Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Right of Conscience
Crosswalk ^ | 26 May 05 | Albert Mohler

Posted on 05/26/2005 2:45:02 PM PDT by xzins

Should pharmacists be required to dispense so-called "emergency contraceptives" even if it violates their deepest convictions?

That's no longer a hypothetical question, as Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently issued an executive rule requiring all pharmacies in his state to fill a woman's prescription for the "morning-after pill."

The governor's "emergency order" comes with the force of law, and means that pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions can face sanctions and can lose their jobs and professional status.

If pharmacists can be denied a right of conscience, what about other citizens?

How long will it be before hospitals will be required to offer abortions, even if this violates moral convictions of sponsoring bodies, including churches?

If a right of conscience can be denied to pharmacists, how long will it be before physicians lose the same protection?

Watch closely.

It's the pharmacists whose rights are on the line today.

Who's next?

I'm Albert Mohler.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; conscienceclause; dayafterpill; freedomofconscience; pharmacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 05/26/2005 2:45:02 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xzins
Pharmacists should have to do their job, just like everyone else. If it is legal (which is a different subject), they have a duty to fill any prescription.

Would you agree or disagree that anyone in any job should be allowed to refuse doing any task based on personal conviction? If so, you could have absolute chaos. People anywhere could just say, "Nope. Not gonna do that."

I understand there are bigger issues at hand here, but you have to consider the ramifications of allowing people to tell their bosses no, just because (fill in the blank).

2 posted on 05/26/2005 2:50:08 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott; xzins
Simple solution. Don't stock the drug.

You can't issue it if you don't carry it.
3 posted on 05/26/2005 2:53:19 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the Rats in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

I think that many pharmacies are private businesses, and that it's the business owner's decision what inventory he will carry and what inventory he will not carry.

It's like prosecuting a hardward store because they don't carry railroad spikes.


4 posted on 05/26/2005 2:53:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

See #4


5 posted on 05/26/2005 2:54:23 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
but you have to consider the ramifications of allowing people to tell their bosses no

The Governor of Illinois is their boss?
6 posted on 05/26/2005 2:54:48 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the Rats in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth
Well, no. What I am saying is if a pharmacy stocks the morning after pill (or any addictive drug, or anything else someone could object to), the pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse based on personal beliefs.

Now, if a pharmacy chooses not to stock the drug, I think that should be their right.

7 posted on 05/26/2005 3:05:47 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

see #7


8 posted on 05/26/2005 3:06:40 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Should pharmacists be required to dispense so-called "emergency contraceptives" even if it violates their deepest convictions?

Interesting question.

On the one hand, you're telling someone that in order to keep their job, they have to give a woman the means to kill her unborn child (if she has actually conceived.)

On the other hand, if a pharmacist has an objection to giving out the pill, he should either work for a company that doesn't require it or start his own business.

I could see a Christian Pharmacy doing quite well in some areas.

9 posted on 05/26/2005 3:12:03 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a *legal entity* ..... nor am I a 'person' as defined and/or created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If you are a conscientious vegan. don't take a job at Outback. If you won't sell the drugs find a job that doesn't require you to sell the drugs. How long before some pharmacist decides to second guess a doctor and refuse to provide oxycontin?

For the record, I am ethically opposed to the morning after pill as well.

10 posted on 05/26/2005 3:13:19 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

Of course pharmacists should have to do their jobs. But if you own your own pharmacy, i.e. you're the boss, why shouldn't you get to decide what to sell?


11 posted on 05/26/2005 3:19:07 PM PDT by k2blader ("A kingdom of conscience ... That is what lies at the end of Crusade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

Ah, that 'splains it better, thanks. I think we agree.


12 posted on 05/26/2005 3:20:36 PM PDT by k2blader ("A kingdom of conscience ... That is what lies at the end of Crusade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; MamaTexan

Obviously, this forcing to sell law is more onerous for a private business owner pharmacist, because it does violate his right to run his business as he sees fit.

For the employee of a chain that does sell the morning after pill, then there's a difficult decision to make. Since they should not participate in an abortion, then they should not sell the pill. Since it is a requirement of their employment, then they should find other employment.

If they hand it off to a colleague on duty who has no ethical qualms, then are they sufficiently distancing themselves? That's a tough call.

It's like being a pacifist and working at GM. GM makes Hummers sold to the military. Should the pacifist resign?


13 posted on 05/26/2005 3:21:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

see post #7.


14 posted on 05/26/2005 3:21:17 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It's like being a pacifist and working at GM. GM makes Hummers sold to the military. Should the pacifist resign?

If the pacifist is morally opposed to the fact that his company sells Hummers to the military, and he chooses to not sell Hummers to the military against his boss's wishes, yes, he should resign, or face being fired.

15 posted on 05/26/2005 3:23:39 PM PDT by k2blader ("A kingdom of conscience ... That is what lies at the end of Crusade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Yes, yes, yes. We do agree.


16 posted on 05/26/2005 3:26:55 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

And what if he works on Pontiacs but not on Hummers? Is there such a thing as "sufficient distance from personal involvement?"


17 posted on 05/26/2005 3:32:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: k2blader; muir_redwoods; MamaTexan; xzins

Well, in any event, neither the pharmacist, nor the pacifist autoworker, are employed by the the Governor of Illinois.

He should STFU and sit down.


18 posted on 05/26/2005 3:44:08 PM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

That is another issue. Good point. Why should a governor's executive order be a legal requirement for a private business?


19 posted on 05/26/2005 4:10:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It's not that simple. While most pharmacies are indeed privately-owned businesses, the state often mandates that they must carry certain drugs (like the morning-after pill) for medicaid patients.


20 posted on 05/26/2005 4:20:11 PM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson