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 ...
Nice. Subtle shift from the issue to ad hominem.
Thanks for the information. My quick google of the term shows it's a phrase adopted by many on the pro-life side. I would be interested in hearing from some objective sources before I really buy into the idea. As a student of numbers, when you think of the odds of ovulating and then actually getting pregnant at the same time - it's very very unlikey.
I'm not sure if you read the whole article, but it is based on solid research and hardly deserves to be called "hysteria". If you would like someone who started looking at the issure from a "less biased" position than try this:
http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126
I've looked at it from both sides and will freely admit that there is no concrete proof that taking oral contraceptive "A" will cause X number abortions per year. However, the research out there strongly suggests that oral contraceptives do cause abortions.
No, not at all. I've yet to see any scientific articles on the topic. The term seems to have been hijacked from the Pro-life side (of which I count myself). Until I see some science, it's junk to me. No ad hominem, junk.
Thanks. I will check that article out in the morning. It seems to be exactly what I'm looking for to balance the other stuff I've read.
I'm not sure if you actually read the whole article, but it is based on solid research and hardly deserves to be called "hysteria". If you want a "less biased" source than try this:
http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126
As far as hearing it mostly from "pro-life" sources... who else do you think is going to put the information out there? Drug companies? OB-Gyn's who write the prescriptions every day?
Of course a restaurant owner should be free to serve whites only. And you and I are perfectly free to not patronize such a restaurant. If all the meddlesome laws on that subject went away, there'd be precious few establishments actually operating that way, and the few that did would be small and financially struggling.
Sorry for the double post, the first didn't show up for a while.
Nope. If you're in business, you serve who walks in the door, unless they violate your dress code.
Let's take this little piece of your question: for the government to tell people ...
You're forgetting that in this country the people tell the government what to do, not the other way around.
Suppose a man wants to discriminate? The government says he can't. That's de facto discrimination.
Now, you may say that's bad, but the deeper question is whether the government can tell a person that he has to run his business in accordance with politically correct social policy?
Put race aside for a moment and see where this leads. Suppose a devout christian owns a coffee shoppe and doesn't want homosexuals hanging out there. Does he have a right to discriminate? It's his business after all. Not according to the government he doesn't.
How about a woman who owns a dress shoppe and desn't want to hire transvestites to work there? Nope. Government says she has to hire them.
We could go on and on with examples of people who want to discriminate but can't. Racial discrimination is only a part of it, but it's the part that started it all.
What happened to private property? And if we're abolishing private property rights, why should anyone be allowed to keep out a customer based on clothing style?
Clothing is another matter.
First off, the "morning-after pill" is just a higher dose of the same hormones found in regular BC pills.
Every package insert for every hormonal contraceptive (pills, patches, shots) on the market will tell you that it acts primarily by preventing ovulation but secondarily by changing the endometrium (the uterine lining) to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum. If you don't believe me, read the package insert yourself.
Nobody can be consistently pro-life from conception through natural death and take the pill. It's simply not possible.
Not really. The Constitution never says anything about race, but it does "refer" to slavery.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to forbid racial discrimination.
Interpretation is what judges do. Change the judges and you can change the interpretations.
Then there's the Civil Rights Act of 1964 too, but that's being eaten away at little by little.
Every law discriminates against someone, somewhere. But we are a country of laws, not men, and the people, through their elected officals have deemed it improper to discriminate against people based on their race. So you can't have it both ways - you can't say we tell the government what to do and then ignore such commands when they impact on you.
You and David Duke can have your lily-white world.
Who are you .
Every law discriminates against someone, somewhere.
Very true. Discrimination exists everywhere, and all the government does is "move" the injured party. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.
But we are a country of laws, not men, and the people, through their elected officals have deemed it improper to discriminate against people based on their race.
Well, not really. It's altogether proper to discriminate against certain parties based on skin pigmentation, but not others. We're back to reverse discrimination again.
So you can't have it both ways - you can't say we tell the government what to do and then ignore such commands when they impact on you.
Very few people want it "both ways". I think I'm on safe ground when I say that most people never thought that the Civil Rights Movement, or the Great Society, was going to put them at a disadvantage in jobs and college admissions.
Knowing what people know now about reverse discrimination would people still be eager to pass the same legislation as they did in the 1960's?
Still, law is law, and until those laws are changed we have to live with them.
Doyou still beat your wife?
I think that's commendable. Neither would I.
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.