Plan “B” and Conscience

Today, Judge Ronald Leighton of the Federal District Court in Tacoma, WA issued a preliminary injunction [Download stormans_prelim_inj.pdf ] sought by plaintiff pharmacists against the Washington State regulations making it sanctionable for a pharmacy to permit a pharmacist-employee to refuse to fill a lawful prescription because of religious or moral objections. The plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin enforcement of provisions contained within certain regulations as applied to “Plan B” contraceptives, also known as the “morning after” pill. The court, in granting the injunction said this:

"the evidence before the Court convinces it that plaintiffs, individual pharmacists, have demonstrated both a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury"

This decision, while on a preliminary injunction, could well set a course for the protection of religious liberty and conscientious objection based on faith. It will be an important case to follow through the trial on the merits and beyond. But for the time being, one Federal judge has acknowledged that something is amiss in the proposals designed to eliminate religiously based conscientious objection to matters that are most objectionable.

RJA sj