Beliefs vs. Duty - Pharmacists in Washington Can Legally Refuse to Provide Contraception To Women

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on February 22, 2012 at 11:49pm

The ruling seems to apply only to the one pharmacy and two pharmacists who are plaintiffs in the case, rather than to all providers in Washington State, according to Cienna Madrid's article at thestranger.com, "Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules". (That looks plausible to me, looking at the injunction linked to from the king5.com article, but I Am Not A Lawyer.)

What this means is that it could be up to Attorney General (and gubernatorial hopeful) Rob McKenna to interpret how Judge Leighton's decision affects every other pharmacy in the state. "That's how I interpreted the ruling," says Stone. "The AG's office will certainly be reading the opinion very carefully."

In the meantime, the state can choose to enforce the Board of Pharmacy's rules with other pharmacies that elect not to carry Plan B or other medications....

(Emphases in the original)

 

As for pharmacists being willing to sell condoms...

Applying Judge Leighton's decision universally to all pharmacies and pharmacists would give more pharmacies and nosy, self-righteous pharmacists carte blanche to insert their religious edicts into the private lives of Washington women. It would especially affect those living in Washington's rural areas who need access to time-sensitive contraceptives. And of course, the decision could be used to lube up the slippery slope of religious objections, where one can imagine crucifix-waving pharmacists objecting to selling women oral contraceptives, or even condoms out of wedlock.

Permalink Reply by Dorris Journeay on February 23, 2012 at 3:41pm

This particular ruling might have a limited scope, but it's a dangerous precedent.  I might be accused of applying the slippery slope logical fallacy here, but it's my understanding that rulings such as this are used to win future cases and gain ground for more sweeping legislation, including constitutional amendments.  Every one of these rulings in favor of religion should be taken as a serious threat to basic human rights in this country.

Also at issue is the overwhelming array of legislature targeting women - and ONLY women.  Male birth control and sexual enhancement aids such as Viagra are never targeted for moral outrage - only women's sexual and reproductive status seems to concern these people.  These rulings further the perception of women as non-persons with only one function, or as evil seductresses who bring all their woes upon themselves and whose sexual appetites and reproductive capacity must be externally controlled at all costs.  They demean women by implying that someones personal feelings and beliefs are more important than a woman's health, safety, and even her life.