Ferguson v. McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121, 2007 WL 4555436 (Pa. Dec 27, 2007).Google Scholar

Ferguson v. McKiernan, 60 Pa. D. & C.4th 353, 358 (Dauphin Cty. 2002).Google Scholar

855 A.2d 121 (Pa.Super., 2004).Google Scholar

See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *8–9.Google Scholar

Beauchamp, T. and Walters, L., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003): at 564.Google Scholar

Ploeg, I., Prosthetic Bodies: The Construction of the Fetus and the Couple as Patients in Reproductive Technologies (Boston: Kluwer, 2001): At 25. Concerns have been raised by some groups, ranging from theological objections to the intervention of technology in the natural conception process to objections that certain fertility clinics implant too many embryos in the uterus, resulting in multiple pregnancies and selective abortions. See, e.g., Robertson, J., Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *1–3.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Kesler v. Weniger, 744 A.2d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2000).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Johnson v. Superior Court, 101 Cal.App.4th 869, 874 (2002).Google Scholar

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4343; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5102; see also Kesler v. Weniger, supra note 8.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503, 504–05 (Pa. 1991).Google Scholar

See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *12.Google Scholar

Id., at *8.Google Scholar

Id., at *7.Google Scholar

Id., at *1.Google Scholar

See “Uniform Matrimonial and Family Laws Location” list available at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol9.html> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

Uniform Parentage Act (2002) § 702 and commentary.Google Scholar

See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *8.Google Scholar

In November 2007, a New York family court assessed child support on a sperm donor who had allowed his name to appear on the birth certificate and had sent the child occasional gifts and cards (signed “Dad”) over the years. (Chang, S., “Sperm Donor Liable for Child Support, Judge Rules,” Newsday, December 1, 2007). In a recent British case, a man providing sperm to a lesbian couple had to pay child support based only on the fact that the donation was not made through a licensed fertility clinic (Goodchild, S., “Fireman Sperm Donor to Fight CSA,” Evening Standard, March 12, 2007).Google Scholar

American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 2006 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation, available at <http://www.asrm.org/Patients/topics/embryodonation.html> (last visited March 11, 2008; report is password protected).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008;+report+is+password+protected).>Google Scholar

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2007). It should be noted that “conscience clause” is the term used by advocates of the pharmacist's right to decline to fill the prescription, while “refusal clause” is the term used by advocates of the patient's right to have the prescription filled. Smearman, C. A., “Drawing the Line: The Legal, Ethical and Public Policy Implications of Refusal Clauses for Pharmacists,” Arizona Law Review 48, no. 3 (2006): 469–540, at 474. In this article, I adopt the choice of the Stormans court to use “conscience clause” to avoid confusion.Google Scholar

Duvall, M., “Pharmacy Conscience Clause Statutes: Constitutional Religious ‘Accommodations’ or Unconstitutional ‘Substantial Burdens’ on Women?” American University Law Review 55, no. 5 (2006): 1485–1522, at 1486–1487.Google Scholar

410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar

Weiss, C. et al., American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, “Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights,” American Civil Liberties Union, New York, 2002, available at <http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10946&c=224> (last visited March 11, 2008).Google Scholar

Id., at 1–3.Google Scholar

See Smearman, , supra note 1; Card, R. F., “Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception,” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 6 (2007): 8–14, at 8 (“There has been increased attention focused on this issue, given numerous reports….that medical professionals have refused to honor women's requests for EC based on conscientious objection.”).Google Scholar

Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief: Refusing to Provide Health Services, January 1, 2008, available at <http://www.guttmache.org/state-center/spibs/spib_EC.pdf> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

See, e.g., Pontifical Academy for Life, Statement on the So-Called Morning-After Pill β, 2000, available at <http://www.vatican.va/romancuria/pontificalacademies/acdlife/documents/rcpaacdlifedoc20001031pillola-giorno-dopoen.html> (“Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall.”); Murray, N. M., “Doctors No Longer Have a Conscience Clause,” Tri-City Herald (Washington), August 12, 2007, at F3 (“The real issue is whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense drugs that kill rather than heal.”).+(“Pregnancy,+in+fact,+begins+with+fertilization+and+not+with+the+implantation+of+the+blastocyst+in+the+uterine+wall.”);+Murray,+N.+M.,+“Doctors+No+Longer+Have+a+Conscience+Clause,”+Tri-City+Herald+(Washington),+August+12,+2007,+at+F3+(“The+real+issue+is+whether+pharmacists+have+the+right+to+refuse+to+dispense+drugs+that+kill+rather+than+heal.”).>Google Scholar

Glasier, A., “Emergency Postcoital Contraception,” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 15 (1997): 1058–1064, at 1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id., at 1058. Compare Croxatto, H. B., Brache, V., and Pavez, M. et al., “Pituitary-Ovarian Function Following the Standard Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraceptive Dose or a Single 0.75mg. Dose Given on the Days Preceding Ovulation,” Contraception 70, no. 6 (2004): 442–450 (concluding that the contraceptive efficacy of emergency contraception is solely from its disruption of ovulation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, B. L., “Compelled Expression of the Religiously Forbidden: Pharmacists, ‘Duty to Fill’ Statutes, and the Hybrid Rights Exception,” University of Hawaii Law Review 29 (2006): 97–121, at 103. For a general overview of the processes involved in conception and emergency contraception, see id., at 101–03; see also Card, , supra note 6, at 10–11.Google Scholar

Id., at 98. Compare Card, supra note 6 (undermining the scientific and ethical basis of an objection to emergency contraception based on a comparison to abortion).Google Scholar

See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 1.Google Scholar

Id., at 1250–1251.Google Scholar

Id., at 1253.Google Scholar

Id., at 1253–1254.Google Scholar

Id., at 1249.Google Scholar

Id. These individuals are interveners, third parties who have interests implicated by the suit and who were permitted to represent those interests alongside the defendants.Google Scholar

Id., at 1255.Google Scholar

Id., at 1266. The plaintiffs made Fourteenth Amendment and Supremacy Clause claims that the Court did not reach because the First Amendment discussion was dispositive. Id., at 1255 and 1266.Google Scholar

Id., at 1263.Google Scholar

Id., at 1257–1263.Google Scholar

Id., at 1263.Google Scholar

Id., at 1263.Google Scholar

Id., at 1263 (citing in support Bray v. Alexandria Women's Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 271–74 [1993]).Google Scholar

Id., at 1264.Google Scholar

Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F.Supp.2d 992 (D.C. Ill. 2006).Google Scholar

See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 1, at 1266.Google Scholar

506 U.S. 263 (1993).Google Scholar

See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 14, at 1263.Google Scholar

These cases also provide the basis for a stronger claim for a duty to dispense on the basis of a Due Process challenge. See, e.g., Duvall, supra note 2, at 1498 (“[T]he Supreme Court could analyze pharmacy conscience clause statutes under Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut, rather than under Casey and Webster. Applying Eisenstadt and Griswold, which hold that citizens have a fundamental right to contraceptives and to ‘be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,’ women may have more success challenging the constitutionality of pharmacy conscience clause statutes.”).Google Scholar

See Dong, A., ed., “Access to Contraception,” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 8, no. 2 (2007): 775–805, at 804.Google Scholar

141 F.Supp.2d 1266 (W.D.Wash. 2001).Google Scholar

Id., at 1271.Google Scholar

Id., at 1272 cf. Glaubach v. Regence Blueshield (2003) 149 Wash.2d 827, 74 P.3d 115, 116–119 (holding that a Washington statute requiring insurers to provide coverage regardless of sex does not mandate coverage of all prescription contraceptives).Google Scholar

85 P.3d 67 (Cal. 2004).Google Scholar

Id., at 92.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Chandrasekhar, C. A., “Rx for Drugstore Discrimination: Challenging Pharmacy Refusals to Dispense Prescription Contraceptives under State Public Accommodations Laws,” Albany Law Review 70, no. 1 (2006): 55–115; Vargas, C., Note, “The EPICC Quest for Prescription Contraceptive Insurance Coverage,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 28, no. 4 (2002): 455–471.Google Scholar

Id. (Chandrasekhar), at 85.Google Scholar

Tomkowiak, S., Note, “Reconciling Principles and Prescriptions: Do Pharmacist Refusal Clauses Strike the Appropriate Balance between Pharmacists' and Patients' Rights?” University of Illinois Law Review 2007, no. 4 (2007): 1329–1360, at 1346–48.Google Scholar

Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital, 208 Cal.App.3d 405 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1989).Google Scholar

Id., at 409.Google Scholar

Id., at 413.Google Scholar

“How Plan B Works,” available at <http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

See, e.g., Pharmacists for Life International, The Pill — How It Works and Fails, available at <http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

Locke, L., “San Francisco's Latest Innovation: Universal Health Care,” Time, June 23, 2006, available at <http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/press/time_june06.shtml> (last visited March 11, 2008). (last visited March 11, 2008).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Locke,+L.,+“San+Francisco's+Latest+Innovation:+Universal+Health+Care,”+Time,+June+23,+2006,+available+at++(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

“Groundbreaking City Health Care Plan Passes in S.F.,” San Jose Mercury News, July 19, 2006.Google Scholar

29 U.S.C. §1144(a) (West, Westlaw through August 2006 amendments).Google Scholar

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983).Google Scholar

Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94112, **17–18 (N.D. Cal. 2007).Google Scholar

Id., at **24–25.Google Scholar

Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City of San Francisco, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 364, *3 (9th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar

Id., at *2.Google Scholar

Id., at *4.Google Scholar

Id., at *5.Google Scholar

Id., at **16–17.Google Scholar

Id., at **20–22.Google Scholar

Id., at *25.Google Scholar

Id., at *29.Google Scholar

Id., at *33.Google Scholar

Id., at **34–35.Google Scholar

Id., at *38 (citing Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 318 [1943]).Google Scholar

Egelko, B., “Ruling Lets S.F. Enforce its Law on Health,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2008.Google Scholar

Rojas, A., “All Eyes on S.F.: Challenge to City's Health Care Plan Could Affect State,” Sacramento Bee, January 13, 2008.Google Scholar

Nauta, R., Recent Development, “ERISA Preempts Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act: The Chilling Effect on State Innovation in Health Care Cost-Sharing with Big Business,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 4 (2007): 756–758, at 758. The case was Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007)Google Scholar

Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 183 (4th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

Id., at p.197.Google Scholar

Befort, S. and Kopka, C., “The Sounds of Silence: The Libertarian Ethos of ERISA Preemption,” Florida Law Review 52 (2000): 1–40, at 26–29.Google Scholar

National Conference of State Legislatures, “2006–2007 Fair Share HealthCare Funds or ‘Pay or Play’ Bills,” available at <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/payorplay2006.htm#2007> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar