CENTER ATTORNEYS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST ILLINOIS GOVERNOR TO DEFEND PHARMACIST’S RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE
The Center for Law & Religious Freedom filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against Governor Rod Blagojevich on April 15 on behalf of pharmacist David Scimio. The lawsuit challenges the “emergency rule” the governor issued on April 1, alleging the rule is void because it violates Mr. Scimio’s rights protected by the Illinois Healthcare Right Conscience Act and it exceeds the governor’s authority under state and federal law.
On April 1 Governor Blagojevich issued the “emergency rule,” which states a pharmacist “must dispense . . . without delay” contraceptives, including so-called “emergency” contraceptives such as the “Morning After Pill” or “Plan B.” The rule requires pharmacists to dispense contraceptives even if doing so violates their religious and ethical beliefs.
David Scimio is a pharmacist at Albertsons, a grocery store in Chicago. He is a Christian who believes that human life is sacred, life begins at the moment of conception, and the destruction of a fertilized human ovum ends a human life. Mr. Scimio, consistent with his Christian beliefs, does not dispense emergency contraceptives, such as the “Morning After Pill” or “Plan B.”
Before Governor Blagojevich filed the “emergency rule,” Albertsons accommodated Mr. Scimio’s religious beliefs by allowing him to refer patients seeking “Plan B” to another pharmacy less than five hundred yards from the store. Albertsons is now required to order Mr. Scimio to comply with Blagojevich’s “emergency rule.”
The Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom, the Alliance Defense Fund, Americans United for Life, and John Mauck and Jason Craddock of Mauck and Baker represent David Scimio. The Alliance Defense Fund is also generously funding the Center’s work on this case.
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO CONSIDER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT CASE
The Supreme Court agreed on April 18 to consider whether or not a religious sect’s use of a controlled substance in its religious services is protected from criminal prosecution by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The case is Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV), and it arose when the government threatened to prosecute members of UDV for drinking a tea containing a federally controlled substance during its religious services. UDV is a small religious sect located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. UDV sought relief under RFRA, which requires the government to prove that the burden imposed on religious exercise furthers a compelling governmental interest and does so by the least restrictive means.
The New Mexico Federal District Court granted UDV a preliminary injunction, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, and the Supreme Court will now review the Tenth Circuit’s decision during its next term, which begins in October 2005.
The CLS Center filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2003 supporting UDV’s free exercise rights. The Center’s main interest in filing the brief was to ensure that the courts interpret and apply RFRA properly. Since RFRA applies to all religious exercise, it is important that courts interpret the statute correctly.
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY AND ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAUNCH "RELIGIOUSSCHOOLFUNDING" WEBSITE
The CLS Center and the Alliance Defense Fund recently launched a website called religiousschoolfunding.org. The website is part of a CLS and ADF joint project. It is designed to inform religious schools that “separation of church and state” does not require government agencies to discriminate against religious schools by denying them the benefits available to non-religious schools. The website also informs religious school administrators about the application of “non-discrimination” rules to their schools. The website explains that non-discrimination rules are a new and growing threat to religious freedom that forbid faith-based organizations, including religious schools, from maintaining their religious character through their personnel decisions.
Back To Top
