The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an en banc hearing on Stormans v. Selecky, according to this article from Religion Clause Blogspot. This is the case ruling on whether or not a law passed requiring pharmacists to hand out prescribed medications regardless of whether it ran in controversion to their religious beliefs was kosher.
The Court basically denied an en banc rehearing, but did authorize a rehearing by the panel, which reached the same conclusion it did before (in a nutshell - the law is not unlawful, nor could any reasonable person believe it to be).
The allegedly aggrieved pharmacists' argument is that by forcing them to hand out prescriptions they disagree with (i.e. the morning after pill), then the State is forcing them to violate their religious principles. This, as I've mentioned before, is a load of crap. The state isn't forcing these pharmacists to do anything. Rather, the state is giving them a quid pro quo - you want the license to dispence phamaceuticals and make the copious amounts of money associated therewith, then you agree to obey the laws of the state and follow the requirements set out for you. If you don't want to do what the state (who dispenses the licenses) asks, then you don't have to do it, but you will not be able to dispense drugs.
Again, the state isn't forcing the pharmacists to do anything. They knew when they got involved in the pharmaceutical business what that business would entail (the Birth Control pill, condoms, and other prophylactic devices were available long before the current crop of pharmacists got their start), and they knew that their job included dispencing said items. Just because a new form of birth control doesn't jibe with what they decide is ok does not make it all right for them to ignore what is required of their job.
You don't like it, do something else. Period.