Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[85WashLRev0739] Article I, Section 11: A Poor "Plan B" for Washington's Religious Pharmacists

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Horton, Noel E.
dc.contributor.author Washington Law Review
dc.date.accessioned 2010-12-14T16:46:37Z
dc.date.available 2010-12-14T16:46:37Z
dc.date.issued 2010-11
dc.identifier.citation 85 Wash. L. Rev. 739 (2010) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/493
dc.description.abstract Abstract: In Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,1 a group of Washington pharmacists contended their religious beliefs precluded them from dispensing the drug Plan B, a post-coital emergency contraceptive. They based their argument on rights conferred by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.2 A United States District Court found in the pharmacists’ favor and enjoined enforcement of rules issued by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy requiring pharmacies to deliver medications.3 The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court erroneously applied a heightened level of scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability.4 Interestingly, the pharmacists did not bring a claim under the Washington State Constitution, a document that has been interpreted to confer greater protection for free exercise rights than the U.S. Constitution.5 This Comment argues that even under the Washington State Constitution’s heightened protection of free exercise, the pharmacists’ position in Stormans would ultimately fail. The Board’s rules protect public health and accommodate individual religious objections, thereby satisfying the Washington State Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny test. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Note en_US
dc.title [85WashLRev0739] Article I, Section 11: A Poor "Plan B" for Washington's Religious Pharmacists en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2010 by Washington Law Review Association. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account