[Always Right]

You seem to don't understand this is standard practice. 37 states already have laws protecting Pharmasist against such lawsuits and most large chains have corporate policy allowing Pharmasists discretion over prescriptions they fill. You are taking the extreme position that an employee and business can not take a moral stand and must do what the ACLU sues them into doing.

[blueminnesota]

An employee can take a moral stand and quit his/her job. If the money is more important then he/she has made that decision.

[duck duck goose]

What is your concern?? Is it the RU-486 or the moral stand against it? (really this isnt a flame, Im just curious)

If one has been raised with a strong moral background then the right decision will be made. It maybe so that 37 states have implemented this, I am not arguing that. However, when a Pharmacist has to go to work, put on the white coat to do his/her job, they are doing just that- a job, not lobbying DC. It is the license that they worked hard for in college that will be lost if any laws are broken.

If morally something isnt agreeable, they can resign and go to another pharmacy. Preferably one that meets the Pharmacists requirements, and not that of a bullying ACLU.

[bigLusr]

If a chain decides to allow pharmacists to determine which scripts he will or will not fill, then of course that pharmacist can't be fired for taking advantage of that policy.

However, if a chain decides to dispense RU-486 to every 10 yr old that says "pretty please" then each pharmacist working in that chain needs to decide whether to quit or grin-n-bear-it. If he refuses to do his job then his employer should have every right to find someone who will.

If this really is a way of keeping CVS and Walgreens from getting sued for refusing to dispense RU-486 free with every $10 purchase then these politicians aren't doing THEIR jobs correctly.