This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly AdultUpdate
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Trial begins for Minnesota woman who sued after being denied morning-after pill

Trial begins for Minnesota woman who sued after being denied morning-after pill

https://www.startribune.com/trial-begins-for-minnesota-woman-who-sued-after-being-denied-morning-after-pill/600194582/


In a case believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, an Aitkin County jury this week will decide whether the human rights of a rural Minnesota woman were violated when her local pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraception.

Andrea Anderson, a mother of five from McGregor, Minn., sought a morning-after pill after a condom broke during sex. Her pharmacist, citing his beliefs, refused to fill the prescription. She sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including issues related to pregnancy and childbirth.

As contraception has moved to the center of the national political debate — with the U.S. House of Representatives last week passing a bill that would guarantee the right to contraception under federal law — the decision in Anderson's case could rouse activists on both sides of the issue.

A spokesperson for Gender Justice, the St. Paul-based group providing legal representation to Anderson, said her case appears to be the first in the nation brought to trial by a woman who was refused contraception. Women could bring similar cases in other states that have sex-discrimination laws covering reproductive issues.


Interesting note later on:

After being denied her prescription by Badeaux and Thrifty White, Anderson sought to have it filled at a CVS pharmacy in Aitkin, Minn. According to court records, a CVS pharmacy technician said Anderson's prescription couldn't be filled there and falsely told Anderson that she couldn't get it filled in Brainerd, either. Anderson's lawsuit originally included CVS as a defendant, but the parties reached a settlement.


Also, the judge has ruled that this case is not about the pharmacist's constitutional rights, such as freedom of religion; it's about whether he blocked Anderson's ability to get the morning-after pill.
83
Viper · M
Interesting case, where I'm guessing they're going to say someone in the company needs to be able to fill the prescriptions.

Interesting that "the judge has ruled that this case is not about the pharmacist's constitutional rights, such as freedom of religion"...

Since I thought that would clearly be their defense. Also, I'm not sure a judge can fairly limit that as a defense, so I'm thinking no matter the result this will be appealed, unless they come up with an agreement outside of court.
Pherick · 41-45, M
This is beyond insanity. As a pharmacist, you don't get to decide who gets what drugs. You get a prescription, you fill it, end of story. You don't do your job, you get fired. Its really that simple.

Don't believe in cancer drugs? Awesome, you don't have to take them, you don't get to decide who else gets them.

Its a like a vegetarian working at KFC and deciding to not serve chicken to customers because they don't believe in eating meat.

 
Post Comment