FOIA ombudsman role he approved in last year's S. 2488, the Open Government Act. A new report shows that while Bush talked the talk by saying he'd reduce the backlog of FOIA requests across all government agencies back in 2005, the backlog has actually grown 31 percent since then. Way to go, President Bush! The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) commissioned a survey that found that an astonishing 75 percent of Americans think the government is "very to somewhat secretive." That's up from 62 percent from the same survey taken last year. Ninety percent will consider candidates' stances on open government when voting in November's election. When a whopping three-quarters of the public thinks the government's hiding something, clearly it's going to take more than a week's worth of sunshine to get it all out in the open. But every time we widen the blinds, it improves our ability to see and do what needs to be done. Tags: Civil Liberties News
Refusals at the Pharmacy
We've all read the infuriating stories in the press from around the country about how some pharmacies are refusing to fill women's prescriptions for contraception based on the pharmacy's or an individual pharmacist's religious objection. Denying women access to birth control , medication that only women use , is sex discrimination, and pharmacies have the responsibility to ensure that women are able to purchase birth control at their stores without added delay. Pharmacies should try to accommodate individual pharmacists with a religious objection so long as the pharmacy makes sure that women get their pills at the same pharmacy without added delay. This protects the health care needs of women and the religious freedom of individual pharmacy employees.
To address this problem, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief just released a joint report, Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights: Accessing Birth Control at the Pharmacy. The report includes a legal backgrounder on the issue, the ACLU's framework for analyzing religiously based refusals in the pharmacy, and concrete advocacy ideas. Activists should take note: This is an area where you can make real strides in protecting birth control access for women in your communities. In response to women's complaints from across the country , including complaints gathered by the ACLU of Florida , that Wal-Mart pharmacists were refusing to provide birth control, earlier this month Wal-Mart changed its nationwide corporate policy to require all of its pharmacy counters to satisfy women's requests. Activists in Washington State just celebrated a victory when its state pharmacy board issued regulations that require pharmacies across the state to satisfy all lawful requests for medication, including birth control, in a timely manner. If you or someone you know faces a refusal at your local pharmacy, there is something that can be done about it. There are pharmacy boards in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that have complaint procedures for consumers who are treated unfairly by their pharmacist or pharmacy. The person who faced the refusal in the pharmacy can file a complaint and the pharmacist or pharmacy may be disciplined for acting unprofessionally, like the Wisconsin pharmacist who not only refused to refill a woman's prescription for birth control, but refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy at the woman's request. Access to safe and effective contraception is a critical component of basic health care for women. The refusals of pharmacies , state-regulated businesses with the responsibility to supply medication to their patients , should not be tolerated.
South Dakota Abortion Ban Defeated!! We never lost our lead. It became clear early on that South Dakotans were going to decisively reject the state's abortion ban at the polls. The final breakdown is 56-44. Voters sent a clear message to the legislature that they had gone too far.We celebrated our victory last night a little after 11 p.m. CST. Even after CNN called it, we waited. We waited until we were absolutely sure that we had in fact achieved what many thought was unlikely -- South Dakotans defeated the abortion ban!!! Thank you to all of the ACLU members and friends that helped us Get Out the Vote in the crucial days leading up to the election. As soon as the Governor signed the abortion ban last spring, women and their families around the country quickly realized that the South Dakota legislation was a direct attack on the reproductive freedom of all women. Groups of students drove up from Florida, extended families came from New England, medical students traveled from Arizona, only to name a very few. We joined the hardworking and dedicated grassroots movement and canvassed, phone banked, held signs on street corners, and offered our support to the Campaign for Healthy Families, which the ACLU is a part of. As a result of the organizing efforts over the last few months (I must say it again), South Dakotans rejected the state's ban on virtually all abortions! The law will not go into effect! Our celebration last night didn't end with our victory in South Dakota. Within the hour, we found out that Oregon voters had decisively rejected a ballot initiative that restricts teens' access to abortion. A loud cheer carried through the room - these attempts to restrict access to abortion are all different parts of the same agenda. And by early morning, I received an email that California voters had also defeated a constitutional amendment restricting teens' access to abortion -- for the second year in a row! Someone should tell my body that this race is now over. This morning, I woke up at 6:00 a.m. ready to put on my No on 6 t-shirt and spring into campaign mode. But not today -- today is the time to savor these amazing victories against attempts to interfere with our personal and private decisionmaking. Tomorrow will be the day to start figuring out how to start increasing access to reproductive health services. Tags: Civil Liberties News
Vote No on 6 in South Dakota!Today I learned how big of an impact one person's activism can have on another. Until today, I spent my time here in Sioux Falls organizing the large number of people outraged by South Dakota's abortion ban who are volunteering with the Campaign for Healthy Families (www.sdhealthyfamilies.org). In February, the state legislature passed a law that banned virtually all abortions, but before it could go into effect, 38,000 South Dakotans had a repeal of this extreme legislation put on tomorrow's ballot. My organizing work has been incredible -- I've met very passionate and generous people who give all of their spare time to fight the extreme and dangerous ban -- but it has kept me in an office and away from the action.Today I joined my fellow activists and became a volunteer. First on the agenda was knocking on doors in one Sioux Falls neighborhood to remind people that tomorrow is Election Day and how important it is to reject the ban on virtually all abortions. At first, I was very nervous, but I was fortunate enough to be with Dahlia, an experienced canvasser, who assured me that this was all part of the political process. We did the first few doors together, and within minutes, I realized how right she was. Folks were all very polite and generally interested in the information I provided. This is clearly an issue that everyone feels quite strongly about, and has both pitted neighbor against neighbor and brought people together. A knock on one door introduced me to a woman who told me that her neighborhood card group had discussed the ban, identified the many ways it could harm women, and decided as a block to vote as a bloc against the ban. One man playing with his kids in his front yard worried about government intrusion into personal and private decisionmaking. Not everyone felt comfortable discussing the ban, and some peered out of their doorways to see if their neighbors were watching. "It takes a lot of guts to do what you're doing," a man in one of my last houses said. But by the end of the afternoon, we had knocked on 94 doors, spoke to 28 people, and left 66 door hangers reminding folks to vote tomorrow, and the only thing I was scared of were the dogs that bark at you as you approach the house! After canvassing, Dahlia and I quickly headed over to phone bank at the Planned Parenthood clinic, the only clinic left in South Dakota. I felt so proud to walk through the doors of this clinic, which continues to provide abortion care in this hostile climate. Understandably, no doctor in the state will compromise their own personal safety by providing abortions, and a doctor flies in once a week (or less!) to provide this important reproductive health service. The employees are truly heroes, and I was so honored to stand in their clinic and contribute to the fight against the abortion ban. Dahlia and I each made over 100 calls tonight, urging people to reject the abortion ban at the polls tomorrow. I lost count of the number of times that I was thanked today -- some of them very quietly -- for working against the ban. You could really tell that people drew strength from seeing others take a public stand against the legislature's disregard of women and families. And that's why tomorrow morning at 7:15 a.m. I will be standing on the corner of a major intersection asking people to honk against referred law #6. This support is truly some of the most beautiful music you will ever hear. Some folks will honk and others only feel comfortable enough to give a thumbs up or smile, but in this explosive and highly personal election, our presence will give folks the strength to know that they are not alone.
Greetings From South Dakota!We write from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where we are part of the people's campaign to reject the state legislature's abortion ban. In February 2006, the legislature turned its back on the women and families of South Dakota and passed a ban on virtually all abortions. As soon as the Governor signed the bill, 38,000 South Dakotans signed petitions -- more than twice as many as needed -- to activate the state's referendum process. On November 7, voters will have the chance to reject this dangerous and extreme measure (Referred Law Number 6). We have been helping the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families (www.sdhealthyfamilies.org) in their grassroots effort to stop the abortion ban from taking effect. The ACLU is a member of the SDCHF, and we spend our time educating South Dakotans about how the abortion ban endangers women's health. It seems like people of all ages get how this ban interferes with personal autonomy. Dahlia has these two stories to tell: One woman who I spoke with said that she was absolutely going to vote against the abortion ban and that her grand-daughter could not even get her doctor to prescribe birth control for her, though she is married. This grandma went on to say that "it's all these men that want women to have babies, but if they just had to walk a week or two in our shoes, they would change their minds in a minute. I'm 91 and I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to have the same rights that I've had in my life." Nuf said. I thought this would be the highlight of the trip, but then while using a public restroom in a hotel (wearing our "South Dakota Healthy Families Vote NO on 6" t-shirts) this woman who was preparing her daughter for a beauty pagent turned to me and said that she's lived in South Dakota her whole life and is so happy that we're out there knocking on doors to repeal the abortion ban. She chatted with me for a minute and then her 6 year old asked, "What's the abortion ban, Mommy?" She's answered, "How do I explain this to you in 6 year old terms? Ok, some people think that the government should decide when someone becomes a mommy and whether or not people should become mommies and daddies. And we don't support that. We don't think that's ok." Her 6 year old crinkled up her nose and said, "That's wierd. I don't like that." And then she went on to explain the benefits/ drawbacks of using glitter make up in the beauty pagent. Not necessarily who I would expect to be our supporters here in South Dakota, but that's what is so amazing about this whole experience: people defy stereotypes; they whisper thank you as they take our voting materials while they check out whether or not to see if the neighbors are watching; they are supporting a woman's right to reproductive freedom. We will continue to work around the clock until Election Day. We know the country is watching the outcome of this vote, as it is an aggressive attack on the reproductive freedom of all women. -- ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project's Sondra Goldschein, State Strategies Attorney and Dahlia Ward, State Strategist Tags: Civil Liberties News
Steep Hills, a Good CauseDay Four in San Francisco was very exciting! On our ride in to canvas, we saw a few of people that looked like they were stuck in the 1960s – dyed shirts and everything!!! They must have missed the memo stating that it’s actually 2006.Once we got our assignment, Shin and I walked door to door in the very hilly Noe Valley and canvassed our target voters in the precinct. All told, I think we knocked on over 300 doors in just under four hours. Not surprisingly, many people were outside enjoying the beautiful and uncharacteristically sunny weather and weren’t home. However, we did get to talk to about 40 voters about Proposition 85… and they all agreed with us!!! These voters were all committed to coming out on Tuesday, and on casting their votes against Proposition 85. Despite the steepest hills and the tallest stairs we have ever climbed, Shin and I felt like our work really made a difference. Tags: Civil Liberties News
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
