New arena for birth-control battle

Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

[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.

[blaquebyrd]

"So who at the drug company would be responsible for dispensing the correct medication at the correct dosage and quantity, checking to make sure the patient has no allergies or drug interactions, and ensuring that outdated medication is not prescribed? Gosh, I guess some nameless government functionary who just obeys orders like a good sheep."

All these questions could be asked and answered at the time the doctor prescribes the medication. When a person needs drugs that are prescribed by a licensed doctor I'd guess they could care less if they receive it from a nameless government functionary or a machine. They just want what is legally their right to have without another man's judgement attached.

[Alberta's Child]

Don't be silly. If I know in advance that a building is going to be occupied by Planned Parenthood, then I'll refuse the project. If I don't know who the occupant of the building is, then I don't bear any responsibility for what goes on inside it once it is built.

If I own a gun store and someone comes in to buy a gun, it's really none of my business what he/she wants to use it for. But if someone comes in to buy a gun and tells me that they are going out to kill their spouse, children, elected leaders, etc., then I'm going to tell that person to take a f#%&ing walk.

I don't know why this is such a big deal. A person who runs a private company can accept or refuse a client for any damn reason he wants -- or for no damn reason at all.

[blaquebyrd]

The doctors are prescribing the medicine. Why would you want to cut them out? The disconnect comes when their patients cannot receive the prescribed medicine. That's the part that can be replaced.

[Bushforlife]

"All these questions could be asked and answered at the time the doctor prescribes the medication. When a person needs drugs that are prescribed by a licensed doctor I'd guess they could care less if they receive it from a nameless government functionary or a machine. They just want what is legally their right to have without another man's judgement attached."

So again, your position is that some nameless person with unknown qualifications at the drug company should have the responsibility of dispensing the medication.

Of course the medication is legally their right to have. It is NOT their right to demand that a particular person dispense the medication, however. It is also NOT their right to demand that anyone violate their moral belief that abortion is murder. They are free to get the prescription filled somewhere else.

[Wolfie]

Just go with the free market solution. If a pharmacy, (ie, the owner) decides not to fill birth control 'scripts, fine. If a pharmacist refuses, even though the owner want him/her to, then fire the pharmacist.

[SoothingDave]

Suppose a doctor prescribed narcotic pills for a suicidial patient, a "physician-assisted" suicide. Suppose again that this is legal (like in Oregon.)

Must every pharmacist in existence make himself a party to this suicide in order to satisfy you? Is there no allowance for conscience?

Would you sell a gun to a suicidal man? Even if it's legal?

SD

[Alberta's Child]

I'm being sarcastic. LOL.

The pharmacist is not a useless tool in the process of obtaining medication, BTW. One key role of a pharmacist is to make sure a patient doesn't have any potential side effects to a medication due to allergies, other concurrent medications, etc.

[Alberta's Child]

Exactly.

[Bushforlife]

"Just go with the free market solution. If a pharmacy, (ie, the owner) decides not to fill birth control 'scripts, fine. If a pharmacist refuses, even though the owner want him/her to, then fire the pharmacist."

I suppose that in such a situation where the pharmacist is an employee, the owner may choose that approach. The pharmacist then has the choice to seek legal redress for wrongful termination based on an order to violate his moral beliefs. I think a good many pro-life organizations would choose to financially/legally assist such an effort.

[blaquebyrd]

"So again, your position is that some nameless person with unknown qualifications at the drug company should have the responsibility of dispensing the medication.

Who cares about the persons name and who says they would be unqualified? They'd more than likely be more qualified than the current pharmacists because they could specialize in the products sold by their particular company. That way the company could screen out any person who does not agree to dispense their products. I see this as a win-win situation. The patients get their prescribed medicine without having to play morality bingo, not knowing which pharmacist on which shift at which store has a problem with which prescription. While the pharmacists could chose to work only for the companies whose drugs do not violate their moral integrity.

[HamiltonJay]

This whole thing is nonsense... the number of pharmacies refusing birth control is inately miniscule.... face it... when's the last time you walked into one that didn't have condoms?

I hardly doubt you are finding a rash of women who can't get their pills... but of course the media's going to make it seem like that.

[Protagoras]

If a pharmacist refuses, even though the owner want him/her to, then fire the pharmacist.

Right, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And it's a different question entirely.

[Modernman]

If I owned a store pharmacy, I would make it quite clear that I don't sell birth control including condoms.

Which, IMO, would be your right. If you did sell contraception, it would also be your right to fire a pharmacist employee who refused to fill such prescriptions.

No government involvement required, in either case.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?"

How about:

"Should a woman's reproductive choices trump a pharmacist's moral views."

By the way, this issue is far less about "the pill" and far more about an impending battle over "the morning after pill."

There's a tremendous difference between birth control and post conception abortion by pill. The abortion crowd is already putting the spin on this to have legislation passed that makes it illegal for a pharmacist to refuse to sell "the morning after pill."

[blaquebyrd]

"Suppose a doctor prescribed narcotic pills for a suicidial patient, a "physician-assisted" suicide.

How many pharmacist know a persons mental state when they fill a prescription? I've never been asked by a pharmacist if I were suicidal or even if I was having a bad day when I've had narcotic prescriptions filled. All they wanted was my insurance and deductible.

[Campion]

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.

That's between you and your employer. It's none of the government's business.

But Planned Barrenhood would like the government to do the equivalent of forcing businesses to sell liquor, cigaretts, and nudie magazines. It's not really about "choice". It's about power.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?

Should a woman's "reproductive rights," which exist not in the Constitution but only in the fevered mind of judicial tyrants, trump a health care worker's God-given right not to be forced to participate in the destruction of innocent human life?

Postfertilization (early abortion) Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent

AMA VOTES AGAINST LETTING WOMEN KNOW "THE PILL" IS ABORTIFACIENT

Postfertilization (early abortion) Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception

You are being pinged because you previously requested to be added to my personal "orthodox Catholics" ping list. If you would like to be added or removed, please send me a FReepmail.

[blaquebyrd]

"The pharmacist is not a useless tool in the process of obtaining medication, BTW. One key role of a pharmacist is to make sure a patient doesn't have any potential side effects to a medication due to allergies, other concurrent medications, etc."

All of which could be asked over the phone when the prescription arrives in the mail. Most drug stores have this service now.

[B Knotts]

Also, the idea that anyone has a right to the labor of another is tantamount to an endorsement of slavery.