Written by Don Byrd
A panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a Washington State regulation requiring pharmacies to dispense drugs even if the owner has a religious objection. The ruling reverses the trial court’s decision, which found the rule violated the pharmacist owner’s free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
The primary issue the court dealt with is a pretty technical-sounding legal question: whether the pharmacy regulation was neutral as to religion and generally applicable (in which case a fairly deferential level of judicial scrutiny is triggered), or whether the regulation reflects an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion (in which case a more demanding judicial scrutiny of the law is triggered).
The trial court found the regulation to be discriminatory, and accordingly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, determined the rule to be neutral.
Here is an excerpt from the opinion:
[T]he rules’ delivery requirement applies to all objections to delivery that do not fall within an exemption, regardless of the motivation behind those objections. . . .
The delivery requirement also applies to all prescription products—not just Plan B, ella, or other emergency contraceptives. . . .
The possibility that pharmacies whose owners object to the distribution of emergency contraception for religious reasons may be burdened disproportionately does not undermine the rules’ neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause is not violated even if a particular group, motivated by religion, may be more likely to engage in the proscribed conduct.
The court went on to hold that because the regulations are neutral and also a rational means of furthering the state’s interest in patient safety, they do not violate the pharmacy owners’ (or the pharmacists’) constitutional rights.
The Alliance Defending Freedom announced that it will appeal this ruling.
