Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New arena for birth-control battle
Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr

Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.

Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.

Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."

The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?

No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.

"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."

But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.

"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: conscienceclause; pharmacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 781-789 next last
To: SoothingDave
Then why 50 million abortions in the last 40 years?

Because abortion is now legal.

Without contraception we would have had 200 million?

In the former Soviet Union, abortions were quite common due to the fact that contraception was tough to procur.

You don't have any numbers to show. History shows that contraception came out and then abortion rose.

No. History shows that abortion was made legal and that abortions therefore became more numerous.

Following your logic, the civil rights movement can be just as responsible for the increase in abortions. After all, the civil rights movement was followed by an increase in abortion.

421 posted on 05/05/2005 1:55:53 PM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife
The Pharmacy does NOT sell the product when that Pharmacist is on duty.

Sorry, but that's not necessarily how employment works. If the pharmacist has it in his contract that he doesn't have to sell such products, then thats a different issue becasue then accomodations are made as a condition of employment. What ever happened to a business owner deciding what is to be sold in his own store? And why would a pharmacist want to work for someone who provides such materials. Is the cashier at 7-11 obligated to sell the porn that's behind the counter? What about the employee at a grocery store who believes alcohol consumption, or even caffiene consumption, is immoral and against their religous beliefs? Can they refuse service to customers? What about a bartender who finds alcohol religiously or morally wrong? Does he serve only virgin drinks? All of these people know what they will be selling before they get their jobs and should have made their decisions accordingly. The patient is FREE as well to choose another Pharmacist.

The pharmacist wasn't forced to be a pharmacist and was fully aware of what the profession entailed. He could have chosen another line of work.

422 posted on 05/05/2005 1:56:11 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Then why 50 million abortions in the last 40 years?

Because abortion is now legal.

Your reasoning is as untested as mine. I recognize that the law change had an effect, but I don't believe that just because something is made legal that people will rush to do it.

They had to have their minds changed first about the "Free and easy" sexuality to be had with no consequences. This was the result of contraceptives.

In the former Soviet Union, abortions were quite common due to the fact that contraception was tough to procur.

They were quite common due to the lack of desire to bring children into a Communist hellhole.

Following your logic, the civil rights movement can be just as responsible for the increase in abortions. After all, the civil rights movement was followed by an increase in abortion.

I understand that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but that doesn't mean that such things must be false. Certainly the availability of contraceptives caused a change in sexual behavior. Can you agree on that?

And sexual behavior leads to pregnancy. Which leads to abortion.

SD

423 posted on 05/05/2005 2:04:26 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Actually, I believe that the church does not make this distinction. Forcing the delivery of a child that will not be sufficiently developed to survive is not considered any different than aborting the child. I will try to find a link for this but I remember seeing this very recently.


424 posted on 05/05/2005 2:06:32 PM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
I agree that an employee has to do the job or seek a different employer. This is a private employment issue; it does not require new legislation.

What this article deals with, is an attempt by the state to coerce, not only individual pharmacists, but pharmacies (businesses) to fill all prescriptions for contraceptive and abortive devices.

The governor of Illinois is prepared to deny licenses to these "conscientious objector" pharmacists AND pharmacies.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ill. Pharmacies Required to Fill Prescriptions for Birth Control

By Kari Lydersen

Special to The Washington Post

Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page A02 CHICAGO, April 1 -- Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the "morning-after" pill.

He also established a toll-free number that residents can call to report refusals by pharmacies.

(Emphasis added by me) ------------------------------------------------------------

This is state coercion on a private business and an attempt to coerce conscience. To use you analogy, it would be more like the state saying that every video store must service the customers' desire to buy porn; either by selling the porn, or possibly by making a referral only to a conveniently-located porn store for same-day service.

425 posted on 05/05/2005 2:07:23 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (\\\The cafeteria closed. But the food's real good at the Bishop's Table. ///////)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I recognize that the law change had an effect, but I don't believe that just because something is made legal that people will rush to do it.

Abortion is a medical procedure. When it was illegal, it would only be practiced by shady doctors. Few women were willing to take the risk. When it was made legal, an entire medical infrastructure was created to deliver quick, efficient, safe abortions.

Certainly the availability of contraceptives caused a change in sexual behavior. Can you agree on that?

Absolutely. Though, there were certain other factors at play. The women's movement, for one.

426 posted on 05/05/2005 2:08:26 PM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"Sorry, but that's not necessarily how employment works. If the pharmacist has it in his contract that he doesn't have to sell such products, then thats a different issue because then accomodations are made as a condition of employment. What ever happened to a business owner deciding what is to be sold in his own store? And why would a pharmacist want to work for someone who provides such materials. Is the cashier at 7-11 obligated to sell the porn that's behind the counter? What about the employee at a grocery store who believes alcohol consumption, or even caffiene consumption, is immoral and against their religous beliefs? Can they refuse service to customers? What about a bartender who finds alcohol religiously or morally wrong? Does he serve only virgin drinks? All of these people know what they will be selling before they get their jobs and should have made their decisions accordingly. The patient is FREE as well to choose another Pharmacist.

The pharmacist wasn't forced to be a pharmacist and was fully aware of what the profession entailed. He could have chosen another line of work."


Once again, I doubt very much that the store owner would dare push the hot button moral/religious issue here and seek to compel an employee to kill a baby. No way, no how is an employer going to incur the adverse legal/financial/publicity effects of such an issue. We aren't talking about compelling someone to sell porn who isn't morally in agreement with it. We ARE talikng about forcing someone to commit murder; there is a WORLD of difference.

The practice of Pharmacy is a wonderful profession with many rewarding aspects. However, in NO profession is anyone compelled to violate their moral beliefs. Some physicians prescribe the morning after pill, some do not. A physician who does not is not a bad physician, nor should he have chosen another field of work. He just says NO to that particular aspect of the job. So is a pharmacist free to say NO to an aspe ct of his job that violates his religious beliefs. A physician knows that patients will then go to someone else to get their "morning after pill". The Pharmacist who refuses to murder a baby knows the patient will get it elsewhere; both the Pharmacist and the patient have exercised their rights, and their freedoms to choose.
427 posted on 05/05/2005 2:10:35 PM PDT by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife

Bump


428 posted on 05/05/2005 2:13:14 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Though, there were certain other factors at play. The women's movement, for one.

Of course, you can't really have a women's movement without women being able to remain unpregnant. So it all ties in together.

SD

429 posted on 05/05/2005 2:15:29 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: ga medic

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for".


430 posted on 05/05/2005 2:20:37 PM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: WolfRunnerWoman

hundreds huh?

lets see...over 14 years at 300 times...thats about every 17 days. thats only a little over 21 times a year. sheesh...thats still more than i get.


431 posted on 05/05/2005 2:32:56 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (I post the story, then turn the discussion back over to the adults...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Regarding the Illinois thing, I'm pretty sure that pharmacies that did not stock birth control in the first place were exempt, although I would imagine they are an extremely small minority.


432 posted on 05/05/2005 2:40:36 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife

The Wisconsin state pharmacy board disagrees. They revoked the license of the pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription.


433 posted on 05/05/2005 2:43:30 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

"The Wisconsin state pharmacy board disagrees. They revoked the license of the pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription."

Documentation? Circumstances? Urban legend? Also got into a fight with the patient and broke his nose?


434 posted on 05/05/2005 2:45:59 PM PDT by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife

If someone's moral belief prevents them from doing their jobs then they should get another one.

I wish someone would make an attempt to take this to court as there is no doubt that it will be thrown out as fast as you can say "jack robinson"

Presumably you filed "Friend of the Court" briefs supporting the Muslim in Florida whose "moral belief" was that she could take her driver's license photo in a burka.


435 posted on 05/05/2005 2:47:01 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

No it does not go together. The founders of the womens' movement in the 1840s and 50s were vehmently against abortion.


436 posted on 05/05/2005 2:50:35 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Bushforlife
After re-looking it up, they actually didn't revoke the license, but they did limit it, as well as reprimand the pharmacist.

Clicky.
437 posted on 05/05/2005 2:52:45 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

No one "needs" this- even for health reasons. I have severe endometriosis and doctors have been trying to 'treat' it for years with birth control bills. These pills change your healthy body to make it unhealthy and unable to concieve a child- a side effect is that it suppresses out-of-control hormones like with endometriosis. I didn't want the unhealthy part so I chose other treatments- and likewise I didn't give money to companies that sell these abortives (birth control pills are abortive) and an industry that thrives on sexual immorality and has no standard.

By the way, I'm a single 24 year old protestant woman--before you make assumptions that I am old and ultra-conservative.

Pharmacists don't deny the drug because of sex- but because it's abortifacient. Who cares whether it's for health reasons!?!? You can't make someone be an accessory to murder.


438 posted on 05/05/2005 2:57:23 PM PDT by FreepinforTerri (Send Attorney George J. Felos Rebukes via Email. His email is proofg@aol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30

"If these pharmacists are morally opposed to filling a perscription, as per a physician's orders, they need to find a different line of work. It is not their place to hold moral judgement over what a specific medication does."

They became pharamacists to dispense MEDICINE to heal and help people, not kill innocent unborn babies (yes, birth control pills work this way). Telling them to find a different line of work because they have moral fiber is assanine at best. People shouldn't be prevented from helping people because they refuse to harm them.

Your viewpoint is disgusting.


439 posted on 05/05/2005 3:00:45 PM PDT by FreepinforTerri (Send Attorney George J. Felos Rebukes via Email. His email is proofg@aol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

I've got endometriosis---severe endometriosis, typically treated with BC. I SAID NO because it's abortive, and although I'm sexually abstinent, I dind't want to put human pesticides in my body-or give money to those who make them.

I had to find an NFP only Catholic who wouldn't JUDGE ME for being abstinent or refusing birht control. Options exist. You just have to find them.


440 posted on 05/05/2005 3:02:42 PM PDT by FreepinforTerri (Send Attorney George J. Felos Rebukes via Email. His email is proofg@aol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 781-789 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson