Supreme Court rejects appeal for pharmacists' conscience rights
June 28, 2016
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to a Washington state law that requires pharmacists to provide customers with potentially abortifacient drugs.
The Court's decision, announced on June 28, lets stand a state law that was enacted in 2007, obliging pharmacies to provide "emergency contraceptive" bills to women with valid prescriptions. The law had been challenged by pharmacists who had moral objections to dispensing pills that could cause the destruction of unborn children.
Justice Samuel Alito, one of three justices who argued that the Supreme Court should hear the appeal, called the denial an "ominous sign." He wrote in an angry dissent: "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern."
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: bernie4871 -
Jun. 29, 2016 11:01 AM ET USA
In essence, this ruling is a distillation of everything that is wrong with the present trend of our society. Hillary talks about it - 'You must change your morals!!' - and the USSC has already implemented the demand. When, oh when will we citizens rise up and confront the challenge to our Country's basic principals. Where is the leadership, tax threats be damned?
-
Posted by: geardoid -
Jun. 29, 2016 10:47 AM ET USA
Especially ominous because it's a federal endorsement of a law already 9 years old: in that period we've seen religious conscience trammeled - requiring contraception provision at Catholic institutions, and requiring that Catholic adoption agencies accept same-sex clients. The federal thinking was shown last year in reading a right to infertile (same-sex) marriage into the constitution, and that without even a plebiscite (as in Ireland). Not that plebiscites can't be manipulated: consider Brexit
