Posted on 11/23/2004 7:36:40 PM PST by LouAvul
After Idalia and Jose Moran's son was born by C-section, Idalia Moran's doctor advised her not to get pregnant again for two to three years, and prescribed the pill.
But as CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts reports, when she went to the pharmacy, the cashier said, "You know what? I cannot refill them because the pharmacist says it's against his religion because it's abortion."
Moran told CBS she was stunned and ashamed.
"I felt really bad, because I thought maybe these are for abortion," Moran said. "I don't know."
Across the country, more and more pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for religious reasons.
South Dakota, Arkansas and Mississippi even have refusal clauses on the books. And 13 other states are considering mixing medicine with morality.
At Lloyd's Pharmacy in Gray, La., Lloyd Duplantis believes in prayer.
"God bless the great state of Louisiana, the parish…In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit…" Duplantis said in a makeshift prayer group in the middle of his store.
And he believes birth control is tantamount to abortion. So, he stocks his shelves accordingly.
"I don’t sell condoms. I don't sell foams. I don't sell creams," Duplantis said. "I don't sell anything to do with contraception."
He said, even if a woman who was the victim of incestuous rape walked in his door after having been prescribed the pill, he wouldn't change his policy.
"I would tell her that I can't prescribe this," Duplantis said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Hope all his customers go elsewhere and he goes bankrupt...
What a twit! believe me, if he told me that, I would sue him!
As I told, hope he goes bankrupt with his false morality!
If you own the pizza shop...sure. Why should the gov't be able to force you to sell sausage pizza if you didn't want to have it on your menu?
Actually, I have eaten at a number of Muslim resturants in the world (I have three years in the Middle East and Northern Africa under my belt), and none of them served sausage. If that bothers me, I shouldn't have gone there to eat.
All of your points are good, except once again that is between the people in the examples you mention and the owners of those businesses, not the gov't or ACLU lawyers.
If it's against his religious principles thats fine surely theres another pharm. in town that will fill the order. from what was written she had this prescription because her doctor wanted her to wait awhile before she had another baby. We have a friend that had to have a c- section and didn't wait like her doctor told her nearly killed her with the complications.
Get ready for incoming.
If it's his business, it's his choice what to stock. He is a pharmacist not an emergency room. Unfortunately, most people think that if a doctor prescribes it, a pharmacist is required to fill it on demand, full, stop, period.
Which of the contraceptives mentioned in this article fall into the third category?
On what grounds? Do you sue places that sell Tylenol and not Advil, Zertec and not Claritin? If it is his private business he can stock whatever he wants.
Why? I say let him sell what he wants to (as long as he is licensed and selling within the limits of the law), and those that want to shop there, while those that do not shouldn't.
If he stays in business, fine. If not, too bad.
I was a butcher (owned my own shop for years) before going in the service, but for health reasons often eat many health foods bought from local vegetarian groups. They certainly have a strange morality as far as I am concerned, but they sell products I want to buy, and they were not working against me, so I buy from them. I am free to do that or not. That's how good old capitalism works, and it works well.
I do not wish them ill will because they think eating animals is wrong. If that is what they believe, fine with me. I do not wish them to go bankrupt because of it.
If the particular places I buy from start to use the money I spend to work against my right to eat beef, I am also free to not support their stores. But in the case in this story, this guy just doesn't sell birth control pills himself because he does not believe in him. He has not prevented other stores from selling them.
Should you be able to keep blacks out of your business? You never answered the question.
It's really quite the opposite. Synthetic estrogen and progestin (a form of progesterone) in the pills travel through the bloodstream to the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland. The estrogen suppresses production of FSH in the pituitary gland so follicle maturation doesn't occur. Without a mature follicle, no egg is released and fertilization does not occur. Other than the 'morning after' pill and 'IUDs' there are very very very few post-fertilization, noninvasive methods of 'birth control'.
Is it interference by the government to prohibit discrimination based on race?
There are ways of 'waiting' that do not involve abortificants. Did you know that?
Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. Want me to go on?
Conversely blacks should be able to keep out whites.
Once you let government tell you how, why, where, when and how to run your business it's no longer your business.
Think about the transvestite in California who wanted a job as a waitress because it was "her" civil right. That's the logical conclusion to government involvement in business. The owner loses control of what he paid for and built up.
"3. By preventing an embryo from implanting into the uterus.
Which of the contraceptives mentioned in this article fall into the third category?"
Briefly, ALL oral contraceptives can, however it is difficult to estimate how often because the abortion happens before a woman would have a positive pregnancy test. The oral contraceptives used nowadays are more likely to be an abortifacient than when they first came out on the market. This is because when they first came out they used higher doses which were more likely to prevent ovulation. Unfortunately the higher dose pills were found to cause cancer. The "lower dose" contraceptives in use today are less likely to cause cancer but are also less likely to prevent ovulation and are more likely to be abortifacients.
Other categories such as IUD's (Intrauterine Devices) do not prevent ovulation and work almost soley as abortifacients. The only contraceptives that I know of that would not be abortifacient would be barrier methods or perhaps? spermicides (although I'm not sure about the latter).
There is a group of prolife OB's who disagrees about Oral contraceptives being abortifacient, however having reviewed the literature, the research they cite is misleading and pretty shoddy work.
If you go to the couple to couple league's website they have a good article on it with resources at the end.
http://www.ccli.org/contraception/Abortifacients.shtml
Having said that, an informed, faithful Catholic would have moral problems selling contraception regardless of whether it was an abortifacient or not.
The phenomenon is called a "breakthrough ovulation" when an egg is released despite the Pill's suppression. It isn't rare, and when it happens the egg can be fertilized, i.e. conception takes place, but the fertilized egg cannot attach to the lining of the uterus, which sheds it because of the hormones. Thus, yes, it is an abortion, regardless of whether the unwitting mother knows it or not. That's the bad thing, they never know, all these times it has happened but the women never knew.
Look at post #34
Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. Want me to go on?
Logic should tell you that you can't avoid discrimination of one race by discriminating against another race.
At the moment the government tells a white owner he can't discriminate against his customers, the government has automatically discriminated against the white owner.
It may be called "Reverse discrimination", but it's still discrimination. All the government has done is substitute one racial preference for another.
You can't get away from discrimination no matter how many laws are passed. Somebody has to lose.
The writer of the text behind that link seems obsessed with the endometrial-lining and the fact that it changes thickness. That is a natural outcome of menstruation dating back to menarche. The lining is shed every month and therefore, whether a woman is on or off the pill, it changes size during it's 28 day 'life'. I appreciate your viewpoint, I'm going to have to file the 'BC pill is abortion' story with the 'they're out to get us with fluoride in the water' hysteria.
how is it discrimination for the government to tell people of ALL races you can't discriminate against people by virtue of their race?
Some birth control pills work after the conception, and they then prevent the (zygote??) from attaching itself to the womb for sustenance and it dies.
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.