Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, January 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Target pharmacist has lost her job for refusing to dispense or refer for the abortifacient morning-after pill.
“For me, life begins with two cells,” said Heather Williams, explaining that the so-called emergency contraception pill, Plan B by Barr Pharmaceuticals, often prevents implantation of a newly formed human embryo within the uterine wall – which, of course, constitutes abortion. The same mechanism is responsible for the sometimes abortifacient effect of the regular birth-control-pill.
According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report, Williams has refused to dispense or refer for the abortifacient for the past five years while working as a part-time Target pharmacy employee. She argues that to refer patients to a dispensary where they can find them is equally immoral. “I just can’t be a link in the chain at all,” Williams said.
Williams, who is a mother of three, lost her job over the issue as of January 1. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Missouri. She says, however, that the blame for her dismissal belongs to Planned Parenthood, not the Target store. Planned Parenthood has spearheaded efforts across the US to mandate that pharmacists co-operate in chemical abortion.
Williams and attorney Ed Martin have appeared on television to argue that pharmacists are the scapegoats in the battle over Plan B. Martin is also the attorney for four Walgreens pharmacists from across the river in St. Louis, Illinois, who lost their jobs for the same reason. The four refused to abide by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s decree mandating that pharmacists dispense the abortifacient.
Blagojevich warned Illinois pharmacists in April to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill or face legal backlash – despite a state statute that exempts pharmacists from participating in practices contrary to their religious views.
Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”
Williams is losing her job even though the Target store where she worked has never stocked Plan B.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Walgreens Disciplines Four Pharmacists for Refusing Abortifacient Morning-After Pill Prescriptions
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120102.html
Perhaps the Illinois cases were so high-profile that Target didn't want to have any repetition across the river. I don't know if they only had pharmacists sign the forms in Missouri, or nationally.
He could, but he would not. Just like he put up with being spied on by the government of Mississippi because he hired black people to work in his stores at a time in Mississippi's history when whites and blacks were not supposed to associate. And he knowingly hired a gay pharmacist and a lesbian pharmacist.
Target can come up with whatever rules for employees that IT wants. And this woman can publicize their policies. Nothing wrong with that.
I suspect that if the states (who oversee the certification and registration of pharmacists) don't draft some clearcut legislation about this, we will see some interesting class action and professional liability suits filed. And once the malpractice insurers get involved, all bets are off.
that all depends on whether or not one believes in God.
THe article talks about two cases, one in Missouri and one in illinois, which I missed.
Birth control pills prevent fertilization, Plan B prevents an already formed embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. There is a huge difference.
Emergency contraception works the same way as other hormonal methods of contraception, including other types of birth control pills, and even breastfeeding. EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, interfere with fertilization, or prevent implantation. Your "huge difference" does not exist.
>> She lost her job because she refused to do it. <<
Standard employment law: Once you take a job, its understood that you sacrifice other options for your employer. For instance, you gain seniority status and pay with your employer, but at the cost of gaining status and higher pay at an alternate employer. An employee agrees to take a job under certain expectations of what will be required of that person in that job. Hence, any changes to the job requirement that an employee is unable to comply with for a legitimate reason fall most of the same employment law as hiring and termination policies.
If she in any way let her employer know when they hired her that she objected to assisting people get abortifacient pills, or Target communicated anything to her or took any action which suggested that she would not be required to assist people as such, Target has fired her without justification, with or without issues of discrimination.
If Target has no business necessity to rely on her to assist people as such, Target is required to accomodate her religious beliefs. Such accomodation MAY be as simple as permitting her to pass the customer off to another employee. (Since she's only a pharmacist's assistance, this wouldn't seem to difficult.)
Now, if this were Target acting on its own, I could understand a conservative who opposes the existence of the EEOC opposing her lawsuit; there's a legitimate contest of issues. (I personally feel that conservatives should take full advantage of poor policy unless they in any way come to depend on the policy. If the tax code says you get a tax credit for certain condition, your just a plain fool if you let the government keep your money, whether you believe the exemption is good policy or not.)
But because this is BIG GOVERNMENT pressuring businesses to enact such policies, this isn't a matter of free enterprise. This is a matter of Target becoming an agent of big government's intolerance for religion.
Again I respectfully disagree. Not God, biology.
If a physician was required to perform abortions there would be outrage -- this is no different at all.
__________
Of course it is different.
The comparison just doesn't work. It is obvious to all that doctors specialize in certain types of procedures. A doctor who performs abortions wouldn't need to be forced to do so. A doctor who for whatever reason chooses not to do that kind of procedure would never be "forced" to do a procedure for which they are untrained.
Wrong.
She absolutely has freedom of conscience. Being fired from a job doesn't touch that.
What she apparently does not have, however, is the right to determine what she will and will not do while on the payroll of Target.
You are absolutely right that this is not a religious debate, nor does it really have anything to do with the morning after pill. It is about her employer requiring something of her, and her refusal to comply.
Employment at will is a 2 way street.
Isn't there a law in New York that all medical school students be trained to perform abortions?
>> For pete's sake....nobody was asking her to die! <<
First off, the Romans didn't ask anyone to die either. They just denied Christians legal protection, which usually ended up in them being sold as a slave, usually to the Colliseum, usually to their death. Now, she's certainly not going to die if she doesn't keep that job at Target. BUT if EVERYONE acted as Target is acting, she'd have no way to get herself the basic necessities of life except through charity.
And for the record, they are asking her to kill.
>> Perhaps she'll find a pro-life pharmacy that doesn't dispense this drug, any contraceptives, and gives pro-life lectures to customers who want such things. <<
Not hardly. This is in response to regulation from the state. But that doesn't get Target off the hook. Businesses oppose new regulation, except when they figure that it can give them a leg up on their competition. Target very certainly did not oppose this regulation.
>> Well, maybe she won't find such a job. She can get a Small Business Administration loan, then, and start up her own pharmacy, I guess. <<
1. Like it or not, Congress did away with the separate-but-equal standard.
2. Then she'll just have to sue the State of Illinois when they put her out of business.
My what a quaint use of idiotic hyperbole. The job's legal. According to your logic if I got a job at a moving company but didn't want to do any heavy lifting they'd have to keep me.
Is it fair to say then, that you view the use of regular birth control pills as the equivalent of "killing"?
See, you actually DO need to read the story to follow.
>> Agreed. It's like a stripper complaining that nudity offends her. <<
Since Plan B was not legal at the time she took the job, I'd say it's more like a flight attendant being fired for refusing to do strip teases during the flight.
She lost her job because she refused to do her job.
I don't think alot of the folks have actually read the story so as to understand the issues at hand. I believe the headline (which I might add is not at all accurate) was enough to get the juices flowing.
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.