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 ...
What is a 'freelance' social worker?
Yes, it is. I think I'll send him a letter of thanks.
Yep. Maybe we should send him a thank you. LOL!
Unemployed.
You benighted lout! I'm three years into my postdoc fellowship in Googling.
We're not mocking those with master's degrees. We're mocking YOU. There's a difference.
Sort of like how Al Gore is the freelance President of the US.
Well, I do try to steer clear of all drugs and pharmaceuticals and supplements.
Too bad some people just don't get it. But it is fun to poke at arrogance and pomposity, isn't it?
Damn, my laptop battery's about out of gas. Oh well, lunch is over anyway.
Very, very much so!
This definition you gave is more than adequate to make my point.
You are the one redefining words to fit your agenda. I'm a simple man: I rely on the dictionary for everyday definitions of words.
Please see here:
http://dict.die.net/whore/
Well, I see we totally disagree. I'm shocked, shocked.
Why wouldn't they? Because you and the doctor or pharmacist don't share the same moral values. Exactly the issue that started this very thread.
My wife, for example, doesn't go to non-Catholic ob/gyn's because they are constantly pushing birth control on her.
It may not sound right, but I assure you that is what happened.
That may be an issue when it comes to certain medical disciplines. Ob-gyn, for example. However, in the vast majority of cases there are few, if any, moral issues involved in medical treatment. What moral issues arise with setting a broken bone or treatment for high blood pressue?
So, your position that a Christian should not go to a non-Christian doctor is, in most cases, simple bigotry.
A gun is a morally neutral object because it has a licit use.
The pill is not morally neutral. There is no licit use of a birth control pill by sexually active persons because the pill is an abortofacient. I would suggest that use by the non-sexually active is also irresponsible given the nature of the medication and its side-effects in degrading the human body.
However, the other problem with your anaology is that the one object is merely owned, while the other is actively used, requiring a moral evaluation not only of the ownership but of the action of use. Even if guns were purely instruments of evil use, one could still own it and not use it, and not be troubled by worrying about the moral consequences of its use. This would be like owning a decorative battle axe hanging over the mantle.
The direct anaology would be owning a month's supply of birth control pills, but always keeping them in a drawer and never ingesting them. Of course, that is not the type of analogy you are trying to draw.
Well, as another person pointed out, what if the doctor was a Jehovah's Witness who disapproved of blood transfusions, while you need one. Or what if your doctor was a strict Jew or Muslim who refused to do work on the Sabbath, and therefore refused to help you until the next day?
So, your position that a Christian should not go to a non-Christian doctor is, in most cases, simple bigotry.
No, its a matter of associating with people who share your values and giving them your business, rather than supporting those who are undermining the type of society you wish to see come to fruition.
"Why would a Christian go to a Muslim doctor?"
In an emergency, we don't get to choose who treats us. Whoever is working that shift in the ER is the one who treats us.
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.