Ruling requires providing Plan B contraceptive U.S. Court of Appeals

The "morning after'' contraceptive pill. The "morning after'' contraceptive pill. Photo: Women's Capital Corporation, NYT Photo: Women's Capital Corporation, NYT Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Ruling requires providing Plan B contraceptive 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

A federal appeals court ordered reinstatement Wednesday of rules requiring pharmacists in Washington state to provide the Plan B "morning-after pill" contraceptive despite individual pharmacists' religious objections.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco set aside a judge's November 2007 order that blocked the regulations on the grounds that they violated pharmacists' freedom of religion. The court said the judge failed to consider women's need for Plan B.

California has a similar but narrower law, in effect since 2006, that requires pharmacists to dispense all legally prescribed medications but allows druggists to refer a patient to a nearby pharmacy if they don't stock a particular product such as Plan B.

Plan B contains the same ingredients as conventional birth control pills but in heavier doses and is taken to prevent pregnancy within 24 hours of intercourse. In April, the Food and Drug Administration under President Obama, in response to a court order, lowered from 18 to 17 the age at which anyone can buy the pills without a prescription.

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy regulations took effect in July 2007. It required pharmacies to supply legally prescribed drugs and allowed individual pharmacists to object on religious or moral grounds as long as another pharmacist was available, in person or by telephone, to fill the order.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton blocked the rules statewide four months later in a suit by a family-owned pharmacy in Olympia, which was under state investigation for refusing to stock Plan B, and by two pharmacists who said they feared losing their jobs because of their objections.

On Wednesday, the appeals court ordered the judge to lift his injunction and reconsider the regulations under Supreme Court standards allowing states to pass neutral laws that may affect religious practices.

Contrary to Leighton's conclusion, the appeals court said, the Washington rules were not aimed at interfering with religious beliefs or practices and were intended instead to promote patients' health.

Leighton also failed to consider the effect of his order on "sexually active women of childbearing age (who) will be denied reasonable access to Plan B," said Judge Kim Wardlaw in the 3-0 ruling.

Although the court did not decide whether the regulations are valid, the ruling virtually guarantees that they will be upheld, said attorney Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute, which filed arguments supporting the dissident pharmacists.

"It clearly was targeted at the few pharmacies in the state that had moral convictions about these types of medication," he said. "This gives the green light to states like California to impose harsher regulations."