[Vision2020] And Yet Another Difference Between Idaho and Washington

[Tom Hansen]

Whereas the Idaho state legislature says that it's alright with them if a
pharmacist discriminates on which prescritpions to fill and which
prescriptions to disregard, based upon his/her moral compass, the state of
Washington . . . well, read for yourself . . .

Courtesy of today's (July 9, 2009) Spokesman Review.

-------------------------------------------

Pharmacists lose pill ruling
They cited religious belief in not dispensing ‘morning after’ drug

Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are
personally opposed to the “morning after” contraceptive on religious
grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a case that could herald judicial policy across the Western states, a
supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia failed in a bid to block 2007
changes to pharmacy regulations requiring all Washington pharmacies to
stock and dispense the contraceptive.

Family-owned Ralph’s Thriftway and two women employed at other pharmacies
sued Washington state officials to assert that their Christian beliefs
prevented them from dispensing the pills that can prevent implantation of
a recently fertilized egg. They claimed the new regulations would force
them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious
objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.

Ralph’s owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo
Thelen sought protection of their First Amendment right to free exercise
of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in
Seattle pending trial of the constitutionality of the regulations. That
order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refuse to
dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy
where they could get it.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it
based on an erroneous finding that the rules violate the Free Exercise
Clause of the Constitution.

Other constitutional challenges are pending with the district court, which
had been waiting for the 9th Circuit ruling on the injunction, said Chad
Allred, a Seattle lawyer whose firm represents Stormans Inc. and the
pharmacists. In anticipation of the injunction being vacated, Stormans and
the two pharmacists secured an agreement with the state not to pursue
sanctions against them until the other issues are decided at trial, Allred
said.

“We’re still optimistic that we’re doing the right thing and that we will
prevail in the end,” said Kevin Stormans, who with his father and two
siblings owns the supermarket at the center of the legal challenge.

The 9th Circuit ruling, however, means that the requirement that
pharmacies stock and dispense Plan B takes immediate effect, said Joyce
Roper, an assistant state attorney general.

While the courts have yet to rule on other aspects of the pharmacists’
lawsuit, the unanimous ruling on the Free Exercise Clause could portend
concurring judgments as the case moves forward that a patient’s right to
timely medication supersedes an individual pharmacist’s personal
convictions.

The three judges found common ground despite broadly differing outlooks:
two conservatives named by President George W. Bush and a liberal named to
the court by President Bill Clinton made up the panel.

The right to freely exercise one’s religion “does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of
general applicability,” the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

“Any refusal to dispense – regardless of whether it is motivated by
religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or
personal distaste for a patient – violates the rules,” the panel said.

-------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown