Listen to the oral argument live! Visit the Ninth Circuit Court website tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. PST and click the link to the Portland Pioneer Courtroom.

THE BACKGROUND

Well before Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. became infamous for its stance against contraceptive care, and before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, we began this fight to protect patients from discrimination. In 2005, we advocated before the Washington Board of Pharmacy for rules that recognize individual pharmacists' rights to refuse to dispense based on religious or moral beliefs, but that also protect patients' timely access to health care. The final rules, adopted by the Board of Pharmacy in 2007 after extensive public comment and input, require all pharmacies to dispense lawful medications to patients on site, without discrimination or delay.

Yet those rules were immediately challenged in court by Kevin Stormans, his family's pharmacy Ralph's Thriftway, and two anti-choice pharmacists. We joined the State in defending the rules in federal court. After a trial judge ruled against us in 2012, finding the rules unconstitutional, we appealed. Last December, we were prepared to present oral argument to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when first, the appellate court abruptly cancelled the argument, then stayed the case after the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the Hobby Lobby case.

At the Ninth Circuit's request shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby at the end of June, we filed a supplemental brief on the decision's effect on the Stormans case. We argued one simple point - there is no effect. The Supreme Court decided the Hobby Lobby case based solely on rights protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies only to federal (rather than state) laws. The religious freedom challenge in Stormans, on the other hand, is based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment test, the pharmacy rules are constitutional because they are neutral and apply to everyone equally.

THE OPPOSITION

The plaintiffs in this case are individual pharmacists and a family-owned business, but make no mistake: they are not fighting this fight alone. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian organization that has been at the helm of many recent legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, abortion coverage, and marriage equality laws. Most notably, ADF represented Conestoga Wood Specialties, the family-owned cabinet manufacturer whose challenge to the ACA contraception coverage requirement was consolidated with that of Hobby Lobby. These cases have a common theme: individuals and corporations have religious free exercise rights that allow them to be exempt from neutral laws that apply to everyone else. In other words, as we fight to protect patients' access to comprehensive health care, ADF is fighting to limit access to health services by allowing businesses and providers to insert their own beliefs into patients' care.
 

THE NEXT STEP

Tomorrow, we get to make our case to the Ninth Circuit, and we are confident that the Court will agree with us and the State that your right to access safe, legal, and necessary health care does not tread on your pharmacist's freedom of religion, even if he or she has a moral objection to the medication. While it could be days or months before the Court makes a decision, we'll keep you apprised of any updates after the argument.

We remain grateful for the steadfast support you've provided over these years. Regardless of how this next step plays out, we will continue to advocate for your access to fair and safe medical services, free from discrimination. And we will prevail.