Written by Don Byrd
Via Religion Clause, the 9th Circuit yesterday heard oral arguments in a case questioning the rights of pharmacies to refuse on religious grounds to provide emergency contraception. A federal district court in Washington State ruled unconstitutional the enforcement of the regulations.
The Oregonian reports:
During oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Thursday, Kristen Waggoner, a Seattle-based attorney . . . who is representing the pharmacists, portrayed her clients as conscientious objectors who should receive the same accommodations as niche and boutique pharmacies that don’t keep wide-ranging drug inventories.
Releasing a single pharmacy in a city from the requirement to stock emergency contraceptives “wouldn’t create a health care crisis,” Waggoner said.
…
The state, represented by Washington deputy solicitor general Alan D. Copsey, emphasized what it called numerous errors in a lower court’s decision placing an injunction on the rules.
Copsey also said the rules haven’t been enforced in a discriminatory fashion — in fact, they haven’t been enforced at all. Still, he said, it’s important to have the rules in place to ensure that patients receive necessary drugs when they need them.
Pharmacy regulations are a growing area of religious liberty tension, within the larger bubbling cauldron of conscience rights generally. Courts have provided little framework for resolving the conflict between regulations designed to benefit citizens and vendors who object on religious liberty grounds to participating. The 9th Circuit’s answer to this particular dilemma should come sometime next year. Stay tuned.
