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
Lester, I have no expectations whatsoever regarding your actions.
Just out of curiosity, would you serve in combat or would you request a religious exemption? Or would you serve in combat but only as a medic? I know it's off-topic, and I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I was just wondering. Clearly you are willing to fight the government and its laws if obeying the laws forced you to commit immoral acts. What would your response be in a World War II type of draft?
Respectfully, "mumps"
May God bless her, and find her a better job.
It'd depend on the circumstances.
Plan B can have the effect of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Regular birth control pills can have the effect of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Both can also stop ovaries from releasing an egg or stop an egg from being fertilized by sperm.
IUDs affect the uterine lining, making the uterus hostile to sperm and preventing fertilization and implantation.
Plan B contains only progestin (Previn, another brand, contains both estrogen and progestin). It will not terminate or otherwise harm a pregnancy following implantation.
Your "big difference" does not exist.
Hence, if you view Plan B as an "abortion pill", you also view regular birth control pills as "abortion pills" and IUDs as "abortion devices." That may indeed be your view, but it is disingenuous at best to feign outrage at Plan B while otherwise accepting sale and use of regular birth control pills and IUDs.
Huh? The question was, since regular birth control pills and Plan B operate with the effective mechanism (each being capable of preventing implantation, stopping ovaries from releasing an egg, or stopping an egg from being fertilized by sperm), do you view both birth control methods as the moral equivalent of (in your words) "murdering Jews." If not, on what basis do you distinguish the two?
Your oblique dodge of the question and your reference to "debatables" in the issue just highlights the juvenile bombast in your casual accusations that others on this board are the equal of "Nazis" and "murderers."
Should have read "same effective mechanism . . . "
The culpability for murder is based in great part on the specific intention of the assailant. Again, I believe that the distribution of an abortifaciant which is intended for the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is, in fact, material participation in murder. Whether or not hormonal contraception is a abortifaciant of a primary or secondary effect is debatable and so, therefore, is the degree of culpable homicide in that instance.
If not, on what basis do you distinguish the two?
The intent.
Your oblique dodge of the question and your reference to "debatables" in the issue just highlights the juvenile bombast in your casual accusations that others on this board are the equal of "Nazis" and "murderers."
"Juvenile bombast"? What a silly Ad Hominem! Your fallacious attempt at insulting me rather than dealing with my response does not reflect well on you. Either you do not understand the role intent plays in culpability or your are deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion. Either way, you are confusing two different situations in a fallacious attempt at a false impeachment of my statement. I certainly hope that the letters "law" in your screen name don't have anything to do with your profession!
This from a poster who gratuitously and repeatedly labeled fellow FReepers the equal of Nazis, murderers of Jews, and Adolf Eichmann. You and irony are not on speaking terms, I see.
Question: [O]n what basis do you distinguish the two?
Your answer: The intent.
So you distinguish the moral culpability of users of two contraceptives of identical effect on the basis of the "intent" of the user? What the heck does that mean?
The intent of the user of either regular birth control pills or Plan B is not discernibly different (prevention of pregnancy), and the effect of the contraceptive used is not at all different. Yet one user you declare the equivalent of a Nazi and a "murderer of Jews," and the other you declare, I suppose, just a user of a contraceptive. You are hopeless.
"Still" at a loss? Odd. First time you mentioned this. As for your affected curiosity about why someone "cares what you think," do you suppose it could be because this is a discussion board? Because debate and acquisition of opposing views is the very purpose of posting here? Just a thought.
As for the question itself, I see you have no interest in answering. So be it.
No, I did not label anyone the equal of Nazis, murderers of Jews, and Adolf Eichmann. I only pointed out that their arguments in defense of killing innocent human beings as part of one's employment were the same.
You and irony are not on speaking terms, I see.
I would imagine that a great number of things would seem ironic to someone for whom making basic distinctions is clearly so difficult.
So you distinguish the moral culpability of users of two contraceptives of identical effect on the basis of the "intent" of the user? What the heck does that mean?
It is similar to the distinction between homicide and manslaughter. I now suspect that you might be incapable of understanding this simple difference.
The intent of the user of either regular birth control pills or Plan B is not discernibly different (prevention of pregnancy), and the effect of the contraceptive used is not at all different.
This would only be true for someone like you who presumably sees no difference in whether or not an innocent human being is killed in the process. Most other people posses a moral aversion to such motivations.
Yet one user you declare the equivalent of a Nazi and a "murderer of Jews," and the other you declare, I suppose, just a user of a contraceptive.
Again, I only pointed out that their arguments were equivalent. Someone who knowingly uses an abortifacient would bear the moral culpability of that act. It would be mitigated, however, in someone who does not knowingly do so.
So you view the use of regular birth control pills as the equivalent of abortion. Fine. Say that and stop all the fancy footwork.
And of course, since the use of both regular birth control pills and Plan B are, in your view, the equivalent of abortion, all of your rather strange "intent" arguments become meaningless.
I would normally scold anyone who attributes to me a fallaciously straw-man argument that I never said, but I have now come to understand that you simply can not do any better than that.
Fine. Say that and stop all the fancy footwork.
Again, you seem to be completely incapable of understanding how intent affects culpability.
And of course, since the use of both regular birth control pills and Plan B are, in your view, the equivalent of abortion,
Both certainly can act as abortifacients if they prevent the implantation of an embryo, but that doesn't mean that I view these two acts as always being equivalent.
all of your rather strange "intent" arguments become meaningless.
I can certainly see how this discussion might seem meaningless to someone like you who has shown themselves to be utterly incapable understanding this basic principle. Again, I sincerely hope that the letters L-A-W in your screen name have nothing to do with your profession. It would be sooooo sad.
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.