The action today by the Illinois Supreme Court returns to the lower courts the controversy regarding pharmacists' refusal to provide contraceptives to their patients. In adopting the challenged regulation, the State of Illinois recognized a critical public health concern in the increasing discrimination against women who are thwarted in their attempts to purchase prescription contraceptives in Illinois pharmacies when pharmacies fail to ensure a woman's access to contraception in the face of an individual pharmacist's religious objection. The Supreme Court today did not address the merits of the regulation - which seeks to achieve the appropriate balance between the important, though in this context, competing constitutional interests of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to access reproductive health care. The Court ruled today that the dispute between the state and objecting pharmacists should be subject to further proceedings in the lower courts, particularly in light of the fact that the regulation at issue was amended while this matter was pending in the Supreme Court.

The ACLU of Illinois believes that the regulation governing the actions of pharmacies presented with legitimate prescriptions for contraceptives will be upheld after further proceedings below. The rule properly balances two competing and critical constitutional interests - religious liberty and access to reproductive health care. The ACLU of Illinois will continue to support the need to strike this appropriate balance in order to protect the individual interests of pharmacists while ensuring access to health care for women in Illinois.

By Sylvia Adams, Office Manager

A personal note:

I walked down the aisle amid the smiles and clapping of my family and friends on the arm of my handsome son. I shed a tear as I heard the song I'd chosen to make my entrance to played and I got closer to the person I loved and had decided to spend the rest of my life with. I stood before the minister with the love of my life and we vowed before God and our loved ones to cherish one another no matter what "until death do we part". We were declared a couple and walked out arm in arm amidst more clapping and cheers; smiling and happy to now be "one flesh". We received the well wishes and toasts of everyone in attendance, ate cake, took photos and danced the night away, all the while feeling as though I would burst from all the happiness and joy I was feeling.
Later, at the hotel where we spent our honeymoon we accepted the best wishes and congratulations from the desk clerk on our marriage and new life together. Those same wishes were extended to us everywhere we went, the bank as my name was added to the bank account, the restaurant we ate at later the next day, even the building security guard "welcomed me to the club".
As I lay with my new spouse the night after our wedding I thought about how grateful to God I was for giving me this person to love and for having them love me in return and about how unfair it was that thanks to the laws of most states in our country, everyone was not allowed the right to feel the way I was feeling at that moment. You see, I am a female and I married a male, but what if I had fallen in love with another woman? Would the bank teller and hotel clerk still "wish me well"? Would it have been totally acceptable for me to plan the wedding of my dreams without the caterer, florist and even perhaps the musicians looking at me as if I were not entitled to have a wedding? As I stood before the minister reciting my vows, I wondered to myself what made me so special? Why had I been allowed to pledge my life to my beloved only because I was female and he was male? What kind of society would take away the happiness and joy I was feeling at that moment from anyone solely based upon sexual orientation? It is not right!
Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love no matter what and I will do all that I can do to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to feel as happy as I felt Saturday, December 6, 2008!

The ACLU of Illinois is committed to full legal marriage equality for all Illinoisans. Fairness demands that the state treat all Illinois couples the same when it comes to important legal rights and benefits that marriage can provide. We support HB 1826, the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act as an important step towards full equality. You can help by contacting your state legislator at http://action.aclu.org/ilcivilunion.

Specifically, the Second Appeals Court found that gag orders accompanying national security letters (NSLs) violate the First Amendment; recipients of these warrantless demands for records may be forbidden from speaking about them, without any kind of judicial process:

The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients. The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders - provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch.

"The appellate panel correctly observed that the imposition of such a conclusive presumption ignored well-settled First Amendment standards and deprived the judiciary of its important function as a protector of fundamental rights," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

In this regard, the opinion stated: "The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements."

From ACLU National.