Three pro-life pharmacists in Washington are suing to overturn the state's regulation mandating that pharmacies dispense the "morning after" pill.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't lots of jobs require people to balance the needs of the employer with the employee's deeply held religious beliefs? Don't soldiers have to balance their sense of patriotic duty with "thou shalt not kill"? Don't bank loan officers have to consider Christ's admonition to give to the poor with their fiduciary duty to not give the bank's money away? And don't we, as a society just kind of expect people to make up their own minds about what's more important in their lives?
But anti-abortion pharmacists want special protection. And abortion rights proponents want government to force access to emergency contraception.
What the state ought to do is step away from the controversy entirely. This is just the kind of thing that the marketplace -- of both ideas and goods -- handles lots better than government.
If the pharmacy owner, in this case, wants to limit the drugs he dispenses based on his religious beliefs, that should be his right. The fact that he lets his religious beliefs interfere with his business will become known in the market and some people will choose to do business with him because of that and some people will choose not to.
The pharmacy employees, on the other hand, can quit if they don't like the owner's policies. If they refuse to dispense a legal drug against the policy of their employer, the employer should be free to fire them if they don't have the good sense to find another job more aligned with their beliefs. We don't need to create a protected class of workers, nor do we need to set the precedent that people can refuse, with impunity, to do their jobs based on self-decided matters of conscience. (Give people that right and watch how many religious sects spring up that require margarita communion during the Friday afternoon mini-sabbath.)
Taking this approach would have several salutary effects. It would:
- Protect personal liberty
- Give Washington state government more time to deal with real problems
- Put a couple of lawyers out of work
I seriously don't see what in this controversy requires government intervention.