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
You work for someone on their terms, not yours.
___________
Yup. It's called employment at will.
>> I think Target is an American Company located in Minnesota, its stock is mostly owned by mutual funds and individual stock holders. <<
No, Target is not French-owned. I believe that comes from when the company was first starting out and marketed itself as a classier Walmart alternative, and people jokingly pronounced it "Tar-zhAY," like they call the Salvation Army, "Sallie's Boutique."
On the other hand, Target started out as Dayton Dry Goods. As in Mark Dayton. As in SENATOR and Barking moonbat Mark Dayton, who so humiliated the Democrat party in Minnesota he was asked not to run for re-election. When you can humiliate the Minnesota Democrats, you're in pretty bad shape. I do not, however, know if he still owns them.
Your arguments are identical. The best way to refute your simplistic and morally bankrupt liberaltine assertions is to demonstrate their consequences. Sadly, the twentieth century provided a multitude of recent historical examples.
The job's legal.
So was murdering Jews and other undesirables in Germany during the early 1940's. You and your radical liberltine ideology would have fit right in.
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.
Luckily my job description hasn't been changed to include the murder of innocent human beings. However, it doesn't sound like you would have any problem if your job description did.
Apples and oranges but I'll play.
The abortion pill always kills someone.
If you sell alcohol to someone that's drunk and they kill someone, you can be sued.
And if you oppose drinking, what are you doing selling it to others?
This debate is about the right to have a belief that there are moral absolutes. And if this woman was working as a pharmacist before the abortion pill was available, then her employer unfairly changed the criteria for her employment.
Are you kidding me? I must have missed it along the way. I can't believe we got to post 86 before the obligatory picture of a Nazi.
When she started working there, the abortion pill wasn't available. Her employer changed the criteria of her employment.
Under that premise, should every doctor be forced to perform abortions because it's legal?
It is about her employer requiring something of her, and her refusal to comply.
This wasn't a question when she was employed. Is it fair to change her job criteria some years later?
You: So was murdering Jews and other undesirables in Germany during the early 1940's. You and your radical liberltine ideology would have fit right in.
Do you view the sale and/or use of regular birth control pills as the moral equivalent of "murdering Jews?" If not, then on what basis do you conclude that the sale and/or use of Plan B is the moral equivalent of "murdering Jews?"
What the dispute was over doesn't matter, bottom line is she did not do what her job required her to do and they terminated her.If one of my employee's refuse to do something I tell them you can bet they are out the door.
I commend her for standing up for her beliefs and I hope a pharmacy will welcome her with open arms somewhere, but in this case Target was justified in terminating her.
No the argument isn't identical. My assertions are simple, but not simplistic, not morally bankrupt and not liberaltine (whatever the hell that is, having to make up words is a sure sign of being wrong). The job is the job, don't like the job get another job, it's really not that tough to understands.
Different situation, pure 100% hyperbole BS on your part. Everytime you go for that comparison you prove yourself wrong.
But it does involve refusal to do the legal job assigned. I have no problem with her refusing to dispense the pill or help people get the pill form someone else. But she needs to find a pharmacy that agrees with her. Target has their policy, if she doesn't agree with it she should leave, I've left jobs because I didn't agree with their policies, and if I hadn't quit the job before it became a showdown I would have expected to be fired.
This seems to be at the heart of it - it sounds as though Target did offer this exact accomodation, and she refused. And I'd think that Target has a strong business need to be able to serve all customers at all times.
You are right that she may in fact have a case; we don't know anything about the terms under which she was hired, and whether or not Target unfairly changed the conditions. However, my personal opinion is that a pharmacist should expect that a pharmacy may choose to dispense any and all legal drugs, and may at any time add or remove a drug from the stock, and the pharmacist should expect to be required to participate in that aspect of the business at times when the possible accomodations you mention are not available. I can't imagine that an employee has the right to completely opt out of any aspect of the business.
(Thanks for an excellent and meaty post - I'm going to think about it more...)
The story title: Target Pharmacist Fired for Refusing to Dispense Abortifacient Morning-After Pill
From the story: Williams has refused to dispense or refer
Is it fair to change her job criteria some years later?
_
Whether it's "fair" is not the question. Jobs change because things change. And if we cannot keep up with the changes in the job, for whatever reason, we need to go elsewhere.
Something about the abortion debate has always troubled me. How many people who oppose abortion, or abortofacients also oppose in vitro fertilization.
As I understand it, with IVF, multiple eggs are fertilized, and the most viable egg is then selected for implantation. The remaining eggs are frozen, and typically wind up being destroyed.
I'm a Catholic, and I've read quotes from the church opposing the use of embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed in the process of in vitro fertilization for stem cell research, but have read no official position from the Catholic church, nor any major church on whether or not IVF is immoral in the same sense as the morning after pill, despite the fact that the end result is the destruction of multiple fertilized eggs.
Hardly. Same thing, just a different product.
My opinion is, the employer decides what the stores sells, not the employee.
Don't agree. Get another job.
You're getting warmer. "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. "
Her refusal to comply with her employers requirements for employment were the cause of her termination.
And there's the problem. Planned Parenthood is behind this. They are targeting people for their beliefs. If a phamacist refuses, just go someplace else. Like I said, will all doctors be compelled to provide abortions because it's legal? How far are you willing to let Planned Parenthood push?
I disagree. We actually can do that. :)
I disagree because the customer can go elsewhere. And when this person was hired, there was no abortion pill. It wasn't a criteria. But Planned Parenthood is targeting people for their beliefs. And they will continue.
My opinion is, the employer decides what the stores sells, not the employee.
There seems to be some confusion as to whether this store even carried this pill.
Planned Parenthood is behind this.
_____________
Wow. Planned Parenthood coerced Target into requiring their Missouri pharmacists to sign a new set of requirements for the job.
That's pretty fanciful.
Target is a business. They believe that they'll do more business if they don't turn people away and use the referral to another Target pharmacist approach.
Is it a good business decision. I guess we'll all find out.
They changed the criteria.
Let me ask you, do you approve of the new trend of firing smokers and overweight people?
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.