A court in the US state of Washington has ruled that pharmacists do not have a right of conscience on the issue of dispensing so-called ’emergency contraception’ which can also act as an abortifacient.
In Ireland, pharmacists are already denied this right.
The ruling, by a three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals, overturned a 2012 judgement which had vindicated pharmacists’ religious freedom in the area of conscience specifically in the area of ’emergency contraception’, such as the morning-after pill.
The debate around pharmacies goes back to 2007 when Washington enacted guidelines for pharmacists when allegations were made that women seeking morning-after medication were being denied service on the grounds of conscience. Under the guidelines at the time, while pharmacists were required to fulfill legal prescriptions,they were offered an opt-out by referring a customer to another pharmacist in-store. However, some pharmacists opposed to dealing in medications they argued are abortifacients, brought a legal action to allow them the right to refer a woman to a different pharmacy entirely.
The original hearing on this action found in favour of the pharmacists, ordering that their religious freedom be respected in the area of contraceptives, but the judgement was overturned on appeal, only to be reaffirmed once again in 2012.
In this latest action, reported by Associated Press, the Court of Appeals has sought to end the debate by ruling that the guidelines under which pharmacies must operate are ‘neutral’ and not designed to target religious beliefs or objections, but rather are designed for the timely delivery of the morning-after pill to women.
“Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception and of many other medications,” the judges stated. “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs. Additionally, testimony at trial demonstrated how facilitated referrals could lead to feelings of shame in the patient that could dissuade her from obtaining emergency contraception altogether.”
Religious freedom advocacy groups have lamented the decision as a setback for conscientious objection.