Did SCOTUS Just Restore Sanity To Religious Liberty Debate?
BY PATRICIA MILLER
JUNE 29, 2016
Largely lost in the (understandable) hubbub about the Supreme Court’s historic Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt abortion decision was its action the following day that may recast the parameters of the religious liberty debate.
On Tuesday, the court declined to hear a challenge to a Washington State law that requires pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception even if the owners of the pharmacy have a religious objection to the medication because they believe (incorrectly, as far as science is concerned) that it is an abortifacient.
The decision not to hear the case engendered a blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who questioned the need for such laws and called it an “ominous” sign for religious liberty:
There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. … If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.
And he’s right. The court’s decision not to hear the case brought by Ralph’s Thriftway, a grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Washington that refuses to dispense the Plan B emergency contraceptive, does have broad implications for the future of such cases. Only the court’s hardline conservatives—Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas—voted to take the case, leaving it one vote short of the four needed to gain a full court review.
http://religiondispatches.org/did-scotus-just-restore-sanity-to-religious-liberty-debate/
= new reply since forum marked as read
