Judge to rule if pharmacies must sell Plan B pills TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) - A federal judge was expected to rule on Wednesday on whether Washington state can compel pharmacy owners to carry and sell the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B despite their personal religious objections to the drug. The case stems from a lawsuit brought by a family-owned pharmacy and two licensed druggists claiming their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion is violated by a state rule requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense all medications for which there is a demonstrated community need. The rule at issue, adopted by the Washington State Pharmacy Board, includes emergency contraceptives, also known as the "morning-after" pill. The pharmacists challenging the regulation object to being required to furnish the medication because of their view that it destroys human life, which they believe begins at conception. Plan B, which is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse, prevents ovulation and may interfere with implantation of a fertilized embryo on the uterine wall, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Available by prescription since 1999, Plan B was approved as an over-the-counter emergency contraceptive for women aged 18 and older in 2006 by the FDA. The state pharmacy board voted in 2006 to allow pharmacists who objected to dispensing Plan B for reasons of conscience to refer their customers to other drug stores that stock the pills. But the rule was amended in 2007 to require druggists with religious qualms to find another pharmacist in the store who would dispense the medication, rather than sending the customer to another outlet. Lawyers for plaintiffs claim the stricter rule was adopted under political pressure from Governor Christine Gregoire, a Democrat. They also have noted that state regulations still allow pharmacies to refer customers to other stores under various non-religious business exemptions, such as low demand. The case in Tacoma, Washington, has potential national implications as a test of the broader objections raised by some healthcare providers to providing certain kinds of medical treatment or drugs on religious grounds. That issue has been at the heart of a highly charged debate over a provision in the 2010 U.S. healthcare overhaul act mandating free contraception coverage in employer-based health plans. The Obama administration has exempted houses of worship from the rule but requires birth control coverage to be made available to employees of religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities, a mandate opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton issued an injunction barring enforcement of the pharmacy board's 2007 rule, siding with plaintiffs in finding that it would infringe on their religious freedom. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Leighton in 2009, saying he applied the wrong legal standard. The appeals court said the rule appeared to pass constitutional muster because it did not single out the practice of religion but was rather aimed at increasing access to all prescribed medicines. Late last year, Leighton held a trial to hear further testimony and legal arguments in the case, and indicated he would rule in such a way as to set the stage for further review of the matter by higher courts. Additional reporting by Laura L. Myers; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Dan Burns