Some versions of the morning after pill are different from the pill. Some are not:

<link>

<link>

You should really learn to google stuff. That took me less than a minute.

So pharmacists are less educated than doctors (well some are, for all I know my pharmacist might have a PhD in art history), lets stipulate that fact We are not talking about a situation in which a doctor makes a decision based on a medical situation. Let's be very clear here. We are talking about a case, identical to the pharmacists, where a doctor refuses to perform an abortion for no other reason than that they find it to be immoral to do so (for whatever reason). In all of those cases the doctor is protected from any kind of negative effects being incured. Why is the pharmacist any different?

It can't be because pharmacists are less educated because there is no reason that the degree of education someone has should make a difference in the ethical options they have open to them. Essentially, you would be saying that the longer someone spends in university the more rights they have to opt out of things for reasons (ethical ones) that have nothing to do with their education.

Oh...and by gosh you're right that birth control and guns aren't the same thing. Who'd a thunk it? But if you want to have a discussion about the extent to which other peoples rights compel anyone to perform a particular action (which I take it is what this case is about) then the right to guns is as much on the table as the right to an abortion.