Filter by
Search
Search Keywords
- OLYMPIA, Wash. — A federal court Thursday confirmed that the right of Washington pharmacists to obey their conscience when they object to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs on religious grounds will be protected while a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a pharmacy owner moves forward. The court halted newly passed regulations, which the pharmacy and pharmacists are challenging, until a decision is reached in the case. Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom and ADF-allied attorneys filed the lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in July. "The government shouldn’t force pro-life ...
- ADF-allied attorneys secure stay after state agrees to reverse course, act in best interests of both patients and pharmacists
- ADF attorneys file lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction
- ADF and ADF-allied attorneys prevail in arguing that conscience rights for pharmacists should be respected while state’s appeal proceeds
- ADF attorney submits letter to defend pharmacists opposed to dispensing contraceptives, including “morning-after” abortion pill
- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday not to take up Stormans v. Wiesman, a case involving Washington state rules that force pharmacy owners and pharmacists to sell morning-after and week-after abortion pills contrary to their religious beliefs instead of allowing them to refer customers to nearby pharmacies: “All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the ...
- Briefs filed with US Supreme Court include 13 states, 38 pharmacy associations, more than 4,600 medical professionals.
- Gov. Gregoire worked with abortion giant to craft most punitive anti-freedom referral policy in US
- Legal teams who won Conestoga/Hobby Lobby decision file brief about effect on 9th Circuit lawsuit
- ADF-allied attorneys win significant rights of conscience case