![Minnesota Appeals Court Finds Pharmacist Guilty of Discrimination for Denying Contraception 2 urlhttps3A2F2Fassets.apnews.com2Fd42F122Fb5fa581f69a7cf2ca48af88a90d02Fe97b5848bb3049ce87cd5d5cc5a119d6](https://i0.wp.com/theubj.com/uae/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/urlhttps3A2F2Fassets.apnews.com2Fd42F122Fb5fa581f69a7cf2ca48af88a90d02Fe97b5848bb3049ce87cd5d5cc5a119d6.jpeg?w=1170)
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — In a landmark decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that the act of George Badeaux, a pharmacist, in refusing to dispense emergency contraception based on his personal religious convictions, constituted discrimination.
The panel of three judges made the ruling on Monday, confirming that in the 2019 incident, the pharmacist’s actions amounted to business discrimination. The woman, Andrea Anderson, who was denied access to the emergency contraceptive intended to prevent pregnancy, claimed that she had to make a round trip of approximately 100 miles to another pharmacy in Brainerd to obtain the medication.
Following the denial, Anderson filed a lawsuit citing discrimination per the provisions of Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. According to Judge Jeanne Cochran’s written opinion, “Badeaux’s refusal to dispense emergency contraception because it may interfere with a pregnancy is sex discrimination.”
With this recent decision, the case may progress to the Minnesota Supreme Court or go back to the district court. Notably, a jury previously ruled in 2022 that while the pharmacist had not engaged in discrimination, Anderson was entitled to $25,000 for emotional damages. Nevertheless, she was unable to collect the award due to the lack of a discrimination judgment.
Jess Braverman of Gender Justice, along with Alison Tanner from the National Women’s Law Center, pointed out the significance of this ruling, which could be the first in the U.S. acknowledging the refusal to provide emergency contraception as a form of sex discrimination. Braverman emphasized that the verdict sends a clear message to businesses in Minnesota regarding their responsibility to provide reproductive health care without discrimination.
On behalf of Badeaux, Rory Gray of Alliance Defending Freedom criticized the court’s decision, asserting that it failed to protect his client’s constitutional rights to act according to his religious beliefs while at work. In defense of his actions, Badeaux, a devout Christian, stated he cannot partake in providing drugs he believes could cause an abortion.
This ruling underscores an ongoing national dialogue around reproductive rights, specifically in the context of emergency contraception. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s nullification of constitutional abortion protections in 2022, states have varied in how they regulate access to such medications. While some have increased accessibility, others have implemented severe restrictions.
In light of these developments, a number of universities across the U.S. have opted to offer emergency contraceptives through vending machines. This includes institutions in states with strict abortion bans, demonstrating a push for greater reproductive autonomy regardless of state legislation.
While Minnesota continues to uphold the right to abortion, surrounding states have taken a more restrictive stance, making the Court’s decision even more critical at this juncture.
___
Reporting for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative is corps member Trisha Ahmed. Report for America is a national nonprofit service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on underrepresented issues. Ahmed can be followed on X, which was formerly known as Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- What is emergency contraception?
Emergency contraception is a medication taken to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. It is most effective when taken as soon as possible after the incident. - What are the legal implications of the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling?
The ruling establishes that refusing to dispense emergency contraception based on personal beliefs can be considered sex discrimination under Minnesota law. This may set a precedent for future cases involving reproductive rights and access to contraception. - What happens next after the Minnesota Appeals Court decision?
The case could either be taken to the Minnesota Supreme Court for further appeal or go back to the district court for additional proceedings in light of the appellate court’s ruling.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals is a significant moment in the ongoing national discussion of reproductive rights and access to contraception. As the landscape of abortion rights continues to evolve following the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022, regional decisions such as this one will likely influence both policy and public opinion on these critical issues. Ensuring access to essential health care services, including emergency contraception, remains a contentious but vital aspect of gender equality and reproductive justice.