Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
You didn't have much trouble wishing for the entire state of Florida to be incinerated. That would cause the deaths of untold millions.
I don't believe in trying to cover abortion and contraception in honey and pretend that these things don't kill people (or something that might someday become a person).
We've made a cost-benefit analysis and decided that protecting fetuses isn't worth the trade-offs in sexual freedom. Part of this determination has to do with the fact that, well, fetuses can't vote.
It's technically "homocide." "Murder" is a legal term and is defined by the laws. Generally it means the unjustified killing of another. Dictionary.com says "an unlawful killing." Self-defense is a legitimate justification.
Homocide is not always wrong. Murder is.
In the case of abortion, there is the added argument of whether or not a fetus is a human being.
That's a losing argument. I am more respectful of those who acknowledge that it is a human life, but that it enjoys fewer protections than a more-developed life.
SD
Aww. You were trying to be offensive. How cute!
Your vain attempt at an insult reminds me of a bumper sticker that read "Just say no to sex with pro-life women" I was so flattered by the bumper-sticker.
I think your attempt to offend me was a knee-jerk reaction from years of being turned down by women who you've tried to seduce, realizing I'm yet another woman that won't be giving you any.
This is a common insult: "Ice queen" "prude" all of which are just the mantra of sexually-frustrated men who have stumbled across a woman that has some respect for herself.
You are so-o-o bad! Funny, but bad! LOL!
Awww, what a beautiful Christian spirit you demonstrate! Brings a tear to my eye.
That's sarcasm and not a real issue, jackass. Really killing people versus incinerating an entire state. I hope this isn't your best argument.
By the way- women don't masterbate by massaging their uterus, if that's what you were implying.
Wow- you've been denied sexually even more than I thought!
BS. The purpose of the "birth control" pill is whatever a physician prescribes it for. If researchers discovered tomorrow that it was also effective against allergies, then not only would doctors prescribe it for that purpose, but the drug companies would seek FDA approval to advertise it for that purpose.
Since I don't beleive in killing people, I'm not along to make references to giving the bird. Consistent.
SD
A fair point. However, my argument remains the same: we have decided to exclude certain things, such as abortion and self-defense, from the definition of "murder."
Shouldn't you be developing a consistent argument?
I guess you don't "beleive" in writing coherent sentences, either.
In some cases, an accurate description, rather than an insult.
No, it's not what I was implying. That's why I used the phrase "come close to". Nice try.
BTW, it's masturbate, not masterbate.
Yeah. It's easier to impune my grammar than admit that you're wrong---or at the least can't come up with an intellegent argument.
impugn, intelligent. I thought you had a 4.0 GPA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.