stock and they never will have the stuff because it violates their police to carry them to provide a customer with a timely alternative for a program there that's a critically important part of my argument that my argument is that this is far as the state possibly go with regard to licensing pharmacies without violating the obligation of protecting public health talk come back that is as i move through it the second point i want to bring up before launching into the legal analysis is the point case the constitutional analysis has been figured out now over a great number of years and has come down to two decisions smith of the komi the u s supreme court the first question the court needs to ask is whether the emphasis on the exceptions that were in the rule and said the exceptions show that the a fact is to only restrict religious belief but that's just wrong therefore misunderstood what the rule toughest most are the exceptions that are built into the hour and the religious  pharmacy who point the obligation of providing a timely alternative for appropriate therapy which which i pointed out in the opening for example one of the exceptions built into the rule says that there is no obligation for a pharmacy to say as one of the players did testify that they needed to go to a hospital where they can receive the same type care for free that would be appropriate for appropriate therapy if the pharmacy can't meet the duty the general duty in that time the attorney for appropriate person presented with a need for their a p the pharmacist would have to say do you happen to be for their the type of drugs are looking for and then provide them with whatever alternative therapy the firm says could provide them with that role would be applied with the person had one of the things we are duty bound to do is to consider as you mentioned statutory issues before constitutional supreme court made it real clear here and i want to hear your thoughts about the  him why then doesn't provide protections for the particular parties for the school it does if the court ruled against me on the conscience act my argument is only that you should narrow the injunction to say that these plaintiffs are protected by the conscience act and they are entitle to a court order protecting them going forward and that's sort of the more specifically if i understand you correctly it's your position that the conscience a doesn't  situation and this is a narrow situation where we have someone who comes into the store and asks for plan b because of an emergency someone who comes in the story is for plan b not because of an emergency he said because she wants to put into medicine cabinet just  in that situation with the clinics would be allowed to do is to say the the first obligation of forms is the easy way to do is provide the that's the duty but there's another way of getting around that this time will turn of her appropriate therapy and so what could be done in that situation is to say if you have an hard case the case it's got us litigating for years and years and years is when the person walks into the pharmacy it's i think i need this drug and because it's a plan b because it has in fact a life of only three days that's an emergent ne what the pharmacy do that with regard to this person department needs that this pharmacy to do something for her that will allow her to get this drug in a timely way now the people who testified testified one of desperate need of the drug doesn't have a lot of time left me look able to get that drug they also said there's a good hospital about a quarter mile away that dispense in the situation where a person walked into that pharmacy and said i am in need of this drug can you help me compliance and that's my argument this is the conscience act doesn't allow people to get around of medical emergency this is a medical emergency if they're if their hope care providers under the provisions act which they'd have to be in this is health care and then sending someone to the hospital to get the health care they need they didn't have the money to buy maybe they don't have the facilities at this particular pharmacy to dispense plan which is a fancy hypothetical since it's prepackaged but my point is that that the state has narrowed this rule over the years to the point where it's only the person who presents with an emergent need who has to be helped if the pharmacy won't help the person with the urgen where the rule of applied we'd need even strict scrutiny because you'd have a real live person with a real live need for the struck with serious health consequences if the drug isn't somehow dispensed not necessarily in this pharm think we're in the in the world of fact that might be sufficient in chicago because the testimony here was that there are dozens of pharmacies within walking distance of the place where the woman would ask this problem we have other places in illinois downstate and all over the state actually not far from where i live in fact where you'd be hard pressed to find a pharmacy that was open say on a sunday when you get into a pharmacy it's our view under this rule which we think the state has a reasonable but secretary adams testified that he read this rule twelve allowed for this type of accommodation this is a religious accommodation it's also more than a religious accommodation it will accommodate anyone who doesn't stop this drug that's part of my argument as to why this is neutral  problem why why can't the department provide this information why are you putting the burden on more fits to figure out which of its neighboring pharmacies has a son or their religions that don't believe that he thing work is that he was eating pork good morning justices may place the court that's for the past seven years the state has claimed the power to strip these plaintiffs of their licenses and livelihoods for refusing to violate their religion and for the past seven years these plaintiffs and their families and their employees have had to live their lives and work their jobs and run their businesses under that cloud but last year based on a well developed factual record the circuit court correctly determined that such coercion is illegal under state and federal law and when the state actually had to present a legal lawful factual basis for its coercion not with attorney argument but with actual evidence presented in a oath in front of a judge the state failed to carry its burgers well stopping right there for a moment i'm curious is that the scope of this injunction i heard my questions for is that he to protect the people who were at issue of harm those have been effect since april of two thousand and nine into the complaint has always sought facial invalidation and under the supreme court's decision in this case if the plaintiffs were able to prove that the law least the first amendment which we did based on the well grounded factual findings of the trial court the proper remedy is to enjoin the law in its entirety that's what the supreme court said in this case the state makes an issue of this in their to vigorously enforce the law against anybody else so the claim that suddenly they've been stripped of their ability to use law against other people is overblown they never used that against other people in fact i trialed the state's witnesses and they did but the only people who they'd ever heard of refusing any drugs for any reason were religious objectors to emergency contraception so it is not as if there's some other class of cases out there to which this law could conceivably have bach right things that are happening that the state needs to regulate resident reason  these parts i think the reason should be broader is that the evidence established at trial is found by the court show that the point of this law was to coerce religious and conscientious objectors in violation of the health care right of conscience so that at the very least me take a step back the position of the state of the trial court ok was not what you heard mr gillis mr ellis says now referral if the pharmacist wants to refer sign and that we're only talking about not just emergency contraception but emergency contraception where someone says there options order the drug which these plaintiffs have religious objection to don't provide a substitute they can achieve a similar clinical effect which these plaintiffs have the same objection transfer the prescription transfer the prescription is in but in your system and send it someplace and participate transfer the prescription to another pharmacy if the patient so requests the other words the right to say go down the street to walgreens is not sitting with the pharmacist and it's his or her choice it's sitting with the customer who walks in the door and forth or simply return the prescription to the patient if the patient so requests this least of the dilemma that the supreme court decided in two thousand and eight when when we were up there on the previous versions of  court said under the under the prior voc all that it would take was for a customer to say the words order it this is a rule that imposes a duty to deliver drugs and it puts the ability to refer to some other pharmacy entirely in the customer's hands so we disagree that the rule can be read to say oh pharmacies can just say oh go to walgreens but even if it did let them say oh both walgreens these pharmacists have said they have a religious objection to participating in any way in distributing pharmacist to go around and figure out what every other pharmacy others it's not fair they have a religious objection to participating in getting people to sell the smedley pharmacy five blocks away had a state your position is that would still as opposed to simply saying it with the professor that they say very calmly and politely there's no evidence that these people parade are like you or anybody simply saying i'm sorry we don't carry that drug now one of the things the evidence at trial showed which the court found that which certainly is not against the manifest weight of the evidence is that the state has lots of other ways to get this information so the state really thinks there's a there's a compelling interest and an emergency that people in morrison illinois need to know that the government at the public hospital three blocks away gives out the same drug coverage and let people know that if the government thinks people need to know that the ten other pharmacies within a couple miles of mr cause rob's pharmacy sell the drug the government can let people know that they have not acted as if they have any compelling interest here at all even while they know that for seven years these pharmacies dumped some of the records show that they did nothing to advance that interest it can't be a compelling enough interest to force these plaintiffs the violate their religion and violate read conscience act but not compelling enough to get the government do anything to if you just stop selling that you don't have to sell the emergency stuff you're totally excusing the law that was their position at the trial court for five years among other places at c five thirty five one in the group but again in the record again if it's an actual emergency it's a pretty bizarre position for the state likewise if the state is saying it's an emergency that people need to have it it's pretty bizarre to say we don't require anyone to stock it and that mr gillis talked about pharmacies being closed on sundays or course if a pharmacy has to be closed on sunday  or away for the week the exact same burdens that the state is talking about that exist in those situations but the state does nothing to remedy those state only seems interested in pursuing this alleged compelling interest in one circumstance which is against religious objectors  the argument about emergent the emergency language in the health care right of conscience is so important points about that first and foremost it was not raised in the bench trial is not raised in front of the trial court and that's why you see judge thousands opinion makes no discussion whatsoever of the language that the state is citing on appeal it didn't make the argument that this is an emergency medical care under the health care right of conscience act that this wasn't presented hutto now so far as i can tell this is an argument that was made for about a paragraph in there illinois supreme court brief in two thousand and seven but was not presented to the trial court certainly not as to this new rule and i don't think any points are presented to the trial court certainly not there for their closing argument to the bench trial that you have in the record which is why judge bell's never never addressed it but even if it were actually in the case give you several reasons why the law of emergency medical care simply doesn't cover this circumstance first and foremost this rule is not part of the law of emergency medical care this rule applies to every single drug in every single circumstance every single day this is not a law that is triggered by urgencies whether it's an emergency or not this rule by its terms applies so it's not part of the law of emergency medical care the state admits it doesn't require doctors to write prescriptions for the drug and just a slight clarification some of the drugs are available without a prescription but some are not so for example ella which works for five days after pregnancy is sometimes called the week after pills opposed the morning after pill ella is over but only by prescription but the state admitted they don't require doctors to write the group it's tough to figure out how it could be emergency medical care at the pharmacy counter but not in the doctor's office if the state admitted that they don't require that they get a trial the evidence was clear that there was no medical emergency at wallace the state's medical expert it made it that in thirty five years of practice he had never heard of a single actual situation where someone was unable to get their drugs he never heard of it with emergency contraception actually happening never heard of it with any other trial showed that the state didn't carry its burden to show that any such situation existed the state's expert admitted there's no serious medical harm from allowing these plaintiffs an exemption secretary adams it made it there was no serious medical harm from allowing these  exemption that's the facts that were before the trial court and that's why the trial court found it really just is no emergency here there is no problem there are lots of willing people to settle and also that the state has lots of ways to get it that people another thing that the the record showed which the trial court relied on is that for many years the state stablished websites to catch the religious objectors all hotlines and specially trained operators to test the lives of jagger's site requirements the post in every pharmacy in the state tell you how you can catch the religious objectors but the state never used any of that apparatus to direct people to willing sellers of the drug again the state knows how to do these things it's fully if they were delayed every pharmacy in the state of play that they can't figure out who sells emergency contraception is is not averse to claim it regulate every single pharmacy in the state they can find that out if they want to find that they can find out if it was actually an emergency but they never use their websites they just direct people to willing sellers and ever use their phone numbers to let people know where to get it they never post signs anyplace to let people know where to get it it's a the desperate urge to make sure people know where to get it only happens in one place which is this pharmacies that's not right that's not an emergency the state has also not acted in this appeal as if it thinks there's a compelling interest or an emergency this law was first subject to a temporary restraining order in april of two thousand and nine we're now here for the first time three and a half years later if the state actually thought there was a serious medical emergency going on you would see an expedited appeal you would not have seen three and a half years before we actually get to the court you're not acting as if it's an emergency at all they've made it that they don't think that they didn't vigorously enforce their prior requirements and again ultimately if the state's concern is we need to have a rule that we can enforce against big chain pharmacies that don't have religious objections they can solve that problem this afternoon they can issue a rule that says you have to do x y and z unless you have a religious objection that would solve the problem and the supreme court told them that two thousand and eight but since two thousand and eight they haven't changed the rule they gauging the delivery arrangement for payment of health care services and medical care obviously the delivery of medications is part of health care in fact in many ways that's the core argument of the states the support position of the state that of course is health care is important there are experts  under the religious freedom restoration act government needs to establish the statute says they have the burden of going forward with evidence and persuasion they need to establish that they have a compelling government interest in forcing the particular people at issue to violate their religion they fail to carry that burden the evidence at trial said that there's actually wasn't a real emergency in their actions no medical harm to excusing these point this and that makes perfect sense there are lots of willing  position that we're not going to have a rule that says that the liver health care you need to be willing to do every last thing that is ever anyone ever considers health care instead we're going to say that we'll take as much as everybody give us and here are the facts at the trial court show and the admissions of the state's expert witness and the secretary showed that there is no medical are so there's no compelling interest here and there's no narrow and it's not the least restrictive means last point i'd like to to mention on the on the free exercise clause the  state argues this rule is neutral the state doesn't mention the trial judge's fact findings that the point of the rule was to target religious objectors those fact findings were well founded stretching all the way back to two thousand and five and going all the way for one thousand  state demonstrated its evidence that the goal of this law was in fact the stop the religious objectors they were the only people who were objecting in the first place secretary adams admitted that he only got the idea for the broader rule by reading a plan the easiest part for general public ability is the various provision because the state admitted trial that experience provision allows for individual life government assessments of the reason somebody wants a variance and secretary adams admitted on the stand that he could vision medical harm to him having an exemption but even in the face of that secretary adams said i can't envision granting one for religious reasons under the church of the case that's the sponsor that says that this is not a lot of general flexibility because the state is willing to grant variances for other reasons but not for religion that was the testimony your question to mr white that as to why he couldn't envision want to that point yes he just he simply said he could not envision one that's what  think secretary adams testimony is just in this characterized your honor what secretary adams said was not at this time but i would have to consider the tally the circumstances as it was contained in the application for a variance that's what he said so what he said was he would consider how one could be made with regard to religious exception and the reason is because because another thing that was that he testified to which i don't think was fairly represented because the who provides for a timely alternative to appropriate therapy what the rule says in some part she is not just support one two and three which we just read to you but it says that if the lawfully prescribe drugs etc is not in stock or otherwise available for the prescription cannot be filled pursuant to the other provisions the pharmacy shall provide the patient or agent a timely alternative for appropriate therapy secretary adams testimony emphasized this language and said this language would cover religious objectors up to the point where we couldn't go any further which is the person presents with the true emergency and have to have something you know that will get them the drug and he did say that sending them to a nearby place with a promise in stock might meet the requirements of the rule this was a declaratory judgment action so we don't really have the facts as they actually occur we have to sort of think about looks possibilities would be the department has taken the position that we can try to meet the religious obligations of these plaintiffs but we can't meet those obligations when faced with a person is in medical need for drugs was a factor in this will expire if she doesn't receive it's  case as an appellate lawyer so i hear anything that i know about this case comes from iraq or to comes from the supreme court's decision that popped into my head here it is representation for things that the state you have to do if you're a pharmacist  think that argument was not emphasized in the trial court your honor because our position was and is that the conscience act does not apply by its terms to pharmacists or pharmacy if it does apply then obviously a court needs to look at what i believe the question was asked of secretary adams as to whether the department had a rule requiring doctors to prescribe any particular that occasion that the plaintiff's object when the answer was there is no such rule the partner doesn't have to travel so that is true that doctors do not have an obligation apparently based on totally from my understanding secretary adams his testimony that doctors don't have an obligation to write prescriptions i don't know what decisions obligations are to refer patients to someone who might do that i mean it seems to me that lawyers have an obligation with a client who wants a defense made that the lawyer has an obligation to make he says i can't i can't emote i can't you know religiously i can't conscientiously make that argument but it's an argument that you might find another lawyer would be going to they can to say you can have to find a different lawyer but won't you need you know maybe that's the way it works for doctors but and in fact that's almost what the what we're saying here with regard to the pharmacy rule if someone shows up in a pharmacy and says i need because the urgency this drug department is saying they can send that person to a different place and that will comply with the one who time's up i'm going to give you another minute if you needed to if there was some other aspect you want to question good survival thank you your honor of there is