document.write("");document.write("
<\/TD>  <\/TD> <\/TD> <\/tR>
 <\/TD>
<\/td> <\/tr>

\"\"<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Featured Case<\/span><\/u><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Storeman\'s v. Selecky<\/span><\/b><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The 9th Circuit Court of the United States recently upheld the State of Washington’s Board of Pharmacy’s 2006 decision that all pharmacies must stock emergency contraception and ensure that no woman seeking emergency contraception is denied access. This decision overturned a previous injunction that a lower court put into place in a case involving Ralph’s Thriftway.  Two employees of Washington pharmacies, who hold anti-choice political views, felt that their jobs were in danger due to the new rules, which mandated all prescriptions be dispensed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The original 2006 rules created by the Washington Board of Pharmacy were created with the intention that all pharmacies must stock emergency contraception and that no pharmacist could deny a patient their prescription with a few exceptions (i.e.: suspicion of fraud, etc). While all pharmacies must carry emergency contraception, the Board did provide provisions for pharmacies to work around pharmacists that might have religious beliefs that conflict with medication such as emergency contraception. Pharmacies could take a number of steps to ensure that the patient’s prescription could still be filled such as allowing a technician to provide the drug while having a pharmacist available by phone, or hiring two pharmacists. Storeman’s Inc, Margo Thelen, and Rhonda Mesler filed a request for an injunction to allow them to refuse to fill prescriptions base on their own religious beliefs.  They claimed that their Constitutional rights, specifically the “Free Exercise Clause” in Article III, were violated and that the law unfairly targeted people with certain religious beliefs.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The injunction request came the day before these rules mandating prescription dispensing went into place; and the lower court’s decision to grant the injunction that kept the rules from being enforced\/was overreaching, protecting not just the plaintiffs but all Washington pharmacists and pharmacies from following the rules.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The injunction and decision was made before new standards were set by the Supreme Court in a different, unrelated case.   The 9th Circuit Court found that first, the lower court failed to measure the effects of the overreaching injunction on the whole of the public’s health and welfare vs. that of a few pharmacists and pharmacies. They also found that refusal to prescribe legitimate prescriptions is not covered by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, which covers beliefs but not actions. The 9th Circuit Court argued that again, the public’s health and well being must be weighed in when considering issues of religious beliefs conflicting with public life and law. The Court also felt that the law was properly generalized and did not single out people who had religious conflicts with dispensing emergency contraception; but instead ensures that no patient is turned away for any reason besides a few exceptions, so the law is generalized and does not target a certain religious group.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The fight is not over yet- though the injunction is overturned, the Circuit Court sent the injunction back to the District Court to re-decide a more appropriate reach for a new injunction to specifically protect Ralph’s Thriftway and the defendants. However, the legal reasoning used in this case by the plaintiffs- and then denied by the Circuit Court, is incredibly interesting to those who are watching the fight for choice take place. The fact that the Court found the Constitution to only protect the beliefs and not necessarily the conduct involved in one’s personal religious beliefs; and that the conduct could not infringe on the – of the general public, shows that laws that allow pharmacists to “opt out” of dispensing medications could be potentially overturned.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

RMC wants to know what you think. Were the Courts making the right decision when they overturned the injunction and upheld the Washington rule?
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

A Victory in Virginia: <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Center for Reproductive Rights V. Commonwealth of Virginia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Virginia’s highly restrictive late-term abortion ban has been struck down by the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. This 2003 ban outlawed a widely used form of abortion, used by medical professionals after the 12th week of pregnancy in some cases where the woman’s health would be compromised by other techniques. This ban would have stopped many women from having access to services and could have endangered the lives of women across the State. This court is one of the most conservative courts in the country. It cited the Federal “Partial Birth” Abortion Ban and Gonzales v. Carhart in their ruling, stating that this ban was far more restrictive than the federal. The ruling was decided by a 5-4 vote. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n


\nCurrent Supreme Court Justices<\/b><\/u> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts<\/span><\/span><\/i>
\nPresident George W. Bush nominee; term began September 29, 2005
\nSamuel Alito<\/i>
\nPresident George W. Bush nominee; term began January 31, 2006
\nStephen Breyer<\/i>
\nPresident Clinton nominee; term began August 3, 1994
\nRuth Bader Ginsburg<\/i>
\nPresident Clinton nominee; term began August 10, 1993
\nClarence Thomas<\/i>
\nPresident Bush nominee; term began October 23, 1991
\nAnthony M. Kennedy
\n<\/i>President Reagan nominee; term began February 18, 1988
\nAntonin Scalia
\n<\/i>President Reagan nominee; term began September 26, 1986
\nJohn Paul Stevens<\/i>
\nPresident Ford nominee; term began December 19, 1975  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sonia Sotomayor<\/span><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

President Obama nominee; term began August 6, 2009<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n


\n<\/span>Overview of US Supreme Court Decisions<\/span><\/b><\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/span><\/span><\/i>
\nBy a vote of 7-2, the Court invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman\'s life. The Court held that the fundamental right to privacy extends to a woman\'s decision whether or not to have an abortion and that any governmental interference with that right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The Court recognized two compelling state interests sufficient to justify restrictions on a woman\'s right to choose. States may regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester of pregnancy in ways necessary to promote women\'s health. After the point of fetal viability -- approximately 24 to 28 weeks -- a state may, to protect the potential life of the fetus, prohibit abortions not necessary to preserve the woman\'s life or health. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/i><\/p>\n

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006) <\/span><\/span><\/i>
\nIn a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court remanded a New Hampshire parental notification case back to the lower court.  The lower court had invalidated the entire statute because there was no exception to protect the mother\'s health, however, the Supreme Court ruled the statute to be unconstitutional only in a small number of cases when an emergency abortion was necessary to avert serious damage to a woman’s health.  In returning the case to the lower court, the Supreme Court asked whether the New Hampshire legislature would have wanted this law with a medical emergency exception. If the lower court found no legislative intent to protect a minor’s health in the case of a medical emergency, the Court said the law should be struck down in its entirety.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/i>By a vote of 5-4, the Court upheld provisions of a Missouri statute prohibiting the use of public facilities or public personnel to perform abortions and requiring a physician to make determinations and perform tests concerning gestational age, weight and lung maturity when he or she has reason to believe a woman to be 20 weeks or more pregnant. For the first time in the sixteen years since Roe v. Wade, only a minority of the Justices on the Court -- four Justices -- voted to reaffirm Roe.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)<\/span><\/span><\/i>
\nBy a vote of 7-2, the Court upheld provisions of a Pennsylvania statute that required (1) physicians to provide patients with antiabortion information, including pictures of fetuses at various stages of development, to discourage women from obtaining abortions; (2) a mandatory 24-hour delay following these lectures; (3) the filing of reports, available for public inspection and copying, including the name and location of any facility performing abortions that receives any state funds; and (4) a one-parent consent requirement for minors with a judicial bypass. The plurality opinion of three Justices abandoned the strict scrutiny standard of review applied to fundamental rights for a less protective "undue burden" standard of review, which these restrictions passed. Two Justices voted to continue to protect the right to choose as a fundamental right under Roe by subjecting state restrictions to strict scrutiny.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/i><\/p>\n

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)<\/span><\/span><\/i>
\nBy a vote of 5-4, the Court invalidated a Nebraska law that prohibited so-called “partial birth” abortion unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the woman. First, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks any exception to protect women’s health, noting that “[s]ince the law requires a health exception in order to validate even a post-viability abortion regulation, it at a minimum requires the same in respect to a pre-viability regulation.” The Court also clarified that the health exception must protect women against health risks caused by the pregnancy as well as health risks caused by a regulation that forces women to choose a less medically appropriate procedure. Second, the Court found that the Nebraska law imposed an undue burden on women because it was written so broadly that it would affect not only dilation and extraction (D&X) procedures, but also dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, the most common form of pre-viability second trimester abortions. The Court reasoned that physicians who used the D&E procedure would fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, resulting in an undue burden upon a woman’s right to choose.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gonzales V. Carhart (2007) and Gonzales V. Planned Parenthood (2007)<\/span><\/i>
\nOn November 8 the Supreme Court heard back to back arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart (8th Circuit Court of Appeals) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (9th Circuit Court of Appeals),  two of the challenges to the so-called “partial-birth” abortion ban that President Bush signed in to law in November 2003. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the federal abortion ban, meaning that certain late-term abortions were now unavailable to women, and doctors who provide them could be charged with a crime. This is a highly restrictive move that gives the government control over a woman’s personal right to choose and interferes with the protected and privileged doctor-patient relationship. <\/span><\/p><\/td> <\/tr> <\/table><\/TD>

 <\/TD> <\/tR> <\/TD>  <\/TD> <\/TD><\/tR><\/table>
");