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
Most doctors refuse to perform abortions. THEY should fgind another line of work because they refuse to give patients poison?
Planned Parenthood has been threatening lawsuits. It works.
And here I was thinking she lost her job becuase she refused do the work her employer required her to do.
Let me ask you, do you approve of the new trend of firing smokers and overweight people?
___________
I've got an apple for your orange.
I don't see the situations as simple to compare as you do.
The Target case involves an employee not complying with what it takes to do the job. Her job is to dispense or to refer. That's it.
I personally find it distasteful to fire someone for being a smoker, because it has zippo to do with the job (given that the employee follow all the at work smoking rules the business is free to enact).
Do you have a link to the story about folks being fired for being overweight? I read FR daily (except when I'm on vacation - don't take a computer), and that one passed me by.
>> This seems to be at the heart of it - it sounds as though Target did offer this exact accomodation, and she refused. <<
I see absolutely no reference to any accomodation made by Target.
>> 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. <<
Thank God you're not a pharmacist! A pharmacist is most certainly NOT supposed to fill any legal perscription. If he were, you could have a trained monkey do the job, not have a trained professional with an advanced degree!
As the article says, many, if not all, of them are abortificants. I am against abortificants.
>> Is it fair to say then, that you view the use of regular birth control pills as the equivalent of "killing"? <<
As a matter of fact, yes. Standard birth-control pills usually come with a "backup," which is an abortifacient drug that causes abortions in the event the pill does not work. I think it's outrageous that pro-life women are routinely given these drugs without any awareness at all that they may be getting pregnant and having abortions without their knowledge!
But this is yet another matter altogether. "Plan B" pills are specifically to cause abortions; they have no other intended effect than to cause abortions. From what I gather (and I am not sure about this) they seem to be akin to the famous RU-486. (They probably are massive doses of standard birth control pills.)
And it's not "in my view." It's a medical fact. This whole "in my view" nonsense with abortion is outrageous. It's as if an arsonist burns down a building, not believing there's someone trapped inside. Whether the arsonist believes there's a person there or not has no effect on the fact that there is a person in there.
A pharmacist is most certainly NOT supposed to fill any legal perscription.
I didn't say fill any prescription, I said "dispense any legal drug". There is a huge difference between filling any prescription that gets slapped down on the counter, and having a full range of drugs in stock to be dispensed as appropriate.
Your employee installs a computer to replace the abacus and quill pen you have been using to do your job, you learn to use the computer or leave.
What is your occupation, if I may ask?
same with kohl's department store, formally owned by Democrap Senator Kohl.
I disagree. If Joe works as a waiter for a restaurant for 10 years, and then the restaurant gets a liquor license, can he refuse to take orders for alcoholic beverages or refuse to take drinks with food because his Baptist or Wahabi religious beliefs are against alcohol?
While the particulars of this case (abortion) make it interesting, the general principles are employer vs employee. And in the US, it is the employer that usually wins - employees generally work 'at will' of the boss, and can be dismissed for almost any reason, especially those characterized as insubordination or a refusal to carry out the assigned work. Its called capitalism.
Only thing to do is find another employer.
No. I didn't save it. It was about smoking and overweight people costing more in health insurance. I didn't even read the whole thing. Somedays the insanity that runs rampant feels like a huge weight and you just have to take a break.
You equate taking a life with computer skills?!
Healthy Habits And The Bottom Line - Scotts Miracle Grow...Again!
Wrong. Missouri is an "at will" employment state. There are really only three exceptions that have been developed through case law. These are [being fired for]:
1. Refusing to perform an illegal act or an act contrary to a strong mandate of public policy.
2. Reporting wrongdoing or violations of law or public policy by the employer or fellow employees to superiors or third parties who have authority over the wrongdoer.
3. Acting in a manner that public policy would encourage, such as performing jury duty, seeking public office, or joining a labor union.
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.
Missouri, where this woman resides and worked, applies no such pressure on pharmacies. Just because the policy of a neighboring state and its governor were mentioned in the article doesn't mean that example has any bearing on the laws or policies of Missouri.
>> If Joe works as a waiter for a restaurant for 10 years, and then the restaurant gets a liquor license, can he refuse to take orders for alcoholic beverages or refuse to take drinks with food because his Baptist or Wahabi religious beliefs are against alcohol? <<
It's an issue of reasonable accomodation. In your example, such a restaurant depends on drink sales for its profits, so if she won't sell licquor, she is fundamentally incapable of doing her job at all.
Here's a better example: Tina has been waiting tables at a restaurant for years. The state law is changed making it easy for restaurants to get licquor licenses, so even the restaurant normally caters to families with kids and doesn't serve alcohol, it obtains a licquor license in case someone wants to hold a reception there or something.
Tina says she's a Baptist and cannot sell licquor. I would say that it would be reasonable for the restaurant to simply not schedule her to serve the function room when there is a party there.
>> Wrong. Missouri is an "at will" employment state. There are really only three exceptions that have been developed through case law. These are [being fired for]: <<
Not wrong. I noted that "in general, an employer has the right to hire or fire who they see fit." All I said was that "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 Missouri is an "at will" state, there simply are very state few laws regarding hiring and termination.
However, that is irrelevant. She is not suing under the laws of Missouri, but under the laws of the United States.
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.