Supreme Court rejects religious objections to sale of contraceptives


Conservatives were disappointed and liberals were encouraged by the Supreme Court decision Tuesday to reject an appeal in a case involving the sale of emergency contraceptives and religious liberty.

In effect, the high court let stand a July 2015 lower court ruling that a Washington State statute was OK to protect women’s access to contraceptives.


Faith palm


“Yet many, including the three dissenting justices, Justice Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that this decision is “ominous” for proponents of religious liberty.”

Ominous is right. When the suicide pill becomes available and is deemed a proper ‘treatment’ by medical bureaucracies, the Court may rule that pharmacies must provide it, regardless of religious belief. First Amendment free exercise of religion is being rapidly eroded.


Was reasoning provided as to why the majority refused to take the case?

“All 49 other states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association, the Washington Pharmacy Association, and more than 34 other pharmacy associations.”

“As a federal court found after a 12 day trial, the law in question prevents pharmacists from making conscience-based referrals (which is standard ethical practice in 49 states), but allows pharmacies to refer for a whole host of other reasons.”


This really saddens me. Up until now the Supreme Court seemed to be protecting our religious freedom. Now, they seem to be attacking it.


As long as contraceptives are being solid in pharmacies, this is simply what’s gonna happen. I’m not for criminalizing contraceptives, so this is where we are at right now.


This shouldn’t have to happen though. There ought to be a compromise of some sort which would protect religious freedom.


I wonder how long it will be before the Court rules that doctors can’t decline to perform elective abortions.


Its my understanding that the Stormans own the pharmacy and are being told what products they will carry. How is this different from a Jewish deli being required to sell ham sandwiches?


Alito is right, if religious freedom means that I get to declare that I have an ordained right to deny a particular segment of the population medicines that have been prescribed to them by a physician because I disagree with what I perceive to be their life choices.


If Hillary Clinton is elected, we’ll see a Supreme Court that agrees Catholics must “change our religion” to accommodate leftist views like elective abortion and forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients.

This is like the Gonzales vs. Carhart cases. All Dems in this case were for forcing pharmacists to provide abortifacients who had religious objections to doing so. All Repubs except for rogue Catholic Kennedy voted against violating conscience.


This is not that far off.

The only choice some people are for is the choice of whether or not a woman can kill her unborn child…but not the choice to of whether or not a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist can participate in the act or not.


Is it a private pharmacy or part of a chain?


That was my thought as well.


This is undoubtedly coming down the pipeline. The ACLU is already currently suing Catholic hospitals for not performing abortions and sterilizations. They might not succeed this time, but they will keep trying and will succeed eventually. Get a sympathetic appeals court judge and a liberal enough Supreme Court and they have a serious chance of forcing this to happen. It’s possible we’re one justice on the Supreme Court away from making this a reality. At the most, two or three. If a pro-abortion candidate wins the Presidency, which is very likely, the court will be virtually guaranteed to have 6-7 pro-abortion justices in the next president’s first four year term. If we’re lucky, you might get a liberal justice or two who wouldn’t go so far as to force the hospitals to perform abortions. But getting at least 5 is a very real and imminent possibility.


“…yet precisely “for the sake of this dignity of conscience,** the Church strongly rejects the forced State intervention in favour of contraception, sterilization and even abortion**”. Such measures are unacceptable even in places with high birth rates, yet also in countries with disturbingly low birth rates we see politicians encouraging them.” (Amoris Laetitia, no. 42)

Prophetic words. :sad_yes:


What you describe with respect to abortion is a very real possibility. I can also envision the ACLU or some other group looking for the ideal defendant to bring an assisted suicide case to the Supreme Court, in an effort to make it available if not a mandatory “medical” procedure throughout the nation, as was done with Norma McCorvey for abortion.



Religious rights should always…ALWAYS be respected.
I’ve really just never seen such a culture so caught up in sex. If it is such a “personal issue”, then KEEP it personal.
Why pop pills, anyhow, when there are herbs. I’ve heard acacia can induce a miscarriage.


I’m not sure of the exact structure of their ownership, however, I’ve not heard of any parent company speaking out one way or another.


Well, sorry to go all Jeremiah about this, but it’s true that contraception and abortion are practically treated with reverence.

Anywho, what is most frustrating to me about the whole contraception thing is that Christians brought this on themselves. Isn’t it telling that major inroads against religious freedom are being made via the very route of disobedience? I.e., contraception is not a Christian practice, but a non-Christian one. Many were duped. Honestly, one of my big challenges in the future will be to handle my frustration over this.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit