This week’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may not be the final word on whether pharmacies and pharmacists in Washington can refuse to fill prescriptions based on religious beliefs, but it’s an encouraging development in this widely watched case. A three-judge panel unanimously vacated the trial court’s injunction that prevented the state from requiring pharmacies to fill essentially all requests for legal medications on a timely basis.

For now, the state can apply the 2-year-old rules that were adopted after a 16-month process that included extensive hearings and some 21,000 written comments from across the state.

But the case is going back to the trial court for further proceedings, including a determination of whether the rules are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. The rules could yet be overturned if the finding is no.

Significantly, however, the 9th Circuit opinion stresses that the religious-freedom concerns claimed by an Olympia pharmacy and two pharmacists there have to be weighed against the interests of the public. The case arose over the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B, which is intended to be taken after, rather than before, sexual intercourse. The pharmacists and the store owner involved have religious qualms about the medication, and they want the right to refuse to dispense it.

Because Plan B is most effective when used 12 to 24 hours after sex, people seeking it don’t have time to shop around, and the courts were being asked to put them at the mercy of other people’s religious views. The District Court said OK and issued the injunction. But the appeals court said no and lifted it.

As the opinion noted, Americans’ First Amendment right to believe what they want is absolute, but their conduct is another matter. And the appeals court said the state’s motivation for regulating conduct was in protecting the public, not in attacking the pharmacists’ religious views.

Still, in remanding the matter to the District Court, the 9th Circuit couched its decision largely in legal considerations about gradations of the law rather than absolutes. The District Court judge, the appeals court held, demanded too much of the state in requiring it to demonstrate it had a compelling interest in implementing the new regulations and not demanding enough on the pharmacists to show they were likely to be harmed.

When the trial court resumes its consideration of this case, we hope the judge recognizes that even though religious freedom is a cherished heritage, individual Americans must consider their own consciences when faith-related conflicts arise. Entering a licensed profession such as pharmacy should not include the right to assert one’s personal beliefs at the expense of the public’s.