Crawford:

It's based on the anticipation of harm from the use of the drugs. If they believe birth control pills are harmful in all cases, not stocking them is their prerogative.

If that's what they believe, then they shouldn't be pharmacists.

I'm not being churlish here (well, at least not entirely). Birth control pills are prescribed for many reasons that have nothing to do with birth control. Heck, there are cases where birth control pills are prescribed precisely to prevent pregnancy because pregnancy would be hazardous to the patient (and my recollection is that only the fringe of the fringe of the pro-life movement opposes abortion to preserve the life of the pregnant woman). Any pharmacist who is trained properly presumably knows this, and any pharmacist who fails to acknowledge it is incompetent or unwilling to fulfill his or her professional duties.

To be frank, no matter how much training a pharmacist has, it boggles my mind to think that it's appropriate to substitute the pharmacist's judgment about the harmfulness of a drug that is lawfully prescribed for the specific purpose for which it was approved by the FDA for that of the prescribing doctor in a case where there is no question about fraud, drug interaction or any similar kind of issue. Honestly, if someone can't get his or her mind around doing the job the right way, then he or she shouldn't be a pharmacist. It's like saying you want to be a lawyer, but don't want to be bound by the ethics rules. Sorry, but that's the price you pay for being in the profession.