9th Circuit Fills Prescription for Religious Refusals at the Pharmacy

ACLU

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction (PDF) on the Washington State pharmacy rules that protect a patient's right to access medication without discrimination or delay. This is good news for the millions of women seeking to purchase contraception at pharmacies.

By Sondra Goldschein, Director of State Advocacy, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction (PDF) on the Washington State pharmacy rules that protect a patient’s right to access medication without discrimination or delay. This is good news for the millions of women seeking to purchase contraception at pharmacies.

Across the country, we hear stories of individual pharmacists and pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions based on a religious objection. Many times these stories come from patients trying to fill prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception.

Because the ACLU is committed to the health care needs of patients and the religious freedom of individual pharmacy employees, we advocate for solutions that protect both. So we were quite pleased when the Board of Pharmacy in Washington State issued rules that do exactly that. These rules, passed in 2007, make it clear that pharmacies have the responsibility to fill all valid prescriptions and satisfy all lawful requests for drugs like emergency contraception that certain patients can get without a prescription from behind the counter. An individual pharmacist with a religious objection will be able to ask another pharmacist on duty to provide the medicine, but in all cases, the pharmacy must provide the medication in a timely manner.

Appreciate our work?

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

DONATE NOW

Our excitement for the rules was replaced with bewilderment when a federal district court blocked their enforcement pending trial; in Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, the court said that the rules likely violated the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. And we weren’t the only ones who disagreed with the district court’s analysis: on Wednesday, the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction on Washington State’s pharmacy rules and found that the trial judge abused his discretion.

The 9th Circuit held that the purpose of the rules "was not to eliminate religious objections to the delivery of lawful medicines, but to eliminate all objections that do not ensure patient health, safety, and access to medication." The court noted that "the rules actually provide for religious accommodation — an individual pharmacist can decide whether to dispense a particular medication based on his religious beliefs and a particular pharmacy may continue to employ that pharmacist by making appropriate accommodations."

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, was filed by two individual pharmacists and a pharmacy. Seven Washington patients, represented by Legal Voice and Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, intervened in the case to help the state defend the rules. The case now returns to the district court.

Load More

9th Circuit Fills Prescription for Religious Refusals at the Pharmacy

ACLU

The ACLU works to protect both the needs of patients and the religious freedom of individual pharmacy employees. Rules in Washington State were issued to do just that, then a federal district court blocked enforcement.

By Sondra Goldschein, Director of State Advocacy, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction (PDF) on the Washington State pharmacy rules
that protect a patient’s right to access medication without
discrimination or delay. This is good news for the millions of women
seeking to purchase contraception at pharmacies.

Across the country, we hear stories of individual pharmacists and
pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions based on a religious
objection. Many times these stories come from patients trying to fill
prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception.

Because the ACLU is committed to the health care needs of patients and the religious freedom of individual pharmacy employees, we advocate for solutions that protect both.
So we were quite pleased when the Board of Pharmacy in Washington State
issued rules that do exactly that. These rules, passed in 2007, make it
clear that pharmacies have the responsibility to fill all
valid prescriptions and satisfy all lawful requests for drugs like
emergency contraception that certain patients can get without a
prescription from behind the counter. An individual pharmacist
with a religious objection will be able to ask another pharmacist on
duty to provide the medicine, but in all cases, the pharmacy must
provide the medication in a timely manner.

Appreciate our work?

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

DONATE NOW

Our excitement for the rules was replaced with bewilderment when a
federal district court blocked their enforcement pending trial; in Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,
the court said that the rules likely violated the First Amendment’s
protection of religious liberty. And we weren’t the only ones who
disagreed with the district court’s analysis: on Wednesday, the 9th
Circuit lifted the injunction on Washington State’s pharmacy rules and
found that the trial judge abused his discretion.

The 9th Circuit held that the purpose of the rules "was not to
eliminate religious objections to the delivery of lawful medicines, but
to eliminate all objections that do not ensure patient health, safety,
and access to medication." The court noted that "the rules actually
provide for religious accommodation — an individual pharmacist can
decide whether to dispense a particular medication based on his
religious beliefs and a particular pharmacy may continue to employ that
pharmacist by making appropriate accommodations."

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, was filed by two individual
pharmacists and a pharmacy. Seven Washington patients, represented by
Legal Voice and Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, intervened
in the case to help the state defend the rules. The case now returns to
the district court.

Load More