Washington pharmacy’s religious rights appeal declined by Supreme Court.

Recently, the Supreme Court declined to challenge Washington state’s law that makes it illegal to decline to dispense medication based on one’s religious beliefs. One such example is pharmacists who decline to give birth control pills because their faith in Jesus forbids it.

Pharmacists are not regulated on which medications they stock if the reason based on convenience or business reasons, however, in 2007 it became illegal not to stock a medication based on “reasons of conscience.”

The court’s decision not to rule on the case keeps it out of the religion and contraception debate.

“If this is a sign of how our religious liberty claims will be treated in the years again, those who value religious liberty have cause for great concern,” stated Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The liberty or freedom of religion has not been put under threat because the pharmacist should not come between a doctor and patient because of religious issues, the only reason a pharmacist can come between a doctor and patient is the medical reasons. If the pharmacists cannot do their work due to the religion, then a proper solution would be to look for any other profession or not mixing religion with the profession. This is because if they are more worried about religion, then the patient will suffer because of the pharmacist. The case mainly concerned a small family owned business whose proprietors objected to store the birth control pills. The pharmacies of the nation are permitted to make an assessment concerning the storing of drugs which can be either for the convenience or any business related reasons. When an individual drug is not in supply, these pharmacies pass on the clients to a competitor nearby who has these drugs available.

In 2007 Washington state agreed to a rule making it prohibited to refuse to stock a medication based on religious belief. It was challenged by a pharmacy that denied handling morning after pills due to religious issues. The lawyer said that these medicines would make them guilty of destroying a life. A federal judge said the law was unconstitutional, but it was later appealed.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case this week means the law will remain the same. Washington state defends the law, saying individual pharmacists can refuse to personally fill the prescription, but another pharmacist must be available to complete the order. A pharmacist cannot come between a patient and their doctor by refusing to honor the prescription.

Resources

Follow the Conversation on Twitter