As I said last year, "Take that, Stormans". Stuff your religious objections-- Plan B is NOT an abortifacient and is not illegal!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  This case, like the Hobby Lobby case, should never have made it to court. It is based on a false premise. That being that Plan B causes an abortion. Pharmacists should have had training and education showing that medications like Plan B have a mechanism of action of delaying ovulation. They have no effect on a fertilized egg. They do not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. They do not cause the abortion of the fertilized egg. They prevent the meeting of the unfertilized egg and the sperm. The sad thing is, these pharmacists knew that. Just like the Green's did in Hobby Lobby. But like all fundamentalist christians, they have an overwhelming, all consuming hatred of all things Obama, and Democrat.
*  Despite what the christian Taliban would have you believe, this nation was not founded upon christian values or on the concept of freedom of religion. This nation was founded on the principle of freedom FROM religion, and a christian religion at that. Why do you think that our founding fathers wrote the separation clause. SCOTUS has ruled over three times that freedom of and freedom from religion are the same. If you do not like what the Supreme Court says, you can pack your bags and start your own little theocracy. Which has been tried more than once with a complete failure. History doesn't lie christians. Be thankful that atheists like myself are willing to fight for your religious freedom, don't abuse it, it, like all of our freedoms have limitations and your god does not supercede the laws of this secular nation. Learn to coexist or pay the price for your hate, intolerance, and arrogance.
*  If this pharmacy were allowed to refuse medical services on religious grounds, it would pave the way for ER doctors to refuse to treat people on religious grounds. It would allow the ultra conservative Christian ER doctor to refuse to treat a Muslim patient, allowing him to die rather than treat him. That's where this would lead if the Court hadn't been wise enough to stop it in its tracks. Once you start allowing people to do anything they want under the guise of "religious freedom," there is no end. A civilized society has limits on what you can and cannot do, even if your religion demands it.
*  I don't understand the part where people think THEIR "religious rights" SUPERCEDE someone ELSE's civil rights, do you ?
*  When dealing with the public, the law takes precedence over your own religious beliefs, Deal with it!
*  So the couple "associates" the morning after pill with abortion? Who cares what they associate it with, it's not an abortion pill. It's a very high dose of the same drug present in daily birth control pills and cannot affect an existing pregnancy. Wow, just wow.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Divided Supreme Court rejects family pharmacy's religious claim
By Lawrence Hurley, June 28, 2016

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule, prompting a searing dissent by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

The justices left in place a July 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed drugs, including contraceptives, in a timely manner.

Three conservatives among the eight justices argued that the court should have agreed to hear the appeal by the Stormans family, which owns Ralph's Thriftway grocery story and pharmacy in Olympia.

Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court's decision not to hear it is "an ominous sign" for the future of religious liberty claims.

"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," Alito added.

The court may be less likely to rule in favor of people making such claims following February's death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, especially if he is replaced by a liberal appointee.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the court's action.

"When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter," said Louise Melling, the group's deputy legal director.

Evolving American social attitudes and changes in the law relating to issues such as gay marriage and birth control coverage in health insurance have spurred numerous court challenges by individuals, businesses and nonprofit employers who say their religious liberty has been violated. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of religion.

Washington state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.

The Supreme Court in 2014 allowed certain businesses to object on religious grounds to the Obamacare law's requirement that companies provide employees with insurance that pays for women's contraceptives. The court in May sent a similar dispute brought by nonprofit Christian employers back to lower courts without resolving the main legal issue.

The Stormans family is made up of devout Christians who associate "morning after" emergency contraceptives with abortion. Two individual pharmacists who worked elsewhere also joined the lawsuit.

"The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business," Alito said.

Thirty-eight state and national pharmacy associations had urged the court to take up the case, saying pharmacies generally get to choose what products they stock.

Alito said there is evidence the state's regulation was adopted because of "hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state" and designed "to stamp out religious objectors."

The appeals court said the rules rationally further the state's interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.

"Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life," said Kristen Waggoner, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing the Stormans.
...................................................................................................................................................................