New arena for birth-control battle

Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

[Bushforlife]

"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."

Your analogy falls far short of the reality. Pharmacies are private businesses, and as such have the right to set their own policies and procedures. If a woman presents a prescription for the "morning after pill", the pharmacist is NOT imposing his moral values on the woman if he refuses to fill the prescription; she is, after all, free to go to any other pharmacy she chooses. It is the woman who is imposing HER moral values on the pharmacist by demanding he assist her in killing her baby.

[Nora]

One thing the article doesn't state is what form of contraception is being sought, which makes me think perhaps it is the "Plan B" morning after pill or RU 486, not the pill most folks think of as apprpriate for contraception and other regulating effects. I am not for any of them, but given the recent up tick in stories about pharmacists refusing to fill contraception prescriptions, I think they must be sweetening the pot with some of these early abortion pills.

[Bushforlife]

"Another extension of this principle - the official Jehovah's Witness teaching is that blood transfusion is against their religion. How would you feel about a hospital runner who was a Jehovah's Witness refusing to take a unit of blood to the ER when your family member was bleeding?"

Then get another "runner".

[ga medic]

Actually, most of the time, using the pill prevents ovulation, which prevents the fertilization of the egg. In some cases, ovulation is not prevented, and a fertilized egg cannot attach to the lining of the uterus because of the effects of the pill. I haven't read any studies that actually quantifies what percentage of the time this happens but most physicians I know (even staunchly pro-life) feel that it is not common for a woman, who is taking the pill correctly, to ovulate. I am not trying to dispute your opinion. Only trying to add information. Personally, I think a pharmacist should not be forced to fill a prescription they do not morally agree with. However, the pharmacist should not make any moral judgement on the patient and should merely say that they will have to go elsewhere to get their prescription filled.

[kpp_kpp]

all these comments about "it's not the pharmacists place to make the call"

what is the point in having a pharmacists in the first place then? just have the doctor's or a machine dole out the drugs.

i'm on the fence on this one. if there is a place for pharmacists in today's society then he should be allowed to have a conscience and people are free to choose another - just as they are with doctors. but maybe there is no place for a pharmacist in today's society.

[kx9088]

You're comparing apples to dog crap.

How is birth control a moral issue? The Catholic church has even rethought things on this issue. While they still do not approve of a man-made contraceptive, they teach how to figure it out by the woman's cycle.

They have been teaching this since at least 1999.

[ga medic]

sorry for the double post.

[longtermmemmory]

I think this is a made up controversy in order to be able to force ANY person to submit to the will of the bith control people. If you can be forced to issue a perscription then the natural extension is to be forced to TAKE the perscription.

[angelanddevil2]

Yeah...we would end up having only pro-euthanasia physicians too....

[doc30]

I would have to say it depends on circumstances. Personally, I abhor abortion on demand (i.e. abortion as a method of birth control), but there are circumstances where the life of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and I don't mean "psychological health," which is a loophole used by the planned parenthood types. I mean serious medical complications where the mother would die without an abortion. Under those circumstances, I would leave it up to the mother to decide if she wants an abortion to save her life or if she is willing to risk going to her grave with her unborn baby. Under those specific circumstances and complications, her ob-gyn should either perform the abortion or refer her to someone who can do it and not, through his or her own 'moral convictions' sentence the mother to death. If the ob-gyn can't, then perhaps another line of work is in order.

Perhaps someone more familiar with ob-gyn's in this thread can answer this question. To be an ob-gyn don't you need learn how to perform an abortion in medical school?

[angelanddevil2]

Giving drugs to reduce pain or to cure a disease most likely don't go against their morals.

As I said before we would end up with only pro-euthanasia doctors. And those sort of things.

[babyface00]

I am not trying to dispute your opinion. Only trying to add information.

Thank you for the information. I would prefer my opinion be based on factual information. I don't think this changes my opinion, but it does clarify the situation.

Is the prevention of attachment a side-effect of the ovulation prevention, or is it designed into the pill as a safeguard?

I think that, if there were a pill that regulated ovulation, but without preventing an undesired fertilized egg from implanting, then many opponents of the pill might not be as opposed to it.

[angelanddevil2]

And plus, let's say they change job. They can find the same issues all around, because these liberals are forcing these issues to be all around.

A teacher has to teach whether he/she likes it or not, that homosexuality is normal and correct. In Spain right now there are people working for the government that refuse to marry homosexuals (they are also in trouble).

It's all around, I'm telling you. And we all have the right (and the responsibility) to fight back and stand for our morals.

What do you think?, that we leave our believings in a closet when we go to work?. WRONG.

And why do the liberals have more rights than the others?.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Bushforlife]

"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."

Since when does the State have the right to compel a person in a private business to violate their fundamental religious beliefs? Many of the posters here would do very well apparently in a totalitarian society.

A woman presents a prescription for the "morning after pill" to a pharmacist. He views it as a form of abortion, because it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg [a new life] into the uterine lining. He therefore refuses to fill it. She is free to take the prescription elsewhere, just as he is free to be true to his moral values. Since when does she have the RIGHT to demand he assist her in what he views as murder?

Similarly, I am aware of Family Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control for unmarried women. They have every right to refuse to violate their Christian belief that premarital sex is wrong. They are NOT in the womans' bedroom preventing her from being immoral; they simply refuse to be made a party to it. She is free to find another doctor.

I think some of the "outrage" these women feel is that someone is actually making a moral judgment about their behavior; "how DARE he think I am immoral!". And THERE is a fundamental problem in our society, that many people have the belief that they are not only free to act any way they wish, but that they deserve the approval and endorsement of everyone else. Hence the movement among homosexuals that they not just be allowed their disgusting practices, but that society actually accept their perverted lifestyle as being just as valid as any other.

[Bushforlife]

There would be no delay at all. I have worked in hospitals for years.

[redgolum]

Mandating that a pharmacist be required to supply the pill or the morning after pill opens up a precedent that is kind of scary.

What is to stop the government from saying "All OBYGYN's must preform abortions, after all it is a medical procedure and their individual morals don't apply to their job!"

Heck I once worked at a place where they wanted me to sign a document basically saying that I was supposed to do what ever they wanted, even if it violated moral ethics. Later found out they liked to do industrial espionage (I never signed the paper).

[ga medic]

I am not entirely sure, but it is my understanding that it results from the prevention of ovulation. The pill was designed to trick a woman's body into believing she is pregnant, therefore preventing pregnancy. (Once a woman is pregnant, she cannot get pregnant again until delivering the baby) I believe it is actually the body which prevents ovulation and the ability for a fertilized egg to implant as a response to its belief that the woman is actually pregnant.