Mike Koelzer
Posted on 09/16/2008 1:56:42 PM PDT by NYer
.- Citing ethical objections and the potential of some contraceptive drugs to cause abortions, some pharmacies in the United States have decided not to carry contraceptives. One such store is Kay Pharmacy in Grand Rapids, Michigan, owned by Mike Koelzer, who explained his decision not to carry contraceptives in an e-mail interview with CNA.
Koelzer explained that he stopped supplying birth control pills because, as is written on the drugs’ packaging inserts, such pills decrease the lining of the mother’s uterus. This makes the womb less hospitable for a newly fertilized egg to attach.
“It would be similar to taking a field, putting an asphalt parking lot on top of it, and then trying to grow a lawn on it,” he said.
Koelzer, a Catholic, added that he also decided not to stock contraceptives because “the Church teaches that all use of contraceptives is intrinsically wrong.”
An August story from ABC News reported that Koelzer had received many responses to his decision, about 80 percent of which were critical.
Koelzer told CNA that he typically does not respond to the critical comments, most of which came by letter or e-mail.
“If the writer has a genuine question and the letter is respectful in nature, I then respond by answering their questions,” he remarked. “But letters like these are rare.”
Non-critical responses are normally “letters of encouragement,” which Koelzer said thank him for “taking a stand.”
To the criticism that a customer has a right to any product, he responds: “just as an OB/GYN physician is not required to perform abortions, I am not required to participate in something that is morally wrong.”
“As an owner of a store, I have a right to carry or to not carry any legal product. There are some states that are trying to fight this freedom but just as many states that are trying to defend this freedom.”
CNA asked Koelzer if his decision not to carry contraceptive drugs could interfere with patients who take the drug for a medical condition.
Estimating that about ten percent of his 230 regular customers of birth control pills used them for medical conditions, he said he discontinued all sales in 2002 for business reasons.
“It just made good business sense to not have my employees quizzing customers on their intentions and reasons for using the birth control pills,” he explained.
“According to an OB/GYN friend of mine,” Koelzer further noted, “there are plenty of other prescription choices available for women besides birth control tablets that would be just as effective for their needs.”
The group Pharmacists for Life International, which promotes a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill such prescriptions and supports pro-life pharmacies, lists on its web site Koelzer’s Kay Pharmacy and five other U.S. pharmacies that have pledged to dispense abortifacient drugs or devices or to give referrals for such products.
Good for him!
If someone wants the Pill that badly, then drive down the Meijer(s), CVS or Walgreens.
Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives, while other studies have shown no change in risk (see Question 2).
Does he carry Viagra, etc. Or condoms? Is he as concerned about the side affects of Viagra? I would like to know.
No, but he's the only pharmacy in town where you can still get phlogiston matches.
It’s his store. I don’t particularly agree with his stance. Contraceptives have a place in the scheme of things. But, as I said, it’s his store, and if he wishes to send that income elsewhere, he has the freedom to do so. I do *not* think anyone should legislate what he is required to carry. If he doesn’t carry something there’s a demand for, someone else can make a profit selling it since he doesn’t want to.
It’s his store and he can sell or not sell what he wants. Certainly there are other means of obtaining these prescriptions including by mail.
What a weird world we live in. In California pharmacies are going to be forbidden by law to sell cigarettes because they are “bad for your health”.
Sure ... unbridled sex. Contraceptives are abortafacients. Up until the Lambeth Conference in the 1930's, NO christian church approved artificial birth control. But then, under pressure from congregants, one by one, the various protestant denominations caved to permit them. But is this biblical? According to The Bible vs Contraception, the answer is NO. The Catholic Church is the only one that has never approved artificial birth control. In his Encyclical on the topic, Pope Paul VI wrote:
HUMANAE VITAENeither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
HUMANAE VITAE
While it is true that some Catholics ignore this teaching, their actions do not negate the fact that the Catholic Church holds strong and true to what is written in Scripture.
I'm not Catholic, and if I want to have sex for fun, not procreation, with my *wife*, who I married in a Christian church, and I want to use contraceptives, and she agrees, that is my right, and hers. If you want to deny yourself that, that's your issue. I will not be a party to forcing your views or mine on anyone else, on the strength of your particular interpretation of the Bible.
However, I will repeat that I agree the guy who owns the store is perfectly free to not carry contraceptives if he wishes. He's free to lose those sales to someone else on principle. No laws should be made to force him to carry contraceptives.
What? He doesn’t carry Cherry Mash candy bars? I’m offended! Where else am I supposed to pick up the cure for my candy fix? Pass a law! Demand that he carry the candy I want!!
Oh wait. This is about contraceptives. The man has my complete support. I wish there were someone like this in KC. I’d go there all the time! Contraceptives can be marriage enders.
God bless this guy, please, with abundance.
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.