Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Fired Pro-Life Pharmacist

A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Wisconsin on Tuesday upheld a ruling by the state Pharmacy Examining Board against a pro-life pharmacist. Neil Noesen was from a K-Mart store in 2002 and claimed religious discrimination for not wanting to fill prescriptions for drugs he says can cause an abortion.

He refused to fill university student Amanda Phiede’s oral contraceptive prescription while he was working as a substitute pharmacist at a Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie, Wisconsin.

Phiede then asked him where else she could get the prescription filled, and Noesen refused to provide her with that information and wouldn’t transfer the script to another pharmacy.

The state Pharmacy Examining Board sanctioned Noesen in 2005 in the case.

It required him to state ethics classes and pay back almost $21,000 in costs it incurred to investigate his situation. Doing those things were a condition of him receiving his license back.

According to AP, the state appellate court upheld the 2006 ruling of Barron County Circuit Judge James Babler which validated the reprimand.

lifenews.com/state3060.html

This shouldn’t even be debatable.

If you are unwilling or unable to do the job required of you (example: if you’re a pharmacist you have to fill all the prescriptions, you don’t get to pick and choose) then don’t work there.

If the law or prescription goes again God’s law, it should be ignored. The pharmacist was in the right and the courts are wrong. This is nothing but persecution based on the pharmacists religious belief.

As of right now, I am boycotting WisconSIN.

I’m sure Wisconsin is going to really be feeling the effects of your boycott…

You don’t live in a country that is ruled by the Bible, you live in the United States and when you put yourself under its banner you agree to follow its laws. If you don’t like it then lobby against it and try and get it changed or leave, but don’t make excuses to try and make yourself exempt.

Not when the “positive” laws are against God natural law. We have the right and duty to active oppose (i.e. disobey) those laws. If you don’t like it, so be it. :mad:

Not when the “positive” laws are against God natural law.

We have the right and duty to active oppose (i.e. disobey) those laws to the point of persecition. If you don’t like it, so be it. :mad:

We also live in a country where religious beliefs have to be respected.

Don’t want religious beliefs respected? China can more than accommodate.

Respected, not bowed to.

We don’t allow parents to refuse their children medical attention if it goes against their religion. We wouldn’t tell a Muslim that the honor killing of his daughter was OK because of his religion. And we shouldn’t be telling pharmacists that they can deny a pill to certain customers for that reason.

If you feel that is your Christian duty then so be it, but don’t turn around and whine when gasp the United States law is upheld.

You’re comparing withholding medical attention and honor killings to not giving a pill that isn’t medically necessary?

Withholding medical attention endangers a person’s life; killing…well, I don’t need to elaborate.

Not giving a birth control pill isn’t going to threaten any person’s life, especially when they can go to another pharmacy to get it.

Your argument was that the US respects religion. I pointed out that that it isn’t enough to say that. You don’t get a free pass on doing whatever you like because of your religion, you have to follow secular laws.

And what federal law is it that requires pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions, I wonder?

In Christ,
Rand

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To the last two posts, I say: It’s their job.

Religious expression only goes so far. You cannot simply say “I don’t want to do this because it’s against my religion”.

There are of course valid examples of religious freedoms, such as holidays off, but not performing the job you are paid to do isn’t one of them.

It oversteps boundaries, as well. Doctors decide what is best for the patient, pharmacists provide the medication doctors prescribe.

Finally, you wouldn’t hire a delivery driver who told you automobiles were against his religion.

And secular laws can’t unreasonably infringe on a person’s right to freely worship.

The prohibition of honor killings and requiring medical treatment for children aren’t unreasonable restrictions. So the comparison is not a valid comparison.

I see honor killing, contraceptives, and abortion as the same thing. They are murder. :mad:

True, but the poster is comparing the denial of contraceptives by the pharmacist to actual honor killings.

So just were do you draw the line than? What about parents who have their children in a public school yet refuse to vaccinate them do to religious beliefs? As it has been stated the birth control pill is something a women chooses to take. It is voluntary. It is not something that is necessary to save her life.
Is religion something we are only allowed to practice in the privacy of our own homes or in church? Are our religious beliefs not supposed to interfer with our day to day activities?

Finally, you wouldn’t hire a delivery driver who told you automobiles were against his religion

Honestly, it depends on what I’m wanting to be delivered and how far it needs to go. The Amish just might be a little more respectable of my package than some of the delivery drivers around today. Not to mention they just might be cheaper too. After all if your not using a car you don’t have to buy gas.

No I am not.

Of course honor killings are more brutal than refusing to hand out contraception. The point you perfectly missed is that not all aspects of faith are to be honored in secular society. Choosing which customers get their doctor prescribed medical supplies is not and should not be acceptable.

Exactly. The choice lies with the woman. Nobody else.

Within reason, yes!

You have to take all the issues separately. Some things are OK, others aren’t. It all comes down to common sense.

I’ll rephrase it, as I think you missed the point: would you take away the right of a business to choose not to hire somebody who wouldn’t drive an automobile?

No I would not, however, if the business knew this person’s beliefs than they should have never hired him in the first place. That being said I’m not to sure firing him over this is the right thing to do.

I agree. And unless I missed something, I don’t believe the article says that the employer did.

Aside from demoting him to stock boy, I don’t see any other option. It’s not like he refused to sell cough syrup or something. He refused contraception, which as you know is a very time sensitive drug.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.