From the article:

'But he referred to a "conscience clause" in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's ethics code, saying: "It states that if supplying the morning-after pill is contrary to a pharmacist's personal, religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it." '

Even though the supplying of the morning-after pill would not offend my moral code, I actually see nothing wrong in this. Doctors are similarly exempt when it comes to granting abortions. Had she come bearing a prescription from her doctor then I think it would have been (or at least should have been) a different issue.

For the record, I am opposed to the granting of abortions except in the following circumstances:

1) When the life of the mother is in danger.

2) When the mother is extremely young.

3) When the mother has been raped.

4) When the life of the child would be very short or she/he would be in great pain because of grave and untreatable deformity or other illness.

These stories are fairly common.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4649425.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4425603.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

I'm sure I can't begin to think what makes this one so special as to be worthy of comment.