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 ...
Nope. That is not the accepted defintion of whore when used as a verb.
From dictionary.com:
intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1.To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2.To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3.To compromise one's principles for personal gain.
"A whore" is someone who has unlawful sex.
Wrong again:
whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr) n.
1.A prostitute.
2.A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3.A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
You are doing what debaters call "squirreling the definition."
Or do you wish to go about redefining words on us because they make you uncomfortable?
You are the one redefining words to fit your agenda. I'm a simple man: I rely on the dictionary for everyday definitions of words.
Sure. In vitro has been a positive technology. The jury is still out on cloning.
Why wouldn't they? In terms of, say, a root canal or getting stitches, a doctor's religion would be wholly immaterial (and would never even come up in conversation- I have no idea what religion, if any, my doctor follows)
That's why I'm treated- what part of my detailed explanation of going to my Catholic doctor for treatment didn't you read?
If I stay fertile by taking a pill meant to damn fertility, that's poetic.
Thanks for your well wishes. /sarcasm
Yes -- although I think there can still be some confusion on this point. There used to be a distinction made between "spontaneous" abortion (which is not induced, and which we commonly called miscarriage or stillbirth depending on the baby's gestational age); and so-called "therapeutic" aka elective abortion.
But that's beside the point, I guess. What I was trying to find out was if the "pro-life" doctors in question intentionally destroyed the babies before delivery; or if they simply did emergency deliveries, while knowing the babies were too young to survive.
If you're okay with abortions, why do you claim to care about Catholic doctrine?
"Furthermore, I believe it is God who has the right to judge and determine the fate of man!"
So we let people do evil things to innocents because He will judge them? That attitude works well when you're not the innocent in question.
God gave us His law to be enforced, not as a license to do what we wait and deal with it at judgment.
Stoned any blasphemers lately?
You're right- I'm sorry. That's an old Alan Guttmacher statistic.
Nonetheless, all the pro-abortion organizations site that at least 50% are due to contraceptive failure.
50% of dead babies killed by abortion therefore by your thought standards had "reponsible" parents.
You are treating only the symptom with Ponstel. It does no more to treat the underlying endometriosis than taking an Advil would.
It's not the pain that causes infertility, it's the endometrial tissue and adhesions.
I believe Frepinforterri stated that she does not use the pill for medical reasons because she does not want to contribute to their being a market for that product.
Which makes perfect sense.
She did not mention boycotting of any kind. The pharmaceuticals are basically oligopolies now anyway. Is a teetotaler supposed to feel guilty buying Nabisco crackers cause it's all one big food-tobacco-beer megacorp now?
SD
Are you an anarchist?
SD
Yes, and diet and exercise have seriously changed the growth. The ponstel helped my menstrual pain.
You sure know a lot about my uterus. Do you know as much about my hand? What's my middle finger doing?
That's exactly what I said. Thanks.
Ah... That doesn't sound right! I think maybe they wanted to be pregnant and decided to stop taking them or missed a pill here and there! Nothing is fail safe! Still there are less pregnancy with using the pill than there are with not using it!
Which, of course, includes a very large percentage (perhaps a majority) whose "contraceptive failure" involves them forgetting to take their pill, reusing a condom, using petroleum jelly as a lubricant with a condom etc. etc.
50% of dead babies killed by abortion therefore by your thought standards had "reponsible" parents.
Nope. Try again. I'll be conservative with numbers- let's say that half of all "contraceptive failure" abortions really are caused by contraceptive failure rather than improper use or irresponsibility. That means that 75% of abortions are caused by irresponsibility.
No. Fiscal/defense conservative, social libertarian.
Only because you post about it non-stop.
Nonetheless, those children are still needlessly dead while their parents are most likely alive. I wouldn't consider that responsible.
I'd give my life for my family, not the other way around.
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.