I don’t usually write about politics and for good reason. But this just floored me. Apparently some pharmacists are refusing to fulfill perscriptions for contraceptives on moral grounds. It seems some of the contraceptives being refused are morning-after pills, similar to the abortion pill, RU-486, though most morning-after pills can’t terminate a pregnancy. It seems it all comes down to your definition of pregnancy. The article doesn’t make it clear if standard birth control perscriptions are being refused or if it’s only controversial “emergency contraceptives.”
I guess I’m just surprised this is a political issue. I would think the drug stores wouldn’t allow their pharmacists to do that. It seems like a business issue. If a waitress refused to serve somebody for moral reasons, they’ be fired. It’s not as simple as that, but that’s the first thought that comes to my mind.
More than anything I’m surprised at the ways the pro-life cause is often acted out. It seems we often want to deal with everything when it’s too late. Denying birth control seems like a silly thing to be up in arms about, and hardly an effective way to get your message across. It just seems like a good way to piss people off.
You said “It seems it all comes down to your definition of pregnancy.”
Yes, it does.
I don’t care if you believe life doesn’t start until after birth, or if you believe “every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great”. Take out the pregnancy issue. How can a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription? We have activist pharmacists now? Unbelievable.
I guess that’s my big question: what is this activism going to accomplish? If we take the beginning of life to the point that we hold sperm in such high esteem, what kind of activism will that prompt? It just seems so ridiculous. Maybe we should start picketing women who can’t get pregnant or men who are infertile–their bodies aren’t allowing life to happen so we better put a stop to that. How ludicrous. Maybe we should just start stoning adulterers again.
I’m not sure your argument in the comments has much bearing on anything Kevin (really, you must try to not argue like my students, heh), but I’d have to agree that I’m a bit confused by this.
I suppose they could get the drug at other places, and I’d have to see if there’s a precedent for drugs being refused to be doled out in other cases (I know there is if they think you might be abusing them, aren’t prescribed, etc.), but still. Is this something individual pharmacists are doing, or the actual pharmacy? The distinction is a rather important one.
Hmmm, I would agree that THIS approach to combating abortion is a bad one. It’s not quite equatable, but it’s almost like a grocer refusing to sell ice cream to a fat person because of its affect on their health. In the end, people make their own decisions, and they have to live with them, no matter what your feelings are on the subject.
If a waitress refused to serve meat because she felt it was immoral, would the restaurant fire her? Youbetcha!