A legal battle over who must provide morning-after contraceptives such as Plan B lands in a federal courtroom Monday, testing Washington state Pharmacy Board rules requiring pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community demand. A pharmacy in Olympia and two pharmacists in the state say they consider the medication an abortion...
A four-year legal fight over who must provide morning-after contraceptives such as Plan B lands in a federal courtroom Monday, testing Washington state Pharmacy Board rules requiring pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community demand.
At issue in the U.S. District Court trial is the right of the Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia and two licensed Washington pharmacists — Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler — to refuse to stock or dispense a lawful medical treatment on grounds of religious conscience.
Plan B is considered most effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy if a woman takes it within 72 hours after unprotected sex.
- School board rebukes Bellevue football program; possible two-year ban for coach Butch Goncharoff
- This drone footage of inside Bertha’s tunnel is like something out of ‘Star Wars’
- Mayor, Chris Hansen denounce misogynistic comments over council arena vote
- How the Seahawks got two first-round picks in the NFL draft
- Five veteran Seahawks whose roles could be most impacted by additions from the NFL draft
Most Read Stories
The state Pharmacy Board has had a rule since 1967 requiring pharmacies to stock and provide medications in demand in their communities. Gov. Chris Gregoire and reproductive-rights groups favor the requirements, which have been amended since 2007 to let pharmacists withdraw if others can fill the order.
But Stormans, owner of Ralph’s, also is objecting to stocking the medications.
“All our family wants is the chance to keep doing what Ralph’s Thriftway has aimed to do for four generations: to serve our customers in keeping with our deepest values,” Stormans co-owner Kevin Stormans argued in a news release last week by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C.
The Becket Fund, which is handling the case for Stormans and the pharmacists, describes itself as “a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths.” Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry.
Staffers for Attorney General Rob McKenna, led by senior attorney Rene D. Tomisser, are defending the Department of Health, agency Secretary Mary Selecky and the state law, which applies to all medications including those to treat AIDs or any other condition that might draw moral objections.
“The state will argue the rules are neutral, generally applicable and rationally relating to the legitimate interest of the state in promoting timely delivery of lawful medication. The plain language of the rules applies to all time-sensitive medications,” said McKenna spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie.
The federal courts have taken differing positions on some of the legal issues. U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma initially issued an injunction blocking the state’s rules and their enforcement against Stormans, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed that ruling in 2009.
Those who support the dispensing of Plan B say it is a high dose of the ingredients of a birth-control pill that greatly reduces the chance of pregnancy if ingested by a woman within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The Food and Drug Administration in 2009 ordered that it be available over the counter for teens as young as 17, but with prescriptions for those who are younger.
The FDA also says the medication does not affect existing pregnancies, unlike the RU-486 drug, but that the medication might act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Kevin Stormans has been undeterred and at one point explained that his firm was not stocking the medications, despite state law, based on his belief that Plan B can act as an abortion agent.
The Becket Fund describes the case as landmark, and it is likely to work its way up the appellate courts.