Trojan in a child-proof bottle

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325351_planb27.html

Two weeks ago (who said the Internet is the way to stay current?), a Washington State law mandated all pharmacies be able to prescribe the Plan B contraceptive to customers went into effect. A pharmacy owner and two other pharmacists sued the state, saying the law put them in a comprimised position, forcing them to "choos[e] between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs." According to state legislators (who, of course, do not serve on the federal court reviewing the case) nothing is expected to come from the lawsuit.

In my opinion (prepare ye for a completely out of place football analogy), contraceptives equate to interceptions, not punts. In other words, the morning-after pill acts more like a condom than an abortion, not killing an embryo, but preventing it from coming to exist. However, the pro-abortion rights/anti-abortion rights battle is not what interests me with this story.

So these pharmacists say that Plan B is contrary to "deeply held religious and moral beliefs"? Ok. For the moment, let's accept that Plan B is morally objectionable.

What about selling Ambien to an 80-year-old woman whose only sources of income are social security and the 3% interest on the $46.34 in her checking account? Is that not immoral? What about suggesting a patron cut pills in half because they can't afford the proper dosage? Selling the Glaxo Smith Cline pill for $120 when a generic brand is sitting there on the shelf for $50 to get a fatter cut on your commission? That's not immoral?

Can I sue my government for the FDA turning a blind eye to inflated drug prices while people all around the world can buy the same drugs for a fraction of the cost?

Yet when we put a condom in a pill, everyone freaks the heck out.