Well, Jay, I think your”victory” in the Illinoispharmacy case may be short-lived.

First, on the merits, it seems unlikelythat the courts will create some new “right” to allow licensedprofessionals to “opt out” of any practice they find religiouslyobjectionable.  Second, to the extent that your suit alleges violations offederal regulations, I would hope that President Obama would move quickly torewrite any regulations which you read to advance the kind of broadcircumvention of professional responsibility you apparently desire.

As a number of commentposters have already indicated, once you open the “claim ofconscience” exception to licensed professional conduct, it is extremelydifficult to see where it can end.  Even conscientious objection tomilitary service has raised concerns about whether religious objectors aregiven “preferential” treatment over those motivated by othernon-theistic or even political worldviews.

I do find one element ofyour case, however, particularly fascinating.  The claims being raised bysome pharmacists make it clear that they are not simply”anti-abortion”; they are really”anti-contraception.”  I’m not aware of what you believe on thismatter personally, but many on the “Religious Right” do opposevirtually all artificial contraception because they believe it to be the moral,legal, and medical equivalent of, say, a third term abortion.  (This wasalways the view of Nellie Grey, the founder of the March for Life.) I findthis preposterous of course.

Increasingly, there is arenewed war on contraception.  Many would like to take us back to atime before Griswold v. Connecticut,when a state could even deprive a married couple from obtainingcontraceptives.  This approach is well chronicled in a particularly goodbook called How the Pro-Choice MovementSaved America by Cristina Page. I commend it as pre-New Year’s reading.