Pharmacies' Duty to Dispense Emergency Contraception: A Discussion of Religious Liberty.
In a recent battle between reproductive rights and religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a five to three vote, declined to review an appeal in Stormans, Inc v Wiesman, a case brought by a Washington state pharmacy owner and two pharmacists who held religious objections to emergency contraception. These petitioners brought a constitutional challenge to Washington state regulations that required pharmacies to dispense all lawfully prescribed pharmaceuticals. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that these regulations did not violate the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that pharmacies must comply with state regulations requiring access to drugs even if the owners of the pharmacies hold religious objections to the provision of certain types of drugs-here, emergency contraception. The pharmacy owners appealed this ruling, and in 2016, the Supreme Court declined to review the case, effectively leaving the lower court ruling in place. This article analyzes the Stormans case, the difference between it and a seemingly similar case regarding contraceptive access decided by the Supreme Court in 2014, the effects of the Stormans ruling on emergency contraception access in Washington state as well as the ruling's potential implications for public health.
Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; and the Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Chicago, Illinois.
Y Tony
YT
Yang
Nadia N
NN
Sawicki
D044363:Contraception, Postcoital; D005260:Female; D005610:Freedom; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D010594:Pharmacies / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012067:Religion; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States; D014861:Washington
D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations