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 ...
I had a gyno done at Planned Parenthood once. I shouted at the woman to stop offering me birth control because that's not why I was there *lol*
It's the new moral paradigm: Your vocation trumps your principles. That is why lawyers, journalists, and politicians can be lying scumbags while claiming to be moral people. The company needs you to fudge some numbers? Impugn someone's record to make them easier to fire? Tell a few lies to employees and customers? Don't worry, you won't be held accountable, it's your job.
There was a time that even someone with authority over you telling you to do a wrong thing did not remove your responsibility to do what was right. But now anyone, even a total stranger, can command your moral principles to suit themselves and you aren't responsible.
If these pharmacists are morally opposed to filling a perscription, as per a physician's orders, they need to find a different line of work. It is not their place to hold moral judgement over what a specific medication does.
If I owned a store pharmacy, I would make it quite clear that I don't sell birth control including condoms. However, some people take BC for reasons other than contraception.
Sexually immoral people and their enablers everywhere are "Shocked" and "Furious" that anyone in America would dare to stand up to them and tell them....
"No"!
"I will not do what you demand..because I am opposed to
it on moral grounds"...
Planned Parent Hood (aka Murder Inc.) is "SHOCKED"..I tell you.."SHOCKED"...
The immoral ones then appeal to their black robed thugs to
hurdle any objections by the majority of Americans...
Sex outside of marriage is destroying the family and as a direct result...America...
You can just about count on the libs to come up with some wild ass of an objection or some obscure appeal based on a one in a zillion case where a life was in danger blah blah blah...
In order to get 'their' judges behind them....
At least the pharmacists in this case seem to be fighting back..
God bless them and keep them.
imo
This guy should not be a pharmicist, plain and simple. It's fine if he has objections to whataver he wants to have an objection to. Logic would dictate you wouldn't choose a line of work that would so often directly conflict with your beliefs.
That's the primary reason behind my post. The pharmacist does not know specifically what the alleged 'immoral' perscriptions are for. And even if they were used for birth control, the pharmacists still should not be judgemental. For health reasons, a woman may not want to risk a pregnancy. Or a husband may use a condom because the couple wants to wait until the wife is done school, etc. It isn't any of the pharmacist's business how a valid perscription is to be used. And it isn't up to a pharmacist to decisions for these people. If a pharmacists sincerely wishes to follow their beliefs, then it should be on a big sign outside the door to the store so customers know not to bring their perscription there. The only exception would be a small community served by a single pharmacy. Then the pharmacists has no right to hold the resodence hostage.
I'm glad you posted this already...because I was gonna. I read it this morning in my copy of the Red Star.
I understand a pharmacist's moral reluctance to fill a prescription like that...but it's really not his call to make.
OTOH, if the pharmacist looked at the prescription and at the woman's allergies, etc on file at the pharmacy and said "I don't feel comfortable filling this because it may injure the customer", I'd agree with that.
Maybe this pharmacist needs to find a store where he can feel comfortable in his personal beliefs insteading of imposing those beliefs on someone else.
Should a ob-gyn be forced to find another line of work if he won't perform abortions?
-"I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."-
Good grief, just find another drugstore, duh. There's one on every corner.
That's really what this whole furor is about, I think. I am delighted that nurses and pharmacists and others connected with the medical field are finally standing up to the leftish medical establishment, which would dearly love to use government regulations to "normalize" their contempt for human life.
Uh, call another pharmacy?
Why not?
I work in an engineering field. If I'm a construction manager and I'm asked to oersee the construction of a highway project that I suspect may be poorly designed, then I'm not going to build the thing.
And I really wouldn't give a damn if the design drawings are signed off by 500 different licensed professional engineers, either.
The pharmacists don't need to know if it's for medical reasons or not--it's none of their business. This sets a bad precedent. What if it's against your religion to sell liquor, cigarettes or nudie magazines? You shouldn't take the job if the duties of that job violate your moral or religious beliefs.
Precisely. These characters remind me of the jokers who suddenly discover their pacifist convictions after the Army informs them that it's time to pay for that college education.
A pharmacist has every right to his moral beliefs, and should NOT be required to fill prescriptions that violate his fundamental values. The patient has the choice of patronizing other pharmacies.
I have been an ER physician for over 20 years. I have refused to prescribe the "morning after pill", even in cases of rape. It is my fundamental belief that abortion is murder, and that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. I have never run into any problem with my policy, but I would never back down under any circumstances. In the event of any legal action I would certainly know what organizations to turn to for legal/financial assistance.
So true. My wife has not run into that situation but, her need for birth control is more for regulation and control of the effects of PCOS. But we also use it as our contraception.
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.