Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Ninomania

Constitutional Law

: Ninomania

By David M. Wagner

SEATTLE (AP) ? A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.

I'm very happy for the druggists-plaintiffs, but I'm not sure I agree with their attorney who says:

"We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional."

Well, Braunfeld v. Brown? See, I've never been able to agree that the Constitution requires all things Nice and prohibits all things Not Nice. Requiring objecting pharmacists to dispense abortifactients (whether or not their objections are religiously based) is extremely Not Nice; come to that, abortifacients are extremely Not Nice. But neither is addressed in the Constitution, and disobedience to a generally applicable statute that requires the dispensing of these genocidal poisons is not "the free exercise" of religion within any originalist reading of that term.

Of course a pharmacist in a state with an exemption-less "Plan B" dispensing requirement may have to face prison and/or loss of business as the cost of not participating in murder. What, you thought Free Exercise was a permanent all-purpose anti-martyrdom clause?

The AP report article goes on:

Some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.

That's the way.

Full post as published by Ninomania on November 10, 2007 (boomark / email).