Posted on 05/13/2005 7:14:39 AM PDT by ZGuy
Most Missouri pharmacists are bypassing the conscience debate by simply not stocking the controversial abortifacient morning-after pill according to a survey of pharmacies conducted by NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) Pro-Choice Missouri. NARAL found that, of 928 pharmacies surveyed statewide, less than a third – 29 percent – carried the Plan B prescription abortifacient, marketed as “emergency contraception.”
Abortion zealots and media alike are decrying the fact that in some rural regions, such as Shannon County and Barry County, not a single pharmacy will allow their employees to cooperate in the destruction of an unborn child. Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill that would force pharmacies to fill the prescription whether they disagree with abortion or not.
Last month Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency amendment to the state code, requiring pharmacists to dispense medication – even if filling the prescriptions violates their conscience and religious beliefs.
“The governor is trying to make a decision that must be left to the pharmacy,” said Illinois Republican Senator Frank Watson, according to a theledger.com report. Watson’s family pharmacy in Greenville, Ill. does not stock the morning-after pill. “It's an infringement on a business decision and also on the pharmacist's right of conscience.”
Abortion advocates argue the morning-after pill is nothing more than an emergency contraceptive, denying that a “fertilized embryo” is indeed a small person. “Emergency contraceptive pills can be abortifacient if they are taken after ovulation has occurred,” emphasized retired physician Dr. Gertrude Murphy, testifying at a public hearing in Massachusetts, where a decision to force pharmacists to dispense the pill is being considered before the legislature. “An abortifacient is defined here as any medication or device that causes the death of the developing human after fertilization.”
While lawmakers in North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and Indiana have proposed conscience legislation that would allow pharmacists to decline some prescriptions based on their conscience, Missouri, New Jersey and California are considering proposals that would force pharmacists to dispense the pill, even if it conflicts with their morals.
What is their potential liability? Isn't this the drug that sometimes has dangerous side effects and was to be dispensed by two visits to doctors? How can Naral or anyone else force a business to accept that liability? If, five years from now, they take this drug off the market, everyone associated in any way will be subject to crippling lawsuits.
Good on us! (I'm from MO)
So, here we have an example of government meddling in business decisions because of government ideology.
If the pharmacy owner doesn't want to stock a certain item the government will tell him he must do so. Government ideology trumps business decisions.
But, after the pharmacies are "forced", by government fiat, to stock the morning-after pill does that mean that each pharmacy must keep a "large supply" on hand or will a stock of one or two pills be enough?
Young Republican governor Blunt(MO) will veto any such legislation.
Was married to a pharmacist, owned a pharmacy, and am pro life even in the case of rape and/or incest.
Does the pharmacy sell birth control pills?
Ping to self for later pingout.
There's a big difference in devices and drugs that keep sperm and egg from meeting, and in a drug that is specifically designed for the purpose of destroying a unique human genetic combination. Plan B is nothing other than a human pesticide, just like Zyklon B.
It's totally his business what he does or does not sell/stock.
If you want to sell it, open your own pharmacy.
Besides if it ticks off enough people, they will shop somewhere else. If they are numerous enough the shop owner will change his position or make less money/go out of business.
The government of Illinois thinks nothing of telling its pharmacists they must dispense this drug despite how much the pharmacist objects to it on moral grounds.
This legal fiction and exercise of bold power could lead us to forcing anyone selling magazines to carry smut, on the grounds that if smut is legal, and a customer demands to buy it, then the merchant must sell it.
I wonder if Illinois will move to protect the rights of gun owners to force stores to carry the guns and ammunition they want to buy, no matter how much the store may object?
I won't hold my breath. Those who seek to force pharmacists to sell these oral abortifactants don't care about being consistant, and neither do they care what rights of any third party they trample on while advancing their cause. Why should they? They don't care about the rights of the newly conceived child either.
If no doctor will perform an abortion, will NARAL lobby for the state to conscript doctors for the task? In effect, when we tax the doctor and all citizens to pay for the abortion services, we have conscripted people as tax slaves for the time necessary to earn the funds to pay the tax. I guess this mindset is just another stride down the road to surfdom predicted by F.A. Hayek in his book of that name.
The only peaceful course of action is for government to open its own pharmacy- or use local state agents like the many tax auditors or snowplow operators to be on call to give the pills away to whoever claims the need.
A private business owner has the right to stock whatever they want, and to decline to stock whatever they want. That's what we mean by "private."
It's misleading, though, when this is framed solely in terms of "whether pharmacists should legally be allowed to deny women oral contraceptives based on their personal moral or religious views."
It would be more accurate to say that it's a question of --
"Whether pharmacists should be compelled by law to dispense drugs which are medically or ethically objectionable."
This second wording is more accurate because
(1) the physicians in question are not "denying women oral contraceptives." There are still thousands, probably tens of thousands of pharmacies and clinics where women can get oral contraceptives. You can also get "Plan B" (which purportedly should be taken within 72 hours of intercourse) over the Internet with 1-day Express Air Delivery.
If I run a grocery that does not sell beer, I am not "denying people beer."
(2) It is not just a matter of a "personal" (in the sense of idiosyncratic") view. The Hippocratic Oath, written in the fourth century BC and one of the oldest documents possessed by the human race, contains the words:
I will apply measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
Clearly, from a "business decision" point of view, the pharmacy owner has exactly as much right as any other businessperson to decide to stock or not stock a product. From a larger perspective, though, it should be acknowledged that the pharmacists' objections have less to do with a personal scruple, than with ethical standards which have existed since the earliest days of the pharmaceutical profession.
Anyone who really wants Plan B can order it online. There are plenty of online pharmacies that stock it, unfortunately.
In our semi rural area there is exactly ONE pharmacy on that list. Otherwise it would be a 20 mile drive to the next pharmacy.
It's not as if these places of business are selling magazines, or some other commodity.
I can only repeat, I find this offensive.
DUH.
take two demulen pills twice a day for three days. all the docs have to do is write one month pack of birth control pills and not say anything on the prescription, but write down how to take the pills.
Voila, instant morning after pill.
It's not as if these places of business are selling magazines, or some other commodity.
Of course a drug is a commodity. What do you think it is, a sacrament?
And does this mean you think that pharmacists must be required to stock ALL POSSIBLE PRESCIPTION DRUGS, AT ALL TIMES? Really? Take a good, close look at your PDR.
Nobody should be required by law to cooperate in the destruction of a human life. That's about as profound an injustice as a government could commit. If you can't object ont he grounds that "this is going to kill somebody," you are approaching the totalitarian claim that the State has the total authority to coerce consciences.
What is it?
True enough. But the same mentality gave rise to both--sex for the sole purpose of selfish pleasure, and let's not forget that that ol' witch Sanger got this whole ball rolling by lobbying for birth control--not abortion. So drawing a distinction there is a huge mistake IMHO.
Believe me, refusing to stock or fill Plan B is not going to cause a pharmacy to go out of business. It's not a significant enough percentage of business. I've got to say, as a pharmacist, I have dispensed this a few times and not thought much about it. However, all this controversy and states trying to FORCE professionals to do things they find morally objectionable is making me feel like refusing to fill these prescriptions in a stand of solidarity with those who want to stand up for their principles. Even though I myself have not refused to fill this (even though I would like to) I fully support anyone that objects on moral grounds to not fill it. The patient can go elsewhwere. Deep down I hope more pharmacies stop stocking it so pharmacists won't be put in this position any more. Push has come to shove and it looks like this may be the only alternative.
I had a discussion a week ago on a local newspaper forum. There were two "physicians" there who were claiming that the pharmacist shouldn't have the right to choose what to dispense or what not to.
Hypocritical is all I can call them, they can claim any procedure to be out of their specialty and refer a patient to someone else, even if they've done it hundreds of times. Since every case is slightly different, they can simply say someone else could be better. But they don't want to allow pharmacists to have that right. Steamed me to no end.
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.