Federal appeals court says pharmacy owners cannot use religion to deny medicine

The state of Washington can require a pharmacy to deliver medicine even if the pharmacy’s owner has a religious objection, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, the latest in a series of judgments on whether religious believers can opt out of providing services. The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, came in a case filed by pharmacists who objected to delivering emergency contraceptives. The 9th Circuit overturned a lower court that had said the rules were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the Obamacare health law’s contraception requirement. In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, so long as another pharmacist working there provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects. A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Thursday decided that the rules are constitutional because they rationally further the state’s interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, the court said.

“The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs,” wrote Judge Susan Graber. Representatives for the plaintiffs and Washington State’s attorney general office could not immediately be reached for comment.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/federal-appeals-court-says-pharmacy-owners-cannot-cite-religion-to-deny-medicine


Is it not funny, that in reality if a religious person goes to court he has no leg to stand on claiming he should not serve medicine because of his faith. The simple response to that would be to prove that God exists and has written these laws. I mean we do not allow people to be raically discrminated against when working, a customer etc, but actually show the utter most tolerance and rightly so to not discrminate agaist religious beliefs when it does not clash with the euality of people. We allow many religious exceptions within the law. Which many non-religious ideologies do not have the luxury of. If anything religious people are given the greatest amount of leeway on laws than any other group and yet they still fight to be allowed to openly discrminate against people. I mean the problem is because the religion would not allow for the same in reverse if they held power. It would be there way only with no romm for manourve on their laws.

So religious people really have little to grumble about. There belief should be a personal belief, one that does not deny the euality and well being of others. Not only that but why are some people working in an industry where their beliefs will conflict?
The health of others always comes before the personal religious beliefs of the chemist.
Now people know the law and if it is going to coflict with your beliefs, then they need to ensure they employ someone who is not restrained by religious beliefs.

But the Ninth Circuit is the 'other' Supreme Court.  It is the largest court of any kind in the nation, and deals with such a volume of cases that the Supreme Court cannot manage to oversee it.

I have been waiting for this: Using religious rights to block other freedoms; pitting the First Amendment Religious freedom against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 13th and 14th Amendments, as well as laws granting entitlements.  Conservative judges have been using the religious right to uphold objections and refusals elsewhere.

Wait'll it hits hospital emergency rooms. Eventually they will do what the Army does with conscientious objectors: put them on the front line with a tiny first aid kit, with instructions to help out where you can.