Just a thought on the comparison between a lawyer rejecting a pregnant
person as  a client, and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription:

Is it not true that lawyers in private practice have generally been able
to pick and choose clients, for any number of reasons including ability to
pay, likilihood of prevailing, etc.?

But I would guess there is no generally established custom for a
pharmacist to pick and choose prescriptions to fill.  I don't remember
ever hearing about a "refusal to fill" situation until the anti-pregnancy
drugs became an issue.

The analogy might work better if you use a lawyer in a position such as a
Public Defender or Legal Aid, I suppose.  And I would be fairly appalled
at a lawyer's turning down a client who qualified for aid, on personal
grounds.  Except in extraordinary situations, I rather think I would say a
lawyer had no business in that sort of job if he/she is not able to set
aside personal bias.

And I would also say a person should not choose the occupation of
pharmacist if they cannot fill legal prescriptions because of their
personal beliefs.