Contraception and Conscience in Washington State

A remarkable decision in the context of the HHS controversy.  Excerpts:

Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal has been to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.



U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton sided with a Ralph's Thriftway pharmacy and two pharmacists who said state rules requiring them to dispense Plan B violate their constitutional rights to freedom of religion because such drugs can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which they consider equal to abortion.

Washington's rules require that pharmacies stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand. The state adopted the dispensing regulations in 2007, after reports that some women had been denied access to Plan B, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills and is effective if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex...

I wonder how this will affect the broader controversy?

More information here. Excerpts:

...Washington had never forced pharmacists to stock any particular drug until its Board of Pharmacy passed rules designed to force pharmacists to provide Plan B and other drugs, without permitting pharmacists to refuse for reasons of conscience (although they could refuse for secular reasons). As the court recognized, this was no accident: “The board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception.”

Indeed, the court found “reams” of evidence “demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.” Certain Christian pharmacists refused to carry the drugs on religious grounds and sued to overturn the regulations.

Most shockingly, although an individual conscience exemption was proposed, Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington threatened to replace the entire Board of Pharmacy unless that exemption was taken out, which it was.

What is also clear was the close involvement of interested lobbying groups, such as Planned Parenthood, in the regulations’ drafting and strategy...

The full and open process that a trial can at its best achieve was put to good use in Stormans. The ugly truth all came out, including that the regulations were essentialiy written and approved by groups opposed to religious objectors.

Steven Saxe, the executive director of the pharmacy board, clearly testified that the intent of the regulations was to eliminate conscientious objections. The court forcefully notes that Washington was unable to present any evidence that anyone was denied drugs they needed as a result of religious objections or the phantom concern over “bigotry.” The court’s decision, in fact, reveals that it is the state and its allies who are the bigots here, in targeting religious believers...

There has rarely been a religious-liberty case so clearly marked by prejudice, and the court did a great service by holding a trial showing how seemingly innocuous regulations are in fact motivated by real bigotry...