Posted on 07/06/2016 10:15:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
Were you in Olympia, Washington, and wanted to buy an abortifacient drug, there would be a multitude of places ready to sell you one.
Ralph's Thriftway, a local family-owned grocery store and pharmacy, would not be one of them.
"Petitioners are Christians who believe that life is sacred from the moment of conception," lawyers representing Stormans, Inc. (the family corporation that owns Ralph's) and two individual pharmacists (who do not work at Ralph's) wrote in a January petition to the Supreme Court.
"Because of their religious beliefs," said the petition (co-authored by attorneys from the Beckett Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom), "petitioners cannot stock or dispense the morning-after or week-after pills, which the FDA has recognized can prevent implantation of an embryo.
"For petitioners," the lawyers told the court, "dispensing these drugs would make them guilty of destroying human life."
"Within five miles of Ralph's, over 30 pharmacies carry Plan B," they told the court. "Plan B is also available from nearby doctors' offices, government health centers, emergency rooms, Planned Parenthood, a toll-free hotline and the internet."
But pro-abortion activists in Washington state would not tolerate a family business such as Ralph's declining to sell an abortifacient drug while instead referring customers seeking one to another nearby pharmacy.
These advocates of the culture-of-death do not believe people who operate pharmacies -- whose true mission is to help preserve life -- should be allowed to conscientiously object to cooperating in the taking of it.
Nine years ago, the Washington Board of Pharmacy issued regulations that effectively barred pharmacies in the state from declining to stock or sell abortifacient "emergency contraceptives" for moral or religious reasons.
The owners of Ralph's Thriftway made a simple plea in federal court: Protect our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington heard their case in a twelve-day trial.
Judge Ronald B. Leighton, a George W. Bush appointee, summarized the case in the opinion he issued in 2012.
"This case," he wrote in the first sentence of that opinion, "presents a novel question: can the state compel licensed pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed emergency contraceptives over their sincere religious belief that doing so terminates a human life? In 2007, under pressure from the governor, Planned Parenthood, and the Northwest Women's Law Center, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy enacted regulations designed to do just that."
Judge Leighton put the consequences plainly: "In the case of a pharmacy owner with religious objections to Plan B, there is no option other than to leave the business -- and the board was well aware of this result when it designed the rule."
He concluded: "The facts of this case lead to the inescapable conclusion that the board's rules discriminate intentionally and impinge plaintiffs' fundamental right to free exercise of religion."
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned this opinion and upheld the Washington state regulations.
The Stormans' family business and two pharmacists then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. To do so, four justices would have needed to agree to it.
But Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor did not.
We know this because last week Justice Samuel Alito -- joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas -- issued a dissent to the court's refusal to take up the case.
Alito, too, succinctly explained the impact of the Washington state regulations.
"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 wrote.
"The bottom line is clear," Alito said. "Washington would rather have no pharmacy than one that doesn't toe the line on abortifacient emergency contraceptives."
At the beginning of his dissent, Alito targeted the appeals court and the Supreme Court on which he serves.
"Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time," he said. "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have great cause for concern."
To force a family-owned pharmacy whose proper aim is to serve human life to cooperate in the taking of it -- or to leave the pharmacy business -- is an act of tyranny. It is an act that simultaneously attacks the right to life and the freedom of conscience.
And five justices on the now eight-member Supreme Court silently let it stand.
The pharmacy owners should have said they don’t have unlimited space or funds. They carry the most popular products for their market. They could have asked the judges, “who do you suggest should suffer or die in order to make these drugs available in place of the ones we carry?”
Play this decision forward -
Say you are a Franciscan hospital, you now will have to provide the day after pill in your hospital pharmacy. You will have to provide abortions.
And so on it goes. This reaches farther than a pharmacy.
The solution is easy. Stock it, then sell it at a price so high the customer will go elsewhere..............
I am trying to sell my house in the State of Washington. This place is a horror.
This state not only allows abortion, but also euthanasia and assisted suicide. I find those shocking but if one chooses to use them for themselves, well, the freedom to choose for oneself has been popular in the West for a long time. However, freedom to choose is no longer the issue but now death is forced compliance.
How are pharmaceutical prices set? Can they offer it for three times list price?
The pharmacy would have to no longer accept any insurance or state coverage, which I think in itself is now considered illegal, to set a price high enough to compel people to go elsewhere.
And most insurance companies and state plans set specific prices they will pay - IE: If you fill the prescription, you will get paid x. You do not get to set those prices.
So no, pricing it up would be utterly ineffective without dropping all insurance coverage (which I don’t know if they even could and still be a licensed pharmacy) and doing so would be economic suicide.
often there is a contractural agreement with insurance plans that would specify a price.
The 9th got it wrong. In a lot of ways, I’m glad that SCOTUS didn’t take up the case, as it leaves the door open to examine it later, hopefully at a time where some sanity reigns at the court.
At the moment, it is nearly a miracle for SCOTUS to actually respect the limitations the people placed on their government.
This same court will no doubt one day find that Muslim store clerks have every right to refuse to sell alcohol.
That would have been dishonest and this case needed/needs to be dealt with.
Shameful act by the commie so-called justices. If you are seeking justice don’t bother with the Supreme court and don’t bother waiting for the congress to override. We are screwed if Trump does not get in.
Perfect response
Our price $1 Trillion
Our Competitor’s price $5
We value human life more than your business
Exactly! The state cannot do anything about the price........................
“...and wanted to buy an abortifacient drug”
This was about Plan B. That’s basically a big dose of standard birth control. Not the same as RU-486.
Does the pharmacy sell birth control or condoms?
“This same court will no doubt one day find that Muslim store clerks have every right to refuse to sell alcohol.”
Haven’t they already backed them up when they wont allow alcohol in their cabs? Or refused to handle pork in a checkout line. I know ive already heard that.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, traitor to conservatism. All five Justices though are traitors to America.
This election is critical. If Hillary wins, she appoints a judge and its a 3 to 6 court the rest of our lives. Trump I think will do better for us. But even he needs close watching.
The election, and things emanating from it, are effects.
Our relationship with God is a cause.
Give away the drug, but require a $5000 donation to a pro-life group. Or, go to the store down the street.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.