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 love it when so-called conservatives want their personal moral preferences to trump the property rights of an employer.
I imagine you support smoking bans, too.
"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."
So the dispensing person at the drug company would have to be a pharmacist. Agreed. And the drug company is free to hire only those pharmacists who have no moral objections to their products. I also agree that is the right of the drug company.
I, on the other hand, would require that women take a contraceptive pill and men don condoms before entering my establishment.
In my drug store, you never know when sex might break out.
That's part of the problem we're facing here. The whole notion of a "wrongful termination" lawsuit is a characteristic of an over-reaching government. There's no reason why a government needs to get involved in either matter (either an employer-employee issue, or a "moral beliefs" issue) unless a crime has been committed or a contract is in dispute.
They are teaching you when you can have sex and not conceive a child without using a chemical or mechanical contraceptive.
It's more complicated than that and I'm certain I'm explaining things badly, but here's another try: A couple practicing NFP for objectively sound reasons -- NFP can be used wrongly -- is attempt to delay having another child. So is the couple using an artificial contraceptive. (We're not discussing the additional wrongs associated with abortifacient contraceptives.) But there are important distinctions. The NFP couple is open to the possibility of life and is doing nothing artificial to render it unlikely. The contraceptive couple is saying a firm "no" to the procreative aspect of the act and is introducing artificial barriers -- physical and otherwise -- to make this so.
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.
You are tap dancing around the moral issue here. OK. Suppose that in this great future world of legal physician-assisted suicide that the pharmaceuticals have come out with a great new pill to do the job. They advertise on Monday Night Football and sponsor a NASCAR team. Everyone knows that "Termox" is for those who wish to end it all.
Now, can you answer my question? Must every pharmicist in existence become a party to suicide? Is there no room for conscience in matters of life and death?
SD
Therefore no sex when the woman is already pregnant?
As I recall, this happened in Texas. Planned Parenthood wanted to build a clinic and pro-lifers contacted EVERY construction company in a hundred mile radius. PP had to go far outside that area just to find someone to build their abortion mill because no one locally would even consider the job. Shouldn't everyone have the "choice" ?
Please read my post #70.
Get ready to get flamed. There are several on this Forum that believe "If its legal, it must be "moral"; if its "moral," and you refuse to do it, you deserve to be fired, with no conscience clause to protect your God-given right not to be forced to participate in the destruction of innocent human life.
I agree. A pharmacy should be free to sell or refuse to sell contraception.
Furthermore, the owner of a pharmacy should have the right to fire any of his employees for refusing to fill prescriptions.
If I remember right (and I am probably not), wasn't there anti discrimination lawsuits as a result of that case?
The elephant in the living room is RU486 and the "morning after pill." These "medicines" have pushed abortion into the pharmacists hands. I don't blame them for not participating in abortion.
Anyone who says that a pharmacist or shop HAS to offer any particular product does not belong on a conservative forum. It is a matter of individual freedom. They should be able to stock whatever they want. Let the market decide.
At the same time, if an individual is working for a company and refuses to sell a product; the company has every right to fire them!
That's exactly what happened in Texas, and it went far beyond the construction companies. Even out-of-town contractors who were willing to do the job couldn't do it, because all of the local building suppliers (and trucking companies as well) refused to sell their materials to them. If I remember correctly, this was a well-organized boycott that was put together by a big-shot in the local Chamber of Commerce who happened to be a staunch pro-life advocate.
After all, the pharmacist is rather hypocritical since his pay comes partly form the sale of condoms, and, if it is a large pharmacy, others filling such prescriptions.
The specific formulation was an abortifacient, as most are these days.
It's a far cry from your Mom's birth-control pills, which were also useful for regulation.
**'I won't fill it for moral reasons,'88
God bless this pharmacist!
Know what? I agree with you. I would love to have a moral "out" clause, and would support legislation to that effect, but that may not be workable. Trouble is in states like Illinois, you HAVE to hand out BC pills, or the state will come down on you.
Presumably, his employer has no problem with his decision not to prescribe the morning-after pill.
There should be no "conscience clause" preventing employers from firing employees who refuse to do their jobs, however. Nobody is forced to perform abortions or prescribe 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.