Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New arena for birth-control battle
Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr

Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.

Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.

Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."

The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?

No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.

"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."

But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.

"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: conscienceclause; pharmacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 781-789 next last
To: fdcc

A couple that is practicing NFP may be open to the possibility of conception but their reason for practicing it is to prevent conception. This goes against the Catholic church's teachings that "every sperm is sacred".

And it is very possible that women can still go through their un-medicated menstrual cycle even if an egg is fertilized.


101 posted on 05/03/2005 8:51:14 AM PDT by kx9088
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

What difference does it make? An "anti-discrimination" lawsuit is no more legitimate in a free nation than forcing a person in private industry to work against his/her wishes.


102 posted on 05/03/2005 8:51:17 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Please explain what the difference between these two is. I have been told that the morning after pill is a high dose hormonal combination that operates the same way as the birth control pill. There is a similar risk that the pills do not prevent ovulation and do prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in a small percentage of cases. Some ER physicians I used to work with used to tell women concerned about pregnancy (usually in cases of domestic violence or rape) to take 3 birth control pills together for 2 days after intercourse to prevent pregnancy. I thought it was the same thing. I would like to know whether I have been told inaccurate information.


103 posted on 05/03/2005 8:51:25 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Therefore no sex when the woman is already pregnant?

A couple having sex during pregnancy is not contracepting. The fact that it is (almost) impossible for a pregnant woman to conceive is not the point.

Help from more articulate Catholics would be appreciated.

104 posted on 05/03/2005 8:51:46 AM PDT by fdcc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Condoms are non prescription items sold over the counter. A pharmacist is not involved.


105 posted on 05/03/2005 8:52:14 AM PDT by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I agree, but that doesn't mean it wasn't tried. The danger I see is the precedent it sets.

Dang, now I am going to have to google it and see if there was indeed a lawsuit.
106 posted on 05/03/2005 8:54:00 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Again, subject to a wrongful termination lawsuit for attempting to force the pharmacist to contribute to what he morally believes is murder. It would be quite a show.


107 posted on 05/03/2005 8:54:09 AM PDT by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife
Condoms are non prescription items sold over the counter. A pharmacist is not involved.

Sure he is. Part of his salary is paid for by the sale of condoms and other contraception.

If this pharmacist was serious about his beliefs, he would refuse to work anywhere that sold any contraception at all.

108 posted on 05/03/2005 8:54:18 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Please read my post #70.

Clearly not every perscription is going to be filled by some centralized distribution center run by the drug manufacturers.

I'm not sure why you won't answer me directly. I believe that pharmacists and pharmacy owners should be able to sell what they desire and not sell what they do not want to.

It is up to the pharmacy owner to decide what to do with an individual pharmacist who refuses to take part in the killing of innocent life. It is not for the law to mandate either way what the owner should do.

(I think most pharmacies have several people on staff and can have any objectionable prescriptions filled by someone else.)

SD

109 posted on 05/03/2005 8:54:23 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

You don't really have a CLUE as to the desperate need for pharmacists, do you?

Pharmacies are paying large dollars AND popping for cars just to get a recent-grad who can actually walk and talk.

Having said that, can't you come up with something more stimulating than "impose his views..."?

Like, for example, maybe the customer could go across the street?


110 posted on 05/03/2005 8:54:26 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fdcc

As a practicing Catholic who was married in the Catholic church, I was taught that Natural Family Planning was acceptable in the Catholic Church. At our pre-Cana classes (pre marriage) we were even taught how to use NFP. (by a nun) Never did I hear that every sperm is sacred. I attend mass weekly and have 3 children in Catholic school and I have never heard this.


111 posted on 05/03/2005 8:55:22 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife
Again, subject to a wrongful termination lawsuit for attempting to force the pharmacist to contribute to what he morally believes is murder. It would be quite a show.

Do you believe that you have a "right" to keep your job if you are unwilling to fulfill all legal job requirements?

112 posted on 05/03/2005 8:55:32 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fdcc; St. Johann Tetzel

Ping to someone who can provide a good explanation of the differences.


113 posted on 05/03/2005 8:57:22 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: kx9088
A couple that is practicing NFP may be open to the possibility of conception but their reason for practicing it is to prevent conception. This goes against the Catholic church's teachings that "every sperm is sacred".

Oh good; I was worried that you were seeking information and I was doing a poor job of supplying it. While I am a new Catholic I must say that I've never come across the teachings you've referenced. Perhaps you are misinformed? I've already stated that NFP can be practiced sinfully.

And it is very possible that women can still go through their un-medicated menstrual cycle even if an egg is fertilized.

Yes, miscarriages are sadly very common.

114 posted on 05/03/2005 8:57:48 AM PDT by fdcc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kx9088
This goes against the Catholic church's teachings that "every sperm is sacred".

You're getting your information on Catholic doctrine from a satirical song in a Monty Python movie?

115 posted on 05/03/2005 8:57:50 AM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kx9088

NFP is most assuredly NOT a "contraceptive" and you should know enough about the English language to understand that.

NFP requires periodic continence. Contraceptives do not, which is their raison d'etre. Screw anytime, anyplace, and anyone...just like lawyers!


116 posted on 05/03/2005 8:58:15 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ga medic; kx9088

You and I are on the same team. I think your comment was directed at kx9088.


117 posted on 05/03/2005 9:00:00 AM PDT by fdcc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: fdcc

sorry.


118 posted on 05/03/2005 9:00:27 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: kx9088
A couple that is practicing NFP may be open to the possibility of conception but their reason for practicing it is to prevent conception. This goes against the Catholic church's teachings that "every sperm is sacred".

Monty Python films are not official statements of Catholic doctrine. (One would think that this would never need to be stated.)

A couple using NFP deposits the "sacred sperm" where it is supposed to go. And no chemical or physical barriers have been placed to block the action of either the man's or the woman's body.

So, you fail Catholic theology. Try a book sometime.

SD

119 posted on 05/03/2005 9:01:12 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife; Modernman

Good heavens!!

A hierarchy of values??

This cannot BE in the Capitalist/Servile State!!!


120 posted on 05/03/2005 9:01:45 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 781-789 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson