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 ...
The Catholic Church has always allowed that spouses may obstain from intercourse at any time for whatever reasons they see fit (although there is a general obligation of social justice for married couples to have a sufficient number of children to provide for the propagation of humanity - generally held to be a minimum of 4). And she has always taught that all artifical forms of birth control are immoral.
Where is the change?
So if you use it for 20 years of marriage, and have 12 ovulations per year, you will be responsible for 12 murders in your lifetime.
The responsible and moral thing to do in such situations is to attempt to save both patients while not attempting to kill either.
The "for the life of the mother" justification is totally specious. If your wife and I were being held at gunpoint by a murderer, and he said that either we will both die at his hands, or I can shoot your wife and he will spare me, could I legally and morally shoot your wife to save my own skin?
Obviously not.
So why do so many think its just fine for a mother to kill her child to save her own neck?
Wake up. Stop pointificating about the mean old pharmacists until you've learned what the real deal is here.
PP is very clever. They have alredy redefined pregnancy as not beginning until implantation. If they had their way this would be the only definition permitted in medical schools and in the culture in general. That's how they can justify calling the morning after pill "contraception" rather than "abortifacient."
Moral of the story, when you see the word "contraception" you should immediately suspect that it means at least to some degree abortifacient until you have solid evidence to the contrary.
And pro-lifers need to reconsider the way they've let PP drive a wedge within the pro-life movement by using contraception. They've outsmarted pro-lifers because too many Christians have not really thought through the entire sex/procreation interrelationship.
That certainly is the most desireable situation, but sadly, it frequently not the case. An Ob-Gyn needs to know how to performan abortion because situations will arise where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. By having a blanket 'no abortion at any time or any circumstance' is cruel and foolish. It would condemn women to death.
No difference in logic. Ob-gyn's are under the same obligations.
That is truly a disgusting statement. Based on that logic, we don't need any over the counter medication. We don't need allergy medicine - people have lived with runny noses for thousands of years. We don't need aspirin since people have lived with pain for thousands of years. We don't need antacids because people have lived for thousands of years without them. We don't need eyeglasses because people lived without them for thousands of years. Do you even care about women's health issues at all or do you sincerely believe that women should suffer unnecessarily when there is medication available to help them because you believe that it is immoral and wish to dictate how others live?
Perhaps you meant to reply to some post other than mine?
Could you describe such a situation?
Remember, if you are stating that every OB needs to know how to do this, there must be situations where time is of the essence, where there is no time to refer a woman to a better trained doctor.
When has anyone ever said "My God! If this woman doesn't get an abortion in the next half hour, she's going to die!"
SD
What percentage of the time do aspirin, benadryl, or tums cause the demise of a unique human being?
SD
Drug allergies kill. If aspirin were a recently developed drug, it would never get past the FDA because of its side effects. Stomache bleeding, liver damage, blood thinning, and allergies just to name a few.
Scary? C'mon, doc. There are plenty of services that do not require government licensing. They operate on the quality of their work and would lose business or get sued for fraud were they to provide a poor quality product. You do not need the government regulating every darn service out there. The private sector can do just as good a job. Take Underwriters Laboraties, for example.
Does it concern you at all that contraceptive pills can cause early abortions?
SD
Does this apply to firefighters or police officers? If a firefighter finds gambling immoral and a casino was on fire, should he have the right to refuse to put it out? I think one crux of theissue is whether you are self employed or if you are working for a company. The employer can mandate you fill the perscription, even if you find it immoral. The employer has the option of terminating your employment by your refusal to perform your job.
I do not like abortion, but I do not consider bith control to be an abortion procedure. A fertillized egg is not a pregnancy. And I know many people here who vehemenently disagree with that concept.
I agree that there are many services that do not require (i.e. aren't mandated) regulation. However, many places do require some form of business liscence, more for property use planning and taxes than anything else. Hairdressers, restaurants and hot dog stands all need liscencing and/ior permitting, for example. That's why the level of regulation is much smaller for these enerprises. I hope you are not advocating that in the medical profession, where people's live are on the line, that free market principles should determine the level of professionalism? There are areas of business that require some level of regulation, especially where lives are at risk. No one regulates the quality of t-shirts from Wal-mart, but something like the drug industry is heavily regulated and rightfully so. So is the construction of the store itself, as well as the quality of the water coming out of the taps. There are areas where the free market is incapable of a high enough level of self regulation. These are areas where even one mistake is life threatening.
"I'm a civil engineer. Should I be forced to take comissions from people who want to build abortuaries? How about being forced to take comissions to build pagan temples?"
I simpe stated the guy might not be in the right line of work. I got several replies implying that I am somehow suggesting that he be forced to fill the perscription, or that the government should be forcing anyone to do business any other way than however or with whomever they choose.
I am not advocating forcing the guy, I just don't think it's the best idea to get into a line of work, and then refuse to do part of your job because you have hangups about it.
I would rather make my own decisions about morality than have somebody else do it. And that goes for the government or the local pharmacist.
Never would I suggest the government tell anyone how to run their business.
(Althouh in an immediate lifesaving profession like a trauma surgeon, paramedic or something, where lives are on the line, my opinion might be different)
Bones
A simple example is when a pregnancy is in the fallopian tubes. Can't save the baby there, but the mother will die without the abortion. If the woman is unaware of this type of pregnancy (heck, some women even give birth without knowing they are pregnant!), and it goes far enough along, it does become an emergency situation.
A "fertilized egg" is a new creation. Either we respect that life or we do not.
SD
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.