Over three years ago, Gov. Rod Blagojevich put pharmacists on notice by requiring that they make the morning-after pill (also known as "Plan B") available to patients regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Later that year, two pro-life pharmacists mounted a legal challenge to this "administrative rule," arguing that it violated their religious beliefs.  The case has been working its way through the judicial system ever since.

First, a circuit court ruled in 2005 that the plaintiffs' “right of conscience” argument had no legal merit. In 2007, an appellate court upheld that ruling.  The two pharmacists then took their case to the Illinois Supreme Court.  But instead of rendering a decision today, the high court sent the the plaintiffs back to square one, as the Tribune reported:

The Supreme Court decided the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence of potential harm to warrant having their case heard in court. Also, it noted, the administrative rule was amended in the settlement of a separate lawsuit last year, providing grounds for a reconsideration of the case.

Now the matter will return to the Sangamon County Circuit Court. While pro-lifers attempted to spin the decision as "supporting" the plaintiffs, I spoke to Illinois Planned Parenthood policy director Pam Sutherland this afternoon and she was confident the rule would ultimately be upheld.  Below is a portion of our conversation:

AC: Do you see the courts decision as a blow to your efforts to uphold the state order?

PS: No. They didn’t overturn the case, which we were afraid of. We think in a trial we’re going to prevail based on the merits of the rule.

AC: And what are the merits of the rule? 

PS: The rule protects both interests: The merits of the woman’s right to have a prescription filled without [question] and the merits of the pharmacist because the pharmacist has the right to step away and call a remote pharmacy to fill the prescription. ...  [The woman] has no idea that there’s an objecting pharmacist. She’s not getting lectured. She gets her prescription filled.

AC: In the big picture, do you think this case represents a backlash against women and reproductive freedom?

PS: It is a backlash against women and that’s why we’re so happy there’s a rule.

Planned Parenthood used to get calls from women who were denied prescriptions. Not just one or two calls, a lot of calls each month. After the rule went into effect, we stopped getting calls from women. The rule works.

AC: What’s next?

PS: The case will go back to trial court. The state will defend it. … We expect the ACLU to file an amicus brief. … and Planned Parenthood will probably provide testimony.

The ACLU's state chapter agrees that the rule strikes an "appropriate balance" between the interests of both the woman and the pharmicist. Lorie Chaiten, director of the chapter's Reproductive Rights Project, said in a statement today: "The ACLU of Illinois believes that the regulation governing the actions of pharmacies presented with legitimate prescriptions for contraceptives will be upheld after further proceedings below."

TAKE OUR ONE-MINUTE READER SURVEY