Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, January 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Target pharmacist has lost her job for refusing to dispense or refer for the abortifacient morning-after pill.
“For me, life begins with two cells,” said Heather Williams, explaining that the so-called emergency contraception pill, Plan B by Barr Pharmaceuticals, often prevents implantation of a newly formed human embryo within the uterine wall – which, of course, constitutes abortion. The same mechanism is responsible for the sometimes abortifacient effect of the regular birth-control-pill.
According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report, Williams has refused to dispense or refer for the abortifacient for the past five years while working as a part-time Target pharmacy employee. She argues that to refer patients to a dispensary where they can find them is equally immoral. “I just can’t be a link in the chain at all,” Williams said.
Williams, who is a mother of three, lost her job over the issue as of January 1. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Missouri. She says, however, that the blame for her dismissal belongs to Planned Parenthood, not the Target store. Planned Parenthood has spearheaded efforts across the US to mandate that pharmacists co-operate in chemical abortion.
Williams and attorney Ed Martin have appeared on television to argue that pharmacists are the scapegoats in the battle over Plan B. Martin is also the attorney for four Walgreens pharmacists from across the river in St. Louis, Illinois, who lost their jobs for the same reason. The four refused to abide by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s decree mandating that pharmacists dispense the abortifacient.
Blagojevich warned Illinois pharmacists in April to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill or face legal backlash – despite a state statute that exempts pharmacists from participating in practices contrary to their religious views.
Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”
Williams is losing her job even though the Target store where she worked has never stocked Plan B.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Walgreens Disciplines Four Pharmacists for Refusing Abortifacient Morning-After Pill Prescriptions
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120102.html
I don't see how any of this is related. It is is huge stretch. Just because some physicians at some hospitals are not required to do some procedures does not mean anything from a legal standpoint. That being said, this woman worked at the Target as a pharmacist, not a physician at a hospital. How did Target discriminate against her? They said do your job or get out. She chose to play the lottery of the lawsuit/tort system.
Maybe she won't ever have to work again!
They have possibly violated religious discrimination laws.
How ?
But I thought the pro-life/anti-abortion movement went beyond religion?
For EEOC to take effect, she must make a request, complaint or petition. She can not simply refuse to fill customer's prescriptions and the complain about religious discrimination when Target fires her.
In this case, she does not have a leg to stand on.
She didn't refuse to fill a prescription, she refused to sign something saying she would refer people to other pharmacies that would fill them.
Read the fourth paragraph.
I can hear it now, Heather. You are in for one great big, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Whenever I talk to someone that is for abortion, I simply tell them, too bad your mother didnt think that way.
And they just jump all over your face don't they? They're hypocritical that way.
You are missing the point. Her supervisors are not clarevoyant, and it is her responsibility to make known her request for EEOC-related accomodations in workplace. Going the the state EEOC office after you are fired is a long shot at best. Furthermore, perhaps she didn't understand the relevent job duties when she was initially interviewed.
She was hired over five years ago. This condition was made LAST MONTH. And we don't know if she made her EEOC concerns known or not.
My point is that she may or may not have a valid claim; however, public opinion can change Target's policies, this is what happened with Christmas.
And they just jump all over your face don't they? They're hypocritical that way.
The comment I make goes right over their head. They are living, but don't want the little unborn babies to have the same rights.
Do believe that it's necessary to base the decision not to kill on "religion/faith?"
How do atheists decide not to kill?
The refusal to kill a fellow human being is not a "religion/faith" matter.
Or it shouldn't be.
And of course it's silly to even consider that the right not to be killed is equivalent to deciding not to do business with a given corporation. The right not to be killed is primary to all other rights.
I will say again. If one has a problem with the drug, then petition the FDA or the president.
So... you're against abortion, except for people who disagree with you? Got it.
It's a mischaracterization to define this in terms of 'whether to dispense or not to dispense'.
Yes and no. Yes, it is a mischaracterization if the only concerns are moral ones. No, it is not a mischaracterization because there are concerns other than moral ones. Pharmacies and pharmacists are highly regulated, and this is for the public good.
Because pharmacists are licensed, registered, and regulated by the state, state laws are involved. That's the reality, folks. The way to go is to change state laws, not to have individual pharmacists picking and choosing what medications they find morally acceptable to dispense.
Because the practice of pharmacy is an extension of medical care, a pharmacist's interference with the dispensing of legal medicines can be construed as practicing medicine without a license, which is a crime.
A pharmacist who decides to withhold a patient's medication is illegally practicing medicine in the same way as a pharmacist who gives a patient a medication for which no prescription has been issued. It's against the law.
Also, a pharmacist's interference with the dispensing of legally prescribed and available medications exposes the pharmacist to claims of malpractice and legal liability.
When someone decides to join a state-licensed and state-regulated profession but wants to change how that profession is practiced, that person should work within professional groups and organizations and with the state legislature to try to get those changes made.
The public, in this case the pharmacy customers, has the right to expect all applicable laws and regulations are being observed when they walk up to the pharmacy counter, and that the availability of legal medications is not dependent upon which staff member is on duty at the time.
The public, in this case the pharmacy customers, has the right to expect all applicable laws and regulations are being observed when they walk up to the pharmacy counter, and that the availability of legal medications is not dependent upon which staff member is on duty at the time.
The 'Right' to kill one's offspring, is not something that can be legally mandated by the State with any reasonable expectation that those that oppose slaughtering babies in the womb will follow. This is not about 'medicine' and it is a mischaracterization on your part to insist that it is.
Do not maintain the expectation that I, and at least some others, will submit to this evil. Regardless of your insistence or the mandate of the State, moral persons are under no obligation to submit to evil.
Again, this is not about 'medicine' and a relentless parroting that it is does not make it so.
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.