Even pharmacists should be allowed their religious liberty

Can a state force pharmacists to dispense abortion-inducing drugs contrary to their religious beliefs?

The Supreme Court may agree to answer that question in its next term.

In 2007, the state of Washington required all pharmacies to deliver “all lawfully prescribed drugs or devices” in a timely manner to all customers.

This “delivery rule” has several exemptions, such as business or convenience reasons for not stocking certain drugs, but there is no exemption for religious objections.

Ralph’s Thriftway, a family-run grocery store and pharmacy, was investigated by the state’s Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission for refusing to stock any form of abortifacient, such as plan B.

The Stormans family, which owns Ralph’s, cites religious beliefs as its justification for not stocking abortifacient drugs.

The Stormans believe that by dispensing these drugs, they would be aiding in the destruction of human life, directly contradicting their Christian faith.

Ralph’s employees provide customers a list of local pharmacies and drug stores that carry plan B, even going so far as to call other pharmacies to confirm that the drug is in stock.

More than 30 pharmacies and drug stores that carry plan B are within five miles of Ralph’s, all of which are included on their referral list. Thus, not a single Ralph’s customer in search of plan B has ever been denied timely access to it.

Every other state allows such referrals, and the state of Washington has stipulated that conscience-based referrals “do not pose a threat to timely access to lawfully prescribed medications.”

Abortion rights activists filed complaints with the Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission after they received a referral rather than a filled prescription at Ralph’s.

This led to an investigation, and Ralph’s was threatened with losing its pharmacy license.

The Stormans filed suit against the state of Washington, arguing that the delivery rule violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, among other claims.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the Stormans, finding that the delivery rule intentionally targeted religious practice for disfavored treatment. The judge noted:

“A pharmacy is permitted to refuse to stock oxycodone because it fears robbery, but the same pharmacy cannot refuse to stock plan B because it objects on religious grounds. … Both pharmacies refuse and refer, both refusals inhibit patient access, yet the secular refusal is permitted and the religious refusal is not.”

The Washington law’s exemptions would allow a pharmacy to refuse to sell just about any drug, as long as it is not for religious reasons.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision, holding that the delivery rule is a neutral and generally applicable law related to the state’s legitimate interest in “ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful … medications.”

Now the Stormans have petitioned the Supreme Court to review their case, which the court should consider sometime in March.

Washington state has violated one of the principle rights guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment, the free exercise of religion.

While some people might not agree with the Stormans or share their opposition to abortion, it is essential to recognize that the government should not be able to force Americans to set aside their deeply held beliefs.

Pharmacists, just like everyone else, have a right to exercise their religious beliefs.

This story was originally published February 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM with the headline "Even pharmacists should be allowed their religious liberty."