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 ...
There's a bigger issue here. It's one thing if an employee of a pharmacy refuses to sell something that his employer wants him to sell (the employer should have the right to fire the employee). What these cases involve are attempts on the part of these feminist groups to force the employer to sell something that the employer does not want to sell. That was the basis of that idiotic law recently passed in Illinois that basically forces a pharmacy to sell any contraceptive product approved by the FDA.
Or a homicide. Now, would you support an individual gun seller's right to refuse to sell to someone he suspected of being sui- or homocidial?
Even if it was all "legal"?
SD
They can go somewhere else for the pill.
I agree with you about sex outside of marriage, but married couples use birth control too.
But I am free to open my own store that does not sell liquor, cigarettes or pornography. These pharmacists should be free to do the same.
If they use the pill then some percentage of the time they have in fact procured an early abortion.
SD
The "every sperm is sacred" comment was just a humorous statement I threw in there because, well, I thought it was funny.
Also, please show me where I proclaimed to be well versed in Catholic theology?
This is the way I see it: If you deliberately schedule your sexual encounters with your wife around her window of ovulation, then you are preventing conception. That is no different than taking a pill that prevents conception.
Oh and could someone please point me to where in the bible it states that artificial contraception is wrong but NFP is fine? I'm serious, no sarcasm.
Medical evidence?
And how could you have proof of such a statement without doing thorough medical tests on each married couple using the pill, the woman in particular?
It is becoming clear how many Freepers must use/really on the pill.
I own a business and was approached to do business with an immoral group of people. Not wanting to gain a lawsuit, I merely quoted them a price that would still allow me to sleep at night. They went elsewhere. I heard the someone had cut my price by 75%.
If it is true that the pill can cause forced menstruation of a fertilized egg, I would agree it would be equivalent to an abortion.
But is it true?
I believe others cited above that the pill works in this fashion in 3-5% of the cases. Do you doubt that it has this mechanism?
And how could you have proof of such a statement without doing thorough medical tests on each married couple using the pill, the woman in particular?
So you want plausible deniability? Is that it? Maybe your wife's body works differently than those of the test subjects. But I sure wouldn't risk life and death on that supposition.
And isn't that what we are talking about? Snuffing out a unique human creature because of unnecessary medications that you deliberately and with forethought engaged in?
SD
I don't have a wife.
And I haven't read through this whole thread. I may later though.
That is like saying that going on a diet is the same thing as eating your cake and then using ipecac to throw it all up. The end result is the same caloric intake. What's the difference?
SD
I think I understand what you are saying. I just want to make sure that I have my facts right. My understanding is that the pill and the morning after pill can cause an early abortion in a small percentage of cases because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. They will not however interfere with a pregnancy once the fertilized egg is implanted. RU 486 on the other hand will cause even a fertilized and implanted egg to be aborted and will also do this until quite late in a pregnancy. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about these. I do agree with you on the confusion of lines between contraception and abortion. I have argued this point many time with some pro-choice friends. They have varying degrees of understanding, but I like to make sure that I know what I am talking about before I get into these discussions with them. Thanks for the info.
Exactly, NFP and an oral contraceptive are methodically different with the same intentions for the end result.
How do you feel about fertility medicine?
This is essentially correct, though there are two points to be made. One is that the RU-486 process actually involves two drugs, one to loosen up the works and one to cause the cramping and "expelling." One drug is taken at home, the other is an injection at a doctor's office. The woman then goes home and expells and hopes she doesn't bleed to death.
Second is that RU-486 is only for early term abortions. If the fetus is too large, the woman can not expell it and could have quite severe complications.
SD
As long as the means don't matter, you are correct. One respects the natural cycle, the other does not.
How do you feel about fertility medicine?
If there are deficiencies or medical problems that require treatment, then they can be treated. They aim to restore the body to its proper function.
"Medicines" which aim to make the body behave in un-natural ways are to be avoided. Hyper stimulation of the ovaries, for example.
SD
So, nature is ok for one instance but in the other if you have to go artificial it's ok? Got hypocrisy?
I was expecting a line like "if that's the way your were born then that was God's plan for you" type of statement.
Because obviously you don't want to stop God's natural process when it comes to birth control, so why would it be ok to interfere in the other case?
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.