New arena for birth-control battle

Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

[wallcrawlr]

Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.

Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.

Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."

The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?

No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.

"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."

But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.

"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.

[pa mom]

I do, but I am trying to avoid being attacked. I disagree with you, but do not hold any animosity towards you. I'm sure you faith is a great blessing to you.

[Quick1]

There are certainly other methods to treat these problems.

None work nearly as well as using birth control. And considering this comes from someone who called her extreme pain a "mild discomfort", your opinion is generally worthless on this subject.

Oh, wonderful. So she is on the pill, you are both unmarried and apparently having sex, and you are using other forms of birth control.

And we live together too! Welcome to the 21st century!Does your fiancee really consider herself Catholic? I sure don't

Like I said before, I could really care less about your opinion. Both of us would rather that she be on the pill, so that she can actually do things during her period, like go to work. If you had seen the kind of pain she was in before she started taking the pill, you would agree.

[SoothingDave]

Sure, but you have to accept the political reality that, barring some form of theocratic takeover of the country, an outright ban on abortion in this country is highly unlikely. A ban on contraception is even more of a pipe dream.

We could always change hearts and minds, too. Instead of imagining some "Theocratic takeover."

We get the laws we want, more or less, in our country. None of us expect to outlaw anything until hearts and minds are changed.

SD

[pa mom]

I'm glad you feel strongly about this. I can tell you that such rigidity IN POLITICAL TERMS (not religious) may set back the pro-life movement. If we go after bc pills, I guarantee that will turn off those who would go along with outlawing abortion after 24 weeks.

[SoothingDave]

I do, but I am trying to avoid being attacked.

Attacked? This is just words on a screen. If your ideas have validity, they will hold up. If they do not, the flaws in your thinking will be pointed out.

I disagree with you, but do not hold any animosity towards you.

I don't hold any animosity towards you either. But I would like you to examine your thinking.

SD

[Modernman]

We could always change hearts and minds, too. Instead of imagining some "Theocratic takeover."

I suppose. However, I don't see changing hearts and minds enough to pull off a ban on abortion. even a lot of conservatives (me included) could live with some type of compromise that limits how late in pregnancy abortions are allowed.

As for a ban on contraception? That has no appeal outside of a very narrow fringe group.

[pa mom]

Unfortunately, that cannot be proven, though I do not dismiss your belief. In political terms, we cannot depend on faith to get laws passed.

Most people, especially with the decreasing age at which preemies live, might get on board with outlawing abortion in the 2nd trimester. Going below that, you get fewer folks who will go along.

I am speaking politically here, trying to increase restrictions on abortion.

[pa mom]

None of us expect to outlaw anything until hearts and minds are changed. That is a lovely way of putting it. Absolutely not sarcasm!

[SoothingDave]

I suppose. However, I don't see changing hearts and minds enough to pull off a ban on abortion. even a lot of conservatives (me included) could live with some type of compromise that limits how late in pregnancy abortions are allowed.

If that's the best we can get, then that's the best we can get. We can continue to argue our case, can't we? It is consistent.

As for a ban on contraception? That has no appeal outside of a very narrow fringe group.

That's because everyone has gotten hooked on them. The thing to understand is that contraception makes abortion necessary.

SD

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hi, Doc30!

I'd like to quote some words of wisdom to you:

"Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art."

I would dispute the notion that a person cannot be both a practicing Catholic (or traditonal Christian) and a practicing pharmacist. A traditional Chatholic/Christian cannot formally cooperate in, or be an accomplice or accessory for, another person's sin. A pharmacist is not an officer of the State; he or she is a professional whose moral code may have some similarity to the long-honored Hippocratic Oath, which contains these words:

"I will apply measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

If a person who holds a moral code like this is unfit to be a pharmacist; and if we prefer rather to have people filling our prescriptions who will do anything, no matter how harmful or wrong, in order to make a buck; then we are fools indeed.

We will live in a society in which nobody will abstain from doing us harm, if the harm is legal; in which an objective sense of "right and wrong" has no impact on the way we live and work; and in which morality is at the level of etch-a-sketch: crude, childish, and generally not to be displayed in public.

[pa mom]

My beliefs have validity to me as I know yours do. Unfortunately, barring new-found technology, we can't prove either point. They both go on faith.

[HairOfTheDog]

But now anyone, even a total stranger, can command your moral principles to suit themselves and you aren't responsible.

OK, but I hope you will agree that a pharmacy can fire or refuse to hire pharmacists who refuse to do all parts of the job.

If I were a pharmacist, I would object to people taking the menopause drug Premarin (Made from PREgnant MAre urINe) because of the deplorable life of the mares and unwanted foals that are disposed of as a side effect of the creation of this drug. If I refused to handle it on those grounds, is that principle also worthy of protection if I choose to become a pharmacist? How about a pharmacist that won't dispense drugs that are tested on animals?

I hope you would protect the right of pharmacies to fire those people.

[Modernman]

That's because everyone has gotten hooked on them.

Sure. Most people enjoy the benefits. Both men and women like being able to have sex without a high fear of pregnancy. I can't see any argument that will convince a large number of people to give up this benefit.

The thing to understand is that contraception makes abortion necessary.

I don't see how that can be true.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jewish delicatessens are not decreed to sell pork sausage.

Muslim-owned groceries are not forced to sell beer.

Vegetarian restaurants are not coerced into putting fried chicken on the menu.

Bookstore owners are not obliged to hawk racist tracts.

Video store owners don't HAVE to sell pornography.

Unemployed women are not required to accept job-offers from brothels

Doctors are not forced by law to commit assisted suicide, abortion, or the death penalty.

If a pharmacy OWNER is to be COMPELLED to do something that he/she believes is grossly immoral, or even a crime, aren't we saying that pharmacists, unlike every other category of American, have no right to actually live and work according to their conscience?

Aren't we saying that practicing Catholics (and other prolife Christians) are henceforth forbidden by law to be doctors or pharmacists?

The pharmacists who have balked at certain prescriptions which are (they are convinced) morally harmful and therefore unethical, are a small but valuable voice of conscience within their profession. We can certainly tolerate medical and pharmaceutical "conscientious objectors" for the sake of the Republic.

[Quick1]

If a pharmacy OWNER is to be COMPELLED to do something that he/she believes is grossly immoral, or even a crime, aren't we saying that pharmacists, unlike every other category of American, have no right to actually live and work according to their conscience?

No pharmacy owners have been compelled to sell birth control. We're talking about EMPLOYEES here. It would be like a video store employee who wouldn't sell porn because of his moral beliefs, even though the store owner stocks it, and the employee knew about it before being hired.

[conservonator]

My beliefs have validity to me as I know yours do. Unfortunately, barring new-found technology, we can't prove either point. They both go on faith.

It looks like one goes by the faith as taught by the Church and the other goes by the faith arrived at by some other means.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I've got no problem with a pharmacist putting up a big sign saying "We do not fill prescriptions to be used for suicide, euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, or contraception."
In fact, I've got no problem with posting the whole blessed Hippocratic Oath with the summary at the top:

FIRST, DO NO HARM.

Sounds like that would serve both the pharmacist's right to be a moral man or woman, and the customer's Right to Know.

[Reddy]

"I don't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure the customer", I'd agree with that. "

But aren't some forms of birth control abortifacients, i.e. they don't allow the formed embryo to implant into the lining of the uterus? In that scenario, the pharmacist could say that he "doesn't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure a living, growing child inside the customer", couldn't he?

[pa mom]

I know, I've been told I'm a dasterdly heathen. Sorry, you don't win the bag of M&M's for being first! ;0)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

SD, the Catholic Church does not agree with you on this. Trust me. Look up anything you want about ectopic pregnancy, and it will clearly say the Church condemns the direct killing of unborn children.

A few examples:

http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/ectopicpregnancy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortion.html#3

"It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons to do evil so that good may follow there from, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disordered, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well being...directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons [is] to be absolutely excluded." (Humanae Vitae)

All therapeutic abortion is immoral.