This is a piece I produced a few months ago about the court battle that has been raging for over two years. This story is still very topical and perhaps even more so now than when I first produced it.
In a few months, the higher courts in Washington will hear a case involving three pharmacists suing the state over a recent rule governing pharmacists prohibiting any allowance to refuse to dispense Plan B. The pharmacists claim this is a violation of their constitutional rights for freedom of religion, and the state argues the right the freedom of religion ought not preclude public safety.
Many shows have tackled this specific court case, but they leave out one very important aspect; allowing the pharmacists to express their views. Their argument is NOT those who would choose to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into a woman's uterus is wrong. "We are not passing judgment."
They do not want to end a woman's right to choose and respect their decision. But just like an individual has the right to choose, they also want the same right granted to them whether or not they will take part in that act.
On the other side, they claim it infringes access to Plan B, which has a 72-hour window of effectiveness. This makes it a public safety issue.
So far, a federal judge in Washington has agreed with the pharmacists but that's not the end of it by a long shot. During the federal judge's ruling he stated this has a great potential to go to the Supreme Court.
It is my opinion that this is undoubtedly heading there. Both sides argue under the umbrella of the constitution and human rights.
More from Adam Vaughn
Vancouver Olympics: Part 2 – Civil Liberties & The Deal with the Devil_SHORT
(05:04)
From: Adam Vaughn
A look at how the British Colombian government has enacted Olympic-related legislation to quell protest and dissension. Critics claim these new bylaws violate their civil ...
Vancouver Olympics: Part 3 – Olympic Legacies & A Declining Community
(04:42)
From: Adam Vaughn
Vancouver Olympic organizers promised legacies - improvements to the community. They promised their nearly 9 billion dollar investment would pay healthy dividends. However, ...
Vancouver Olympics: Part 2 – Civil Liberties & The Deal with the Devil_LONG
(06:11)
From: Adam Vaughn
A look at how the British Colombian government has enacted Olympic-related legislation to quell protest and dissension. Critics claim these new bylaws violate their civil ...
Vancouver Olympics: Part 1 - Aboriginals & Canada's Dirty Secret_SHORT
(05:01)
From: Adam Vaughn
Many of British Columbia's aboriginal groups say the Olympics have allowed the government to take their land in the name of the Olympic Games. They hope to protest in front ...
Vancouver Olympics: Part 1 - Aboriginals & Canada's Dirty Secret_LONG
(06:14)
From: Adam Vaughn
Many of British Columbia's aboriginal groups say the Olympics have allowed the government to take their land in the name of the Olympic Games. They hope to protest in front ...
Solving the Homeless Youth Problem Takes a Unique Approach
(04:45)
From: Adam Vaughn
Usual approaches to solving homelessness do not work for youths who are find themselves homeless.
Seattle's Homeless Jungle
(04:44)
From: Adam Vaughn
Many of Seattle's homeless choose to live in a notorious wooded area called the Jungle.
Related Pieces
Piece Description
This is a piece I produced a few months ago about the court battle that has been raging for over two years. This story is still very topical and perhaps even more so now than when I first produced it. In a few months, the higher courts in Washington will hear a case involving three pharmacists suing the state over a recent rule governing pharmacists prohibiting any allowance to refuse to dispense Plan B. The pharmacists claim this is a violation of their constitutional rights for freedom of religion, and the state argues the right the freedom of religion ought not preclude public safety. Many shows have tackled this specific court case, but they leave out one very important aspect; allowing the pharmacists to express their views. Their argument is NOT those who would choose to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into a woman's uterus is wrong. "We are not passing judgment." They do not want to end a woman's right to choose and respect their decision. But just like an individual has the right to choose, they also want the same right granted to them whether or not they will take part in that act. On the other side, they claim it infringes access to Plan B, which has a 72-hour window of effectiveness. This makes it a public safety issue. So far, a federal judge in Washington has agreed with the pharmacists but that's not the end of it by a long shot. During the federal judge's ruling he stated this has a great potential to go to the Supreme Court. It is my opinion that this is undoubtedly heading there. Both sides argue under the umbrella of the constitution and human rights.
Broadcast History
This piece was originally broadcast once on-air on KBCS, 91.3 fm. It is also currently archived online on the station's program One World Report website. (KBCS.fm) No data available on how many times its been downloaded.
Timing and Cues
This would be a great story for a longer feature (6-8 minutes) so both sides can be explored. As a case that's most likely going to end up in the Supreme Court it would valuable for the public to gain a good understanding early.
Also, there is one city, Olympia, the state capitol, that is mentioned that might not immediately be known to most people in a national audience.
Additional Files
- Plan B Transcript (pharmacists_v_patients_1.doc)
