Jury finds MN pharmacist did not discriminate in denying emergency contraception


Religious preference takes priority over a woman’s health.   In his mind the woman had sex so should be forced to have a pregnancy followed by a forced birth.   How dare she enjoy a sexual encounter and have it for anything other than procreation.    He is a pharmacist and should not have the job if he cannot dispense medication ordered by a doctor.  He is not a doctor.   He is not the woman’s medical provider.   If he doesn’t want to do the job, then get a different job.  Here is a case of demanding special rights due to religion.    Remember when the right used to say the gays wanted special rights when we demanded to be treated equally, well religion is now demanding special rights and they are getting it.   Hugs 

A single pill in a container.

An emergency contraception pill is seen through packaging in this stock photo.
Photo by Sophia Moss

An Aitkin County jury on Friday found that a central Minnesota pharmacist did not discriminate when he refused to provide emergency contraceptives to a woman in 2019.

Andrea Anderson of McGregor Minn., sought to fill her prescription for Ella, which is used to stop a pregnancy before it starts, after a condom broke during intercourse. 

She had the prescription sent to a nearby Thrifty White pharmacy, but when she called to confirm, pharmacist George Badeaux told her he would not fill it due to “personal reasons.”

According to the lawsuit, he said a colleague might be willing to fill it, but with a snowstorm imminent that person may not make it into work. Anderson got the prescription filled in Brainerd, but it required a 100-mile drive round trip in a snowstorm that allegedly took Anderson more than three hours.

In his deposition, Badeaux said it was not the first time he’d declined to provide emergency contraceptives. 

According to the suit, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy allows pharmacists to decline to fill a prescription for emergency contraceptives if it conflicts with their beliefs. However, they must make other arrangements for the patient to get their medication. 

Anderson said in a deposition that the experience made her feel “embarrassment and shame.”

Leaders with the group Gender Justice, which represented Anderson in this case, said they plan to appeal.

“The testimony was so clear that she received lesser services than other customers because what she was going there for was emergency contraception. And so we believe that, by law, that’s discrimination in Minnesota,” said Jess Braverman, legal director for Gender Justice.

Braverman noted that the jury did award Anderson $25,000 for emotional harm caused by the experience, although the pharmacist will not have to pay her that money unless the no-discrimination finding is changed in future motions or on appeal.

Charles Shreffler, Badeaux’s attorney, confirmed that. “In order for [Badeaux] to be liable for damages, he has to be found liable. The jury has to first find that he discriminated against Ms. Anderson on the basis of her sex, and the jury specifically found that he did not discriminate against her.”

“We are incredibly happy with the decision,” he added. “Medical professionals should be free to practice their profession in line with their beliefs.”

9 thoughts on “Jury finds MN pharmacist did not discriminate in denying emergency contraception

  1. These incidents make me soooo ANGRY!!! NO business should have the right to refuse service UNLESS it’s clearly posted … just as in the “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” To allow a person in service to the PUBLIC to insert his/her personal beliefs into his job is WRONG … WRONG … WRONG!!! And to pass it off to someone else is NOT the answer.

    What would happen if a smoker came in to buy a pack of cigarettes and the clerk refused to sell any simply because s/he felt smoking was dangerous to one’s health? Smokers tend to get very defensive about their habit!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hello Nan. Welcome to my world. You make cakes for weddings yet when a same sex couple comes in you say no way, my religious rights say I don’t have to. Oh the next shop that does that is hours away, tough shit, my god hates you. I hate it now when it is happening to women, but were all the women upset when it was happening to same gender couples? Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

  2. That BS with pharmacists, and later nurses, too, went on here under Gov. Brownback. It was finally addressed nationally, IIRC, during the Obama admin, maybe with ACA, or maybe just generally while there was still a Dem majority US Senate. Later, I remember (I think) ACA stipulating that a pharmacy is responsible for a client’s medical result due to medication restriction by a pharmacist. Pharmacies had to make sure there was always a person who was not averse to doing their job, if the chose to hire those who won’t do their jobs.
    I never understood a person bothering to become a pharmacist, then deciding they don’t have to dispense what they don’t want to dispense. Then why be a pharmacist?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Overall, your last question is spot-on. But nowadays with all the “religious freedom” crap that’s going on, certain people think being a “Christians” gives them certain “privileges.” Bull crap!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Hello Nan. Remember when these same religious leaders were claiming the gays who wanted to marry wanted special rights? Seems quaint now doesn’t it. Seems to me it was a trial run to see how far they could push it. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.