Per Washington's law:
(1) Pharmacies have a duty to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies, or provide a therapeutically equivalent drug or device in a timely manner consistent with reasonable expectations for filling the prescription
Congrats on being 2% correct. LOL
I'm honestly shocked even 1 state put that into law
That changed in 2007, but the wording is actually not quite what you think.
Being licensed in WA and within the controversy (because I am one of the few pharmacists in the federal system who are authorized for DWDA prescriptions), note that the specific wording is "pharmacies", not pharmacists. This has ALWAYS been a point of contention within Washington state, as pharmacists have been before the Board and won on that duty matter getting their pharmacies cited instead. There's actually changes in statute pending to that particular area to specify "pharmacists", but it's being vehemently contested as it may be overriden by Washington's general professional licensing act, which with the exception of the LIPs, has a fairly vague clause about no duty to act. So, what happens when a pharmacist refuses to do their job in WA is that the pharmacy gets sanctioned, not necessarily the pharmacist. But you can bet if a pharmacy is sanctioned over a pharmacist's conduct, that pharmacist is fired and I know that Walgreens doesn't have a problem with firing over that reason.
Also, it's quite well known in WA that the provisions in unfilled prescriptions are not enforced unless egregious (and practically never with respect to controls). The DEA Field Offices for Portland and Seattle have specifically defended pharmacists being overly cautious about refusing to fill or quarantining prescriptions until a lawful determination can be made.
Also, if you're writing for a DWDA script protocol (and by the way, the prescriber has to personally deliver it or mail it and be known to the pharmacy and pharmacist), note that a pharmacy may categorically refuse to fill this. DWDA overrides the Pharmacy Practice Act because the language requires the pharmacy to voluntarily do so. Even for a legal prescription given the right stock, no pharmacy or pharmacist may be compelled to fill that prescription/order.
As a practicing, observant Catholic, I do not see the objection to dispensing outright abortifacients, and I have and will continue to dispense those meds, because it is a medical matter, and I am not the cause (I do believe abortion is a serious and avoidable sin, which is why I make it a point not to give cause for such a consideration). I can face St. Peter with a clean conscience on that matter (although I won't on quite a number of other ones). That said, if a pharmacist does have a religious opposition to filling a prescription like that, there are practice environments like nuclear that they could work in where that pharmacist would never have controversy in choosing what to fill. I don't think a law is necessary in this case to force behavior, practice and job sanction are sufficient.
In this case though, the pharmacist is clearly an idiot, but I do not think he/she is sanctionable as the pharmacist still does not have a duty to fill anything.
