Skip to comments.New Jersey Forces Pharmacists to Dispense Abortifacient Drugs Regardless of Conscience
Posted on 11/06/2007 6:45:43 AM PST by NYer
TRENTON, New Jersey, November 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) The state of New Jersey has passed a law denying the conscientious objection right of pharmacists, won in other states through lengthy court battles, to refrain from dispensing abortifacient and contraceptive drugs.
Discussions of morals and matters of conscience are admirable, but should not come into play when subjective beliefs conflict with objective medical decisions, said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, a bill sponsor.
The decision comes just days after Pope Benedict XVI gave his support to pharmacists worldwide who reject the culture of death in their profession. Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role, the pope said on Monday.
He called the right of conscientious objection, a right that must be recognized for people exercising this profession, so as to enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.
The New Jersey law was passed in the context of numerous battles in courts and legislatures between pro-abortion governors and pharmacists fighting for conscience rights currently raging across the US.
Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich was forced by courts to back down on a law similar to that passed last week in New Jersey. The order attempted to force pharmacists in Illinois to dispense death-dealing drugs, was recently obliged by the courts to back down. The decision followed a long-running dispute between four pharmacist employees of Walgreens stores who were fired when they refused to dispense abortifacient drugs.
The American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law firm, sued Walgreens on behalf of their former employees, saying the company had violated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which makes it illegal for any employer to discriminate against any person in any manner ... because of such persons conscientious refusal ... to participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
In 2005, Janet Napolitano, Arizonas aggressively pro-abortion governor vetoed legislation that attempted to recognise the rights of conscience of pharmacists. Napolitano said, Pharmacies and other health care service providers have no right to interfere in the lawful personal medical decisions made by patients and their doctors.
In Wisconsin, when pharmacist Neil Noesen refused in 2002 to dispense oral contraceptives he was reprimanded and fined by his pharmacy board and limits were set on his license to practice as a pharmacist.
Currently Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota have laws protecting the rights of pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs according to their conscience and Florida, Illinois, Maine and Tennessee have some legislation that could be so applied.
New Jersey joins California where pharmacists must fill all prescriptions and may only refuse with the approval of their employer and ensure that the customer can get the drugs elsewhere. In Washington state pharmacists are challenging a similar law.
US Pharmacists Battle over Forced Dispensation of Abortion Drugs
Illinois Court Rules Pharmacists May Reject Plan B
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Dante places traitors to God in the ninth, lowest, circle of Hell.
The Left denies that unless it suits their purposes, NJ is sliding toward hopelessness, there is not much left there really.
Another possible, just as accurate, wording for the headline could have been:
“New Jersey Ensures Pharmacy Customers Can Recieve Legal Perscription Drugs From Any Licensed Pharmacy”
Any law that forces people to engage in commerce against their will is a farce.
The state of New Jersey may as well pass legislation forcing Toyota dealers to sell Fords.
Any law that forces people to engage in commerce against their will is a farce.
The state of New Jersey may as well pass legislation forcing Toyota dealers to sell Fords.”
PHARMED AND DANGEROUS............
The Left considers an unborn baby more threatening to society than the enemies who want to kill us.
Then you support the cabdrivers who refuse service to the blind with a dog, alcoholics with alcohol, immodest women, Jews ...
Yet, it's ok for the muzzie at the grocery store to refuse to sell people pork products. NICE.
Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich was forced by courts to back down on a law similar
For the record, here in IL there was no 'law' per se. 'My' idiot gov Blagojevich issued an executive fiat that 'it shall be done' - period. The IL General Assembly was completely bypassed.
And speaking of Blago, that incompetent moron has everyone so ticked off that a Recall Bill is being introduced in the IL House. Something we never needed since IL became a state in 1818. And that's saying something considering all the crooks who've served in office.
I appreciate the pharmacists’ objections.
At the same time, however, I don’t want Muslim cab drivers to be able to deny me a ride if I’ve got a bottle of wine or a dog with me. Or a Muslim grocery checker to refuse to bag my ham.
So, to be objective, I guess I’d have tell the pharmacists to get different jobs, just like I’d tell the cabbies. :/
This one’s not easy. At least not for me.
That would seemingly be true if the pharmacy itself made the decision to carry the lethal drugs, and then dealt with the dissenting pharmacist in an employer-employee relationship. However, it appears here that the State of New Jersey has stepped in to strip both the employer (the pharmacy) and the employee (the pharmacist) of their proper role in exercising the due diligence required by any kind of medical ethics, i.e. to ensure that medicines are truly therapeutic; in other words, to ensure that both the type of medicine and the dosage will do no harm to life and health.
A pharmacist is not a vending machine and is not even some kind of glorified sales clerk. A pharmacist has a professional duty to employ his or her specialized knowledge and training to cure disease, heal injury, provide relief from pain and other symptomatic distress, and not to apply drugs to actually cause disorders, suffering or death.
FTA: Discussion of morals and matters of conscience is admirable, [as long as nobody actually acts on it] but should not come into play when
subjective beliefs objective ethical obligations conflict with objective profitable medical decisions, said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, a bill sponsor."
There. Fixed it.
Oh, and check out my tagline, a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
That's between the salespeople and their employer. It's none of the government's business.
Neither is this.
And let the scrupulous Muslim cabbies display an Islamic emblem on their cab in full view, so the rest of us can boycott them into bankruptcy.
Pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense anything
that will cause harm to any human, at any stage of life.
If the store wants to dispense the medications, let the manager do it,
or another pharmacist who has no compunctions. If that
cannot be done, create a caveat to the law which lets the
physician dispense the medication.
(p.s. physicians can’t normally dispense meds except for
small trial regimens due to the possibility of
their own bias, mistakes, poor knowledge of other drugs
the patient is taking and its side effects, poor knowledge,
of drug interactions, and pharmacokinetic profiles, the
possibility of prescribing to get kickbacks from drug companies
, etc....but in this case, let them dispense the meds.
That way the blood of the child will be on their heads.
>I wonder how many of their office nurses will have objections to
Stopping the development of a human life, at any stage
is quite different from missing a cab ride.
I would bet the cab driver who didn’t drive you to a
hospital to have your baby delivered and there
was harm to the child, would be prosecuted
if he didn’t drive you cause you had a bottle of wine
in your baggage.