Applying strict scrutiny to the regulations, the court concluded:The evidence thus far presented to the Court strongly suggests that the overriding objective of the subject regulations was, to the degree possible, to eliminate moral and religious objections from the business of dispensing medication.
... [T]he enforcement mechanism of the new law appears aimed only at a few drugs and the religious people who find them objectionable.
Relying on these findings, the court enjoined enforcement of the regulations against any pharmacy or pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for Plan B emergency contraceptives if they immediately refer the patient to a nearby source for it. Today's Seattle Times reports on the decision.the interests promoted by the regulations have more to do with convenience and heartfelt feelings than with actual access to certain medications. Patients understandably may not want to drive farther than the closest pharmacy and they do not want to be made to feel bad when they get there. These interests are certainly legitimate but they are not compelling interests of the kind necessary to justify the substantial burden placed on the free exercise of religion.
... On the evidence now before it, the Court cannot say that the subject regulations advance a compelling state interest and they are narrowly tailored to accomplish their announced purpose.... [T]he evidence suggests that the burden on the religious practices of plaintiffs is intentional not incidental, and substantial not minimal.
