Action is also under way in the state legislatures.
States across the country are considering laws to give health-care providers the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. In 2008, 10 states considered 13 anti-choice measures that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for all forms of contraception.
These states include: Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.
But several other states have recognized the danger in allowing pharmacists to push their religious agenda while denying women access to medical care. Twelve states in 2008 considered a variety of measures that would guarantee women's access to prescriptions.
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy did so as well. After Blanding and dozens of women in Olympia stood up for their right to access "Plan B," the Board in July 2007 issued regulations that prohibited any pharmacy from refusing to fill a prescription based on moral or religious grounds. The regulations allowed for individual pharmacists to refuse to fill the prescriptions on those grounds, so long as another pharmacist at the pharmacy could do so.
"I went down to a pharmacy board meeting and said how I had been refused at Ralph's," Blanding said. "I think at that time there was a perception that there wasn't a problem with refusals in the state.
"But I told them that I knew two women who had to go to four pharmacies before they could get their prescriptions filled," she continued. "I've had many women come to me and tell me their stories. People are reluctant to come forward because there is a possibility that their sexual behavior will be dissected in public."
Before the regulations went into effect, the ADF stepped in to represent Stormans and two pharmacists and challenge the Board's new policy in federal court.
"The so-called morning-after pill is widely accessible in this state," said ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner who worked on the case.
Arguing that there is no reason for "government coercion of Christian pharmacists," she claimed "the handful of health-care providers who have a strong moral objection to participating in taking innocent human life should be allowed to refer customers elsewhere. Under the new rules, their rights are not respected and they may lose their jobs."
