Sound Stories. Sound Voices.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
You are on the KUOW archive site. Click here to go to our current site.
SoundQs
SoundQs is a series of stories based on listener questions (formerly known as Local Wonder). At KUOW, stories start with your curiosity. So, what do you want our reporters to investigate? Do you have questions about what’s happening in the news? Is there something you’ve always wondered about our region? We’re listening. Send us your SoundQs, and a KUOW journalist may follow up.How to Submit a QuestionUse the form below, email it to us at soundqs@KUOW.org, or share it on social media and tag @KUOW / #SoundQs.null

Can Pharmacists Withhold Prescriptions? Court Weighs In

Kevin Stormans, owner of Ralph's Thriftway, is at the heart of a seven-year legal over whether pharmacists can withhold prescriptions for religious reasons. The debate began over whether pharmacists may refuse to dispense the contraception pill Plan B.
Google Maps Street View
Kevin Stormans, owner of Ralph's Thriftway, is at the heart of a seven-year legal over whether pharmacists can withhold prescriptions for religious reasons. The debate began over whether pharmacists may refuse to dispense the contraception pill Plan B.

Whether pharmacists must dispense controversial prescriptions goes before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. The case pits patients’ access to medication against healthcare providers’ religious beliefs. 

In 2007, pharmacy owner Kevin Stormans and two pharmacists sued Washington state. The Washington Pharmacy Board had just adopted rules to insure that patients had access to prescriptions in a timely manner.

Stormans and the pharmacists objected to the new policies for religious reasons. They told a federal district court it would force them to carry Plan B, an emergency contraception pill taken to prevent pregnancy from occurring. The judge agreed, saying the rules violated their religious freedom and blocked them from being enforced.

The state appealed, and in 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge’s ruling.

Stewart Jay, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Washington, said the court found that policy didn’t target religion.

“The law was neutral on its face; it didn’t mention religion at all,” Jay said. “That should’ve been the end of the matter.”

The case was sent back to a lower federal court. In 2012, the judge again ruled the state’s policies discriminate based on religion.

Washington state is appealing once more. It will argue that the rules comply with the First Amendment while balancing patients’ rights.

That’s the heart of the issue, Jay said.

“Do you want to have a system in which you have a provider for whatever moral or religious reason that they come up with, they don’t want to serve you?” he said. “We rejected that, I think, as a society. That leads to all kinds of issues of discrimination.”

Oral arguments will be held Thursday afternoon in Portland, Oregon.

Year started with KUOW: 1994