to travel to another pharmacy. . .may reduce the efficacy of those drugs”). Second, the court noted the rules’ delivery requirement, as related to pharmacies, applied to all objections to deliveries that did not fall into an exemption, regardless of the motivation behind those objections. Id. Finally, the court noted the delivery requirement also applied to all prescription products, not just contraceptives, making the requirement broadly ap plicable to a range of drugs, including those not subject to religious objections. See id. Akin to the law in Stormans, the Act provides no exemption for religious objections. But this lack of an exemption does not render the Act unconstitutional, because such exemptions are not constitutionally required. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 890, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the notice provision to which
holding that congress specifically allowed states to use their own exemptions instead of the federal exemptions listed in  522d and new yorks bankruptcy only exemption scheme is not so inconsistent with the exemptions listed in  522d as to render it invalid under the supremacy clause holding that free exercise clause did not require government to grant religious exemption from generally applicable religionneutral statutory requirement that welfare recipients furnish their social security numbers where no individualized exemptions were allowed holding states may make nondiscriminatory religious practice exemptions but that such exemptions are not constitutionally required holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that rumors are nondiscriminatory due to the very nature of such gossip