Wesley Smith has a good post on the continuing controversy over pharmacists and conscientious objection in the state of Washington. See http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/08/06/protecting-pharmacist-conscientious-objectors-in-washington/
Washington’s law requiring pharmacists to dispense prescriptions, including Plan B contraceptives (the so-called morning after pill), was challenged in federal court. The Ninth Circuit (in Storman’s Inc v. Selecky) upheld the constitutionality of the law and rejected the claim that the law interfered with the religious liberty of pharmacists who objected to dispensing the drugs. The case is now back in federal district court in Washington. The parties have asked for a stay while a change in the law is considered that would relax the existing mandate.
In my view, this is precisely the sort of case-by-case accommodation that ought to be sought. I will have more to say about this approach in my contribution to the forthcoming Ave Maria Law Review symposium on The Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care. That symposium will feature papers from this conference, which was co-sponsored by UFL, BYU Law School, and Ave Maria School of Law. http://www.law2.byu.edu/organizations/marriage_family/symposium_on_future_rights.php