On June 28, 2016 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected pharmacists the right to object by reason of conscience aiding abortions.
SETTING THE SCENE
Margo Thelen, Rhonda Mesler, and the Stormans family have worked in the pharmacy industry in Washington State for over a combined 60 years.
Because they believe (and know) life begins at conception, they do not prescribe nor sell any abortifacients, which cause chemical abortions. As was allowed in every state in the union, they would refer customers wanting those baby-killing drugs to one of the other 30 pharmacies within five miles of their store who carried them.
In 2005, abortion lobbyists successfully got passed a state law prohibiting pharmacists from objecting to the sale of drugs by reason of conscience. Under the new regulation pharmacies could refer clients to other pharmacies if they did not offer any particular drugs on the basis of business, economic, or convenience reasons. But now if they objected by reason of conscience, they were in violation of state law. When the regulation was passed, the state admitted no one had been prevented from obtaining a pharmaceutical drug in a timely fashion.
The law just did not allow a pharmacist of refuse a referral to another pharmacy by reason of conscience.
Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire even personally joined a boycott against the Stormans pharmacy. This she did after cooking the Washington State Pharmacy Commission in order to get the crooked regulation passed.
STORMANS V. WIESMAN
In July 2007 the Stormans, Mesler, and Thelen sued the state to try to prevent the new regulation from going into effect. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty helped represent them.
In February 2012 a federal court ruled the state regulation unconstitutional. The Stormans and every pharmacist was free to object by reason of conscience against prescribing abortifacients.
Not to be deterred the State of Washington appealed to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. In July 2015 the courts ruled against the Stormans and the right to object by reason of conscience.
In January 2016 the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, and leading scholar Michael McConnell appealed the case to the Supreme Court. On June 28, 2016, SCOTUS refused to take the case.
In turn, this leaves in effect the court of appeals’ decision to uphold the regulation.
3 REASONS YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT STORMANS V. WIESMAN
What follows are three reasons the average American, especially the average pro-life Catholic, should be deeply concerned about SCOTUS’ decision to not hear this case.
It is no coincidence that a medical professional’s legal right to conscience rights ended at the door step of abortion.
1. SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
SCOTUS has nothing if it does not have legal precedents to set and to follow. With this decision last month, SCOTUS decided it was content to allow a state in this union to deny conscientious objections of pharmacists.
Where does this slippery slope end? Now pharmacists cannot object by reason of conscience against prescribing drugs that perform chemical abortions. So, can nurses refuse by reason of conscience against participating in abortions at hospitals? Can doctors refuse to give fatal drugs to patients who wish to die? Where does this end?
And if this is the law of Washington State now, then how soon till this tentacle of the Culture of Death extends to other states?
2. PHARMACISTS OF GOOD CONSCIENCE MAY BE UNEMPLOYABLE
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito joined with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas in dissenting against the decision to hear the Stormans case.
Justice Alito wrote the following in his dissent:
“This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. 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” (emphasis added).
3. STATE-SPONSORED MURDER
This case is about more than just conscientious objection. We are talking about abortifacients here. It is no coincidence that a medical professional’s legal right to conscience rights ended at the door step of abortion.
The devil and his willing subjects will stop at nothing to spread death to every corner of the culture. Now they have set a legal precedent that all pharmacists must prescribe abortifacient drugs, when requested.
This law further cements into the mindset of American culture the supposed legitimacy of contraception and abortifacient use. Even moreso now, these immoral activities are protected by federal entities.
The implications are obvious to anyone who has eyes to see. There is nowhere to hide. These minions will hunt you down and make an example out of you if you do not comply with their agenda.
Your livelihood be damned. Your religion is antiquated anyway.
There’s more children needing killed. There’s more fornication to be had. Welcome to the Culture of Death.
My sources on this topic came courtesy of The Becket Fund website: #1, and #2.
YOUR TURN
What do you make of the Stormans v. Wiesman case?
Please leave your comments below.
