Posted on 01/05/2016 1:04:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A group of pharmacists appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to receive religious liberty protection from a Washington state law mandating that they sell drugs that could cause an abortion.
Ralph's Thriftway, Rhonda Mesler, and Margo Thelen have argued in a writ of certiorari filed Monday that a Washington law removing conscience protections for pharmacists violates their religious freedom.
"Governments may not pass laws that target religious conduct for negative treatment while exempting the same conduct when done for nonreligious reasons," reads the writ of certiorari.
"When a pharmacy chooses not to sell a drug, it is commonplace to refer a customer to a nearby pharmacy. Such referrals -- including referrals for reasons of conscience -- are expressly approved by the American Pharmacists Association and have long been legal in all fifty states."
In 2007, the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission unanimously adopted two administrative rules, the "Pharmacist Responsibility Rule" and the "Delivery Rule."
The "Responsibility Rule" stated that a pharmacy cannot refuse to provide "lawful prescriptions," but did provide a religious exemption for pharmacies and pharmacists.
In contrast, the "Delivery Rule" lacked any exemption for religious or moral objections to providing "lawful prescriptions," including emergency contraceptives that could be abortion-inducing.
Ralph's Thriftway, along with two pharmacists, filed a lawsuit against the Commission in 2007 arguing that the rules violated their religious freedom.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton presided over the case, granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction from the new rules. The injunction was later overruled by the Ninth Circuit.
In February of 2012 Leighton ruled in favor of the pharmacists, arguing that the Commission's rules were "in practice unconstitutional."
Last July, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision, arguing that the plaintiffs must provide the contraceptive services.
Arguments were heard in November of 2014 before judges Susan P. Graber, Richard R. Clifton, and Mary H. Murguia, with Graber authoring the opinion.
"The rules permit pharmacies to deny delivery for certain business reasons, such as fraudulent prescriptions or a customer's inability to pay. The rules also permit a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery, so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery," wrote Graber.
"Because we conclude that the rules are neutral and generally applicable and that the rules rationally further the State's interest in patient safety, we reverse."
The pharmacists are being represented in part by the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has overseen several similar cases.
Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund, said in a statement that they were "optimistic" that the Supreme Court will take the case and strike down the law.
"No one should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs … This law does nothing but punish people of faith," stated Goodrich.
"It is absurd to force a pharmacy to sell drugs against their conscience when there are over thirty pharmacies within five miles that already sell the exact same drugs."
May God grant this appeal success!
The Prince of the Air rules over the surface of the Earth.
Kill those babies makes bake that cake look tame. The left is in love with evil and it is not enough for them to be the only participants. They must taint all of mankind with it — by force.
Most pharmacists are union libs. Prolly don’t really care.
Ping
It is the SCOTUS forcing the religion of Satanism on the masses.
This is unconstitutional-—even the “thought” of forcing people to give out drugs to kill human beings should be unconstitutional and reviled. Pure Satanism and removing our Indivudual Natural Rights from God-—and forcing an irrational religion on us-—just like they destroyed the word “marriage” to mean something Satanic and meaningless (removing Reason from Just Law which is always unconstitutional.)
Any pharmacy with abortifacients on the shelf should be immediately padlocked.
Bill gates (from Washington) has paid for to have corrupted vaccines used in Africa to kill babies in the womb and sterilize the women.
How would this be different from forcing McDonald’s to sell Tacos, or forcing a Muslim store to sell Bibles?
I question if the referenced pharmacists are aware of their 14th Amendment protections, emphasized in the excerpt below. Low-information Washington State officials seem to have violated this protection in this case imo.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I miss the Bill of Rights. Freedom was nice while it lasted. I hope this appeal is approved, so we can restore part of our lost freedom.
“The penalty that good men pay
for their indifference to public affairs
is to be ruled over by evil men.â€
- Plato
(most excellent)
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.