I was browsing around the feminist blogosphere the other day, and I noticed an interesting item over at Feministing objecting to the recent federal court case that overturned Washington state's law requiring pharmacists to provide emergency contraception.
This is [expletive]. The state had a very compelling reason for the requirement: As we all know, EC gets less effective over time and in rural areas there may not be another pharmacy for miles. And pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control or erroneously think that EC is an abortifacient were free to pass the prescription off to coworker who would fill it. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial calling on the state to appeal the ruling, this decision “sends a message that pharmacists’ personal views can take priority over patients’ rights...”
...It’s an upside-down world where pharmacists’ refusal rights supersede patients’ rights to timely care and the conscience of religious institutions trumps the rights of the individuals–religious or not–to access the health care coverage they need.
I personally don't think that such a right, assuming that one exists, necessarily ought to impose obligations on other private entities. The weird thing is that this doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. I have all this time been under the mistaken impression that rights came in the form of government restraint, but now they come in the form of government creating such legally enforceable obligations between citizens. Eventually, everyone will be entitled to everything, and we all be held accountable by the nanny state. For once, thank god for the federal court system.