by Matt Barr

Stifling of dissent LXXVI

A federal judge has decided not to dismiss Illinois pharmacists' civil rights lawsuit against Gov. Rod Blagojevich. A new state law requiring pharmacists who object to birth control to quit being so icky around normal people has been sort of hamfistedly enforced by the Gov: he got himself emergency powers to enforce the law before its born-on date, and used them to make Illinois pharmacies hang posters proclaiming that "no one should stand between a woman and her doctor," for one example. You may wonder whether Illinois also now requires doctors who object to birth control to write the prescriptions in the first place; Illinois would prefer you don't ask.

Look, I'm very pro-birth control. I'm also pro-free market, and this is what happens when abortion advocates are 50 times more invested in politicians than, say, prostate cancer research advocates. A willing buyer, willing seller solution to whether you can get your morning after pill isn't perfect, and isn't going to satisfy everybody, but if there's anything everybody in the free world ought to be able to agree on, it's that any law you can think of is going to be worse.

The article linked above mentioned Walgreens' motion to intervene in the case. Granting the motion June 8, the judge wrote: "Walgreens is a business that has an interest in maintaining good relations with both customers and its pharmacists and in complying with state and federal laws and regulations. The more absolute positions of the plaintiffs may be inconsistent with Walgreens' goals." No kidding. Walgreens is perfectly capable of figuring out if its pharmacists are filling the prescriptions they're supposed to be filling, and that interest in maintaining good relations with customers means that it's incentivized to exercise that capability. At the same time, it also wants capable, professional pharmacists with good judgment; again, it is in a lot better position to weigh those sometimes competing concerns than Gov. Blagojevich.

But we get stupid laws people have to sue over because they may not be "religiously neutral" instead.

Browse books from Amazon.com: