And a few observations from those in the courtroom today:
Smart man. These are points we have been arguing all along. Let us also remind everybody that no pharmacist wants to deny patients legitimate health care. Pharmacists want the right to be able to consult and converse with their patients about any drug the patient is taking and at the same time don't want to be forced to give out a drug that may kill a tiny embryo before it has a chance to implant.
The judge said that the rule seemed to be motivated by something other than sincere concern for access to medication;
He said that the rule was clearly targeting opponents to Plan B and not medications in general (as asserted by the Defendants);
He remarked that his bailiff was battling cancer and had to go to three pharmacies before he was able to get his prescription filled and asked if the BOP would consider this a violation of the rule.
Award for worst reporting on this story goes to...the AP and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. No surprise there. See how many errors and instances of bias reporting you can spot.
Update 2/21/08 from another courtroom observer: One other thing he said (and I hope the press takes note) is that he is absolutely amazed that the coverage of this case never mentions the Constitution. And...To those who say that pharmacists who don’t want to dispense Plan B should find another profession, I say: Citizens who disagree with the US Constitution should find another country which does not protect religious freedom. China, Cuba, and N. Korea come to mind, but there are many others.