SCOTUS Rejects Appeal Of Pharmacist Mandate To Provide Emergency Contraception

In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery.

Calling the court’s action an “ominous sign”, Alito wrote a stinging 15-page dissent for the three dissenting justices.

The Supreme Court’s decision announced today leaves in place that 9th Circuit ruling, which concluded that the regulation is *neutral* and does not target religious objections.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson praised the high court’s decision to not hear the case.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was critical of colleagues for not hearing the case.

Consequently, the Stormans don’t sell morning-after pills like Plan B. But those abortion-inducing drugs are carried by over 30 pharmacies within five miles of the Stormans’ store, and the Stormans refer customers to these local stores to obtain those drugs.

A day after issuing a landmark opinion striking down a Texas abortion access law, the Supreme Court denied cert in two similar cases and let stand lower court rulings that blocked similar measures.

“The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business”, Alito said.

“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern”, he wrote. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the rule.

State officials argued that the rule is applied neutrally because no one is singled out for exemption; examples such as patient safety and inability to pay are inferred but not spelled out. The appellate court ruled that pharmacies and pharmacists should be covered under the “rational basis” test which asks if the state had any rational basis for the rule. On an earlier appeal of this case to the Ninth Circuit, AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Washington legislators in support of pro-life pharmacists. The district court judge again concluded that the rule violated the 1st Amendment. In July of past year, the 9th Circuit unanimously reversed Leighton’s ruling, saying that the Pharmacy Board rule was generally applicable and did not discriminate against anyone’s religious beliefs.

The Court’s decision not to wade into it should not be read as an approval by the Supreme Court of such pharmacy regulations generally.

“The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposal for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures”. But the Supreme Court is setting an extremely risky precedent, and if they continue down this path the state will soon find lots of other conscience objections and forms of expression that it wants to kill for reasons of political expediency.