Posted on 12/03/2005 2:17:17 PM PST by wagglebee
A Southern Illinois abortion foe, backed by her local Catholic diocese, is asking consumers to pull their prescriptions from Walgreens until four pharmacists, on unpaid leave for refusing to agree to fill orders for the morning-after contraceptive pill, are reinstated.
Ann Polka, manager for the Belleville Diocese's Project Rachel, a post-abortion healing program, is also asking regional residents to refrain from doing other shopping at the chain's stores.
"This is an unjust action," Polka told the Belleville, Illinois, News-Democrat. "They are being let go because they couldn't in good conscience dispense the drugs."
At issue is the Plan B morning-after contraceptive – not to be confused with RU486, the abortion pill used to terminate later-term pregnancies. Plan B contraceptives are essentially very high, multiple dosages of birth-control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or implantation. If ovulation is prevented, no egg is fertilized and no pregnancy occurs. But if ovulation has taken place and the egg is fertilized, the morning-after pill works to block implantation by the early embryo in the mother's womb. It is aborted, making dispensing prescriptions for the pill a matter of conscience for pro-life pharmacists.
Walgreens, in a statement following last Monday's suspensions, defended its action saying the company's policy is consistent with an Illinois state rule mandating pharmacists fill prescriptions without delay.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule April 1 requiring pharmacies to honor all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraception prescriptions. The rule is the only one of its kind in the U.S. and became permanent on Aug. 1.
"If a woman has a prescription for contraceptives, they ought to be filling that," Blagojevich told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, adding that the pharmacists' suspensions were unfortunate but not as important as protecting women's rights.
"This (rule) is unjustly imposed on Illinois by Rod Blagojevich," Polka said. "It's puzzling to me that pharmacists do not have a discretionary power."
"[Pharmacists] certainly have the right to their personal opinions, but that cannot get in the way of a woman's right to get the care that her doctor has prescribed for her," Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said. "If it is approved by the FDA and approved by a doctor, it is not a pharmacist's place to deny access."
Ottenhoff noted the law does provide an exception – pharmacies can either sell the Plan B pill along with any other contraceptives they offer or they can refuse to sell any contraceptives at all.
"It's up to the pharmacy, how they decide to comply with the rule," she said. "In this case, Walgreens did what they felt they needed to do to comply with the law in Illinois."
Pharmacists opposed to dispensing the pill are free to apply for positions at pharmacies making the later choice – or move out of state.
John Menges, one of the four Illinois pharmacists dismissed last week for refusing to sign a Walgreens pledge to dispense the pill, may have to make that choice. Thus far, Walgreens hasn't offered him a position across the Mississippi River in neighboring Missouri where pharmacists' right to conscience is recognized, but three Illinois pharmacies have contacted him.
Menges, 39, believes the FDA erred in classifying Plan B as an oral contraceptive since it acts, in at least some cases, as an abortifacient – it prevents birth rather than pregnancy. He, along with five other Southern Illinois pharmacists, are suing Illinois to end the Blagojevich rule.
Polka has marshaled the support of her diocese for the Walgreens boycott. An announcement will go out to all parishes in the church's next monthly mailing.
"These pharmacists are very courageous," she said. "We as Catholic Christians need to stand behind this."
> Osco (another big chain) has not done this.
Has anybody presented a prescription for this to Osco's and been refused? I doubt it. The lefties would have it all over the news and be demanding a boycott if they did.
Thank you for that thoughtful post. Finally someone who understands this situation. I am sick to death of all the people saying pharmacists (or any other person for that matter) should do something they find morally or ethically wrong just because their employer wants them to and should be punished for standing up for what they feel is right.
You are responsible for the choices you make, not the conditions that are imposed upon you.
Yes, but what are you supposed to do when the conditions imposed upon you are unjust/immoral/unethical? Just give in or slink away in defeat? Nobody is supposed to have the courage of their convictions or fight for what they believe in just because they happen to be the imposee (employee) instead of the imposer(employer)? Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I really hope that's not what you are suggesting.
Totally agree.
Why should Walgreens do what the voters of the State either don't want to do or are too lazy to do? It bothers me whenever I hear people say that someone else (fill in the blank) should do something because they are too lazy to do it themselves. I personally think that all corporations should stay out of the making of laws. There are too many of them that are doing that now that I don't like. If they ALL stayed out, I think it would level the playing field more.
There are plenty of things a person can do. Getting involved politicially is the most obvious choice. Trying to change a bad law.
If you don't want to do that, break the law and accept the consequences. If you are right, someday you will be looked upon as a martyr. If you are wrong, you will be forgotten.
Be glad to tell you, since you seem to be politically challenged. They elected the Governor. Should I repeat that. THE VOTERS ELECTED THE PERSON WHO MADE THIS RULE.
It is easy for them to change it too. UNelect the Governor. Tell him why and his opponent, too. Tell the new guy that if he tries anything like that he will soon be out the door, too. If the voters don't do that, they deserve exactly what they get.
Because that's what happens (or should happen) in the situations you tried to class this one with
Pharmacists refuse to fill various presciptions every day for many different reasons: drug interactions, allergies, wrong doses, forgery, legal parameters,This is a legal prescription, not in question for medical reasons - the situation is different
No way, Walgreens hires their employees at will, they can fire anyone they want.
The pharmasists can go somewhere else, or get a new career.
I bet if a muslin pharmacist, objects to doing certain job because of his religion, they(walgreens) would accommodate.
I'll be yer right.
errr...BET yer right
This is a legal prescription, not in question for medical reasons - the situation is different
I am going to give you a little case to contemplate and help illustrate my position:
You are a pharmacist working on a Saturday morning. A woman comes in with a prescription for a arthritis/pain med that is known to have abortifacient properties (there is such a drug). You note that she is of childbearing age and recently got a prescription for prenatal vitamins.
Choice 1: fill prescription without question because you feel that as a pharmacist, it is your job to fill every legal prescription and not send business away from your employer, which you might be doing if you refuse to fill it. Outcome A: nothing happens. Good for you, you were lucky this time. Outcome B: you lose your job, license and everything you own due to being sued to kingdom come by the patient who has a miscarriage.
Choice 2 (correct choice): you decline/refuse to fill the prescription- yes, a legal prescription that a doctor has written and the patient obviously wants. Outcome A: you are a hero! The patient thanks you profusely for catching this. Outcome B: patient becomes irate, saying it is none of your business, the doctor knows what he/she is doing. They are in pain and refuse to wait until Monday until you can get a hold of the doctor. In addition, they say that the pregnancy is unwanted, so they don't care about the abortifacient side effect. Now what do you do? If you cave and fill it, please see OUtcome B of decision 1 (regardless of what they say in the heat of the moment, they can still come back and sue you and deny saying it in the first place). If you still refuse to fill it, why? Do you have the right/duty to refuse to fill it or are you meddling in the doctor/patient relationship and inserting your own personal judgments? Why or why not? After you get this far and answer those questions, we can continue the discussion and bring it to its logical conclusion, which I hope you can see by now.
Walgreens has a "conscience clause" which I would think would have protected these pharmacists (I am a
Walgreens pharmacist).
As a Walgreens pharmacist, I thank you for your well informed post. I have a license, am not a robot, and am forced to make decisions that you listed every time I work.
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.