CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Breaking news

Re: Breaking news

Vanilla World — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:56:00 -0000

The ACLJ is giving Blagojevich the opportunity to look good to the majority of voters. He wins every time this issue comes up. The vast majority of voters support him on this.

The ACLJ seems not to care that it is in a lose-lose situation politically. The more they drag this out, the better Blagojevich looks.

Re: Breaking news

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:01:00 -0000

Strange that after almost two weeks from the date that the Executive Order was issued, along with the mandatory press release, we still can't find the order posted on the Gov's web site. Even worse--I can't seem to find the emergency rule to verify exactly what the text requires. Anyone know where to find this information? There just seems to be a lot of confusion as to what specifically the Order and rule require.

Re: Breaking news

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:32:00 -0000

Why didn't you say that the group was a Law firm founded by Pat Robertson to represent Christians in church-state cases.

What next, the Wal-Mart clerks can refuse to sell me condoms because they Roman Catholic or the Baptist can refuse to sell me Beer at Osco?

These people should change careers and stop watching the so much TV (i.e., the 700 and Fox news)

Re: Breaking news

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:55:00 -0000

The pro-abortionists need to change the law.

Re: Breaking news

ArchPundit — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:30:00 -0000

If they filed what they said in the press release, the ACLJ is going to get laughed out of court. The order doesn't require a particular pharmacist to do anything and in the case of a pharmacy, it only requires that the pharmacy dispense what it already dispenses or not hold a prescription back from a patient who wishes to take it elsewhere.

The onus isn't on an individual pharmacist so it's hard to tell how the law would apply. Further, a pharmacy can choose not to carry drugs it finds offensive and seemingly just offer the prescription back to a consumer and let them fill it elsewhere.

I can't speak to promulgation technicalities, but the Governor's order is pretty narrow and entirely appropriate from a public health standpoint.

Pro-life pharmacists have two options--working in a pharmacy that doesn't dispense drugs they find offensive or working out an accomodation with their employer that doesn't require them to dispense such prescriptions.

Re: Breaking news

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:20:00 -0000

But the law does not require pharmacists to fill scripts against their conscience, it requires pharacies that sell contraceptives to sell them to everyone, regardless. So if a pharmacy has a pharmacist that has an issue with contraception, they need to have a non-objecting pharmacist to dispense.

Re: Breaking news

Yellow Dog Democrat — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:14:00 -0000

The problem, I think, is whether they are characterizing the Gov's Executive order properly. Does anyone know where we can view it? I don't believe the Executive Order requires these pharmacists to fill a prescription. I think it requires pharmacies to fill or refer. Big difference, because for-profit corporations don't really have a conscience and can't really have a right of conscience.

My guess is that, at the end of the day, this unnamed retailer will get mucho bad publicity and will find a way to comply with the law, or pro-life pharmacists will have to find a different occupation.

FYI, I'm not sure of the particulars of these cases, but if they do involve the morning after pill or emergency contraception, the courts may rule that HCRCA is not applicable because of 745 ILCS 70/6, which excludes emergency care. If not, watch for Julie Hamos to introduce legislation defining emergency contraception as emergency care. Add that legislation to the Dept. of Redundancy Redundancy, Rich.

Re: Breaking news

Bo — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:13:00 -0000

You know, from what I've read, and following the argument laid out by the ACLJ, it seems the Gov's order is flawed (legally). I think if the Court takes this up they will side with the ACLJ's contention the order is in contradiction of the state's Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. At least, that is how I interpret the act as it pertains to this argument. What I haven't read is what happened that prompted the Gov to issue this order with such pomp and circumstance? I know he loves this kind of easy press, but was it *really* necessary? And where is that video game bill? Has that made it to his desk? If so, he will have another court challenge to defend. Is this really a good way to spend taxpayer money? On fringe issues that seem to get more press (and blog conversation) than a Michael Jackson trial?