American Center for Law and Justice: Protecting Life - Conscience Clause Litigation Update
Protecting Life - Conscience Clause Litigation Update
The ACLJ continues to work to protect the rights of those who hold pro-life views – including those who work in the health care field. We are litigating in both state and federal courts the right of medical personnel and others to practice their profession without compromising their conscience.
Here is a summary of where a number of these cases currently stand:
John Menges v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Menges was a Walgreens pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. We are suing Walgreens for violating Menges’ rights under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year. An important legal issue in this case is Walgreens’ assertion that the Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the most comprehensive conscience law for healthcare workers in the country, violates the Establishment Clause. This issue makes it one of the most critical conscience cases being litigated in the courts today.
Carol Muzzarelli v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Muzzarelli was a Walgreens pharmacist fired for her refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. We are suing under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year.
Richard Quayle v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Quayle was another Walgreens pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. As with the Menges and Muzzarelli cases, discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year.
Brent Beams v. Wal-Mart (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio): Beams was a Wal-Mart pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense certain drugs with an abortifacient mechanism of action. Wal-Mart had a policy which would not allow pharmacists, including Beams, to opt out of dispensing a class of drugs which included Depo-Provera. Wal-Mart has filed an Answer to our Complaint, and we are currently preparing a planning report, initial disclosures and paper discovery.
Heather Williams v. Target (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri): Williams was a Target pharmacist fired for refusing to dispense the morning-after pill. After accommodating Williams’ religious beliefs on this issue for a number of years, Target decided to no longer do so. The Complaint has been filed and a waiver of the service of summons executed. Target is expected to file an Answer sometime in the middle of July. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the EEOC determined that Target unlawfully discriminated against Williams on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII.
Morr-Fitz et al. v. Blagojevich, et al., (Illinois Circuit Court, Sangamon County): This case seeks to ensure that pro-life pharmacy owners — not just individual pharmacists — receive the legal protection to which they are entitled under state laws as well as the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this year, the court issued a temporary restraining order against the Governor of Illinois and other state officials, ordering them not to enforce a 2005 administrative regulation that required all pharmacies to dispense Plan B and other forms of abortion producing drugs. This victory came just months after a victory before the Illinois Supreme Court, where the highest court of the state held that our clients had the legal standing to challenge the state’s 2005 administrative order.
This area of the law has always been an active area for us at the ACLJ. We understand that medical professionals who hold pro-life views should not be required to perform duties that violate their conscience. We will keep you posted as developments unfold on these and other cases.
Here is a summary of where a number of these cases currently stand:
John Menges v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Menges was a Walgreens pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. We are suing Walgreens for violating Menges’ rights under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year. An important legal issue in this case is Walgreens’ assertion that the Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the most comprehensive conscience law for healthcare workers in the country, violates the Establishment Clause. This issue makes it one of the most critical conscience cases being litigated in the courts today.
Carol Muzzarelli v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Muzzarelli was a Walgreens pharmacist fired for her refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. We are suing under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year.
Richard Quayle v. Walgreens (Illinois Circuit Court, Madison County): Quayle was another Walgreens pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense the morning-after pill. As with the Menges and Muzzarelli cases, discovery is currently underway and cross-motions for summary judgment will be heard before the end of the year.
Brent Beams v. Wal-Mart (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio): Beams was a Wal-Mart pharmacist fired for his refusal to dispense certain drugs with an abortifacient mechanism of action. Wal-Mart had a policy which would not allow pharmacists, including Beams, to opt out of dispensing a class of drugs which included Depo-Provera. Wal-Mart has filed an Answer to our Complaint, and we are currently preparing a planning report, initial disclosures and paper discovery.
Heather Williams v. Target (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri): Williams was a Target pharmacist fired for refusing to dispense the morning-after pill. After accommodating Williams’ religious beliefs on this issue for a number of years, Target decided to no longer do so. The Complaint has been filed and a waiver of the service of summons executed. Target is expected to file an Answer sometime in the middle of July. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the EEOC determined that Target unlawfully discriminated against Williams on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII.
Morr-Fitz et al. v. Blagojevich, et al., (Illinois Circuit Court, Sangamon County): This case seeks to ensure that pro-life pharmacy owners — not just individual pharmacists — receive the legal protection to which they are entitled under state laws as well as the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this year, the court issued a temporary restraining order against the Governor of Illinois and other state officials, ordering them not to enforce a 2005 administrative regulation that required all pharmacies to dispense Plan B and other forms of abortion producing drugs. This victory came just months after a victory before the Illinois Supreme Court, where the highest court of the state held that our clients had the legal standing to challenge the state’s 2005 administrative order.
This area of the law has always been an active area for us at the ACLJ. We understand that medical professionals who hold pro-life views should not be required to perform duties that violate their conscience. We will keep you posted as developments unfold on these and other cases.