I don’t see anything in the OP’s link indicating that the pharmacists in question stocked regular birth control.
Go read the court documents, they only refused to sell “emergency contraception”
Are you sure? I can’t find that.
In the official ruling, I found:
but it was not mentioned anywhere else.
That’s not really how citations work, you know.
It was in the first paragraph.
I really should have read that to begin with, because we could have skipped a lot of this debate.
The decision isn’t about conscientious objection; it’s about a right to employment.
[QUOTE=rat avatar]
It was in the first paragraph.
[/QUOTE]
Where does it say the pharmacies do stock regular birth control?
Note this is the second time this case has been handed down to the judge, it was overturned the first time and his ruling will probably be overturned again.
Where does it say they stock depends or antibiotics?
The entire point is that they were against emergency contraception, they believe it to be abortive because of the secondary action of preventing implantation of the zygote.
I also personally know women who stopped going to that pharmacy when the original outrage happened, they use to get their birth control there.
This is your claim. Twice in the record it says that Catholic pharmacies do not sell birth control. Stormans Inc. is a Catholic family business. Please prove your assertion.
I was wrong in that case, the ones that did appeal were catholic, earlier in the case it also involved individuals who ran chain operations in a Rosauers grocery.
I’m not sure I agree.
The first time, it was overturned because he used the wrong standard for irreparable harm for the injunction. This is now the result of a trial and full fact-finding, and has nothing to do with what standard would apply at the injunction stage.
On what basis do you believe he’ll be overturned?
Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, waiting for that to be confirmed.
If by “full fact-finding” you mean excluding any scientific evidence or discussion on the actions of the drugs.
It will be overturned because he is still trying to apply strict scrutiny to the law, which I believe it does not warrant.
Without strict scrutiny his claims will not stand IMHO.
Can you explain why strict scrutiny is unwarranted here?
I can but you will need to wait until tonight, I need to go to work.
But really he is claiming the lack of enforcement as proof that it was biased towards the religious.
The law was inspired by the acts of the religious but the state has real concerns about refusals on other grounds.
Anti-vax, anti-gay or anti-mental health cases haven’t happened in the very short time the law has been in effect but they are just as likely as religious reasons.
It would be political suicide to say “We want to protect you from Bastyr graduates” in this state but the concern is very real.
So the law has the immediate effect of only applying to the religious just due to the cause that caused it to be written but the law is meant to deal with a large number of growing concerns.
The rule, as written, applies to pharmacies, not pharmacists. The ruling is based on the premise that employers would fire pharmacists who asserted conscience exemptions. An employer’s actions don’t implicate the Free Exercise Clause, even taken in furtherance of an enactment, as far as I can tell.
Even if it was, I don’t see how this particular law is not neutral or generally applicable, and the Ninth Circuit has already ruled that it was for the purposes of injunctive analysis.
How about when a pharmacy and a pharmacist are one and the same, as in a sole proprietorship?
And no one disputes it’s not neutral on its face. But the trial court found that, as a matter of fact, it’s not neutral in practice.
How about it? The pharmacist is free to hire another pharmacist to handle prescriptions he finds objectionable, isn’t he?
In any event, I would be surprised if any pharmacy is structured as a sole proprietorship, and that’s not at issue here. The plaintiffs were individual pharmacists and a corporate pharmacy.
For the record, do you agree that under Yoder the pharmacists in question must have a conscience-based objection to dispensing all hormonal birth control to qualify for protection?
NVM