David, we both dislike the idea of government piling additional burdens on business, but to say that this law ‘mandates discrimination’ goes, I think, too far. What the law does is set out a certain set of rules for pharmacists. The plaintiffs’ complaint appears to be that one aspect of those rules would, so far as they saw it, force them to become accomplices to abortion, something to which they have profound moral and religious objections. I understand the argument, and I can understand the objections to the law, but, once the law has passed, the question then becomes this: to what extent should someone’s religious beliefs entitle them to opt out of rules that apply to everyone else?