Jude30,
The Bill or Rights, drafted by James Madison, came into effect on December 15, 1791, The First Amendment – the “Establishment clause”, addresses freedom of religion, speech, and press, peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In particular, Judge Leighton had to weigh the merits of extending the availability of a useful medication against the demerits of the compulsion needed to achieve that goal. The state has an obvious interest in promoting the welfare of its citizens, but not an absolute interest. If a citizen can demonstrate that the coercive power of the state, in this instance manifest in the regulation requiring that a pharmacist dispense a particular pharmaceutical, has infringed upon the citizen’s First Amendment rights, the state, not the citizen, must yield. Neither does a citizen have absolute rights; my right to free speech as specified in the First Amendment does not entitle me to shout “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium. Recognizing the real conflict between the two positions (by accepting that the plaintiffs had standing), estimating the social value gained by the compulsion (greater availability of the medication), and also assessing the cost (prohibiting the free exercise of the plaintiffs religious beliefs), his injunction indicates that he thinks that the plaintiffs have a persuasive case.
Initially, I thought that Washington State would be successful on the basis of the state’s right to regulate commerce, but as the citizen’s rights as specified in the First Amendment preempt that, I was mistaken. At least that is how I understand the case. The trial in October will settle the issue, qualified of course by the inevitable appeals.
In general, this site, Literotica, and sites like these exist on the sufferance of the Federal Government because of the First amendment. They are – we are – subversive. Do not deceive yourself; were it not for the shackles the Bill of Rights puts on Washington, we would be shut down in the twinkling of an eye. Our clan / tribe / group, and I do include myself even though I am on occasion at odds with one or another of us, can only converse, help, and support each other, show our bodies to each other, tell each other our fantasies, sometimes gross each other out, and on occasion come to love one another, because of the First Amendment.
One of the more entertaining features of the WWW is reading posts denigrating the first Amendment, which in its absence would never have been posted in the first place – witness the censorship in the PRC and Saudi Arabia and the persecution of their bloggers. The towering conceit of the posters who believe that they can somehow raise up better impediments to the coercive power of the state that may be found in the Bill of Rights is, to be polite, breathtaking. After seeing the slaughter which unbridled power can wreck upon helpless victims – remember what happened in Rangoon on June? - liberals such as I are constantly reminded how important it is, if I may use Rhiannon’s words, to “keep the government out of my private parts”.
So, yes, it is regrettable that the ideal of extending the benefits of this medication has been limited. If my reading of
Judge Leighton’s ruling [PDF] is correct, it would be more damaging to a much higher ideal were it not.
Only fools think they can get something for nothing.