Catholic Culture Trusted Commentary
Catholic Culture Trusted Commentary
Catholic World News

Pharmacist’s refusal to dispense abortifacient violated Minnesota’s human rights law, court rules

March 22, 2024

» Continue to this story on Courthouse News Service

CWN Editor's Note: A Minnesota pharmacist’s refusal to dispense Ella, which can cause abortions, violated the pregnancy-discrimination provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a state appellate court has ruled.

“[George] Badeaux refused to dispense [Andrea] Anderson’s valid prescription because Badeaux believed she may have been pregnant,” the court ruled. “Thus, pregnancy was a substantial causative factor in Badeaux’s refusal to dispense.”

“George politely informed the customer that he couldn’t dispense the drugs due to his personal beliefs,” said an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. “The court failed to uphold George’s constitutionally protected freedom to act consistent with his beliefs while at work.”

The above note supplements, highlights, or corrects details in the original source (link above). About CWN news coverage.


For all current news, visit our News home page.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

  • Posted by: miketimmer499385 - Mar. 22, 2024 12:31 PM ET USA

    Seems to be at odds with the position of pharmacies which refused to dispense ivermectin and hydroxychloriquine during the height of the pandemic and found legal support if only through benign neglect.

  • Posted by: feedback - Mar. 22, 2024 10:05 AM ET USA

    This is significant case, as it directly violates the First Amendment rights of the pharmacist under the guise of protecting rights of his client according to the "MN Human Rights Act." US Constitution protects individual from government overreach, while the - much more recent - "MN Human Rights Act" practically allows the overreach. This needs to be appealed again and resolved by the US Supreme Court.