All I have to say, is keep your moral beliefs to yourself! How'd you like to know that so many women are unhappy having a child...maybe even neglecting it and beating it. That would be so much better in your eyes, I guess.

Signed,
It's MY body, not YOURS

So if the "Pharmacist" has such strong moral beliefs that they can decide not to dispense legal drugs. What happens when that decision reuslts in someone dying, does that make them legally guilty of murder? If they can not dispense legally approved drugs, they have no business in that profession. I do not "believe" that anyone should be able to force their religious beliefs onto another adult.

I want to be born and see this world too, just like you.

Who are you to take my life and make the decision of life or death for me.

If you don't want me, give me life and give me to a loving mother and father who knows the Truth about Gods Plan.

It's evident you do not, if you want to take my life. I'll bet you'd euthenize my born family members too, if it inconvenienced your life.

As a licensed professional, sometimes we have to do things that we do not agree with. It is part of accepting diversity. Can a physician that is morally against prescribing the drug, refuse to help a patient? In cases where another professional is present, often they can take over, but if alone, they have to do what is best for the patient. If, as a pharmacist, you work as the only one on duty, it is your job to do what is best for the patient, which is determined by the physician.

If a woman lives anywhere outside downtown Seattle, she could miss the 72-hour deadline if she has to check different pharmacies until she finds one where the pharmacist feels like filling a legal prescription. That is absurd and shouldn't be allowed. Given this issue, pharmacists should be required to sign a statement that they will promptly fill all prescriptions presented to them. No, they shouldn't have the right to pick and choose based on personal morals. If they need to do that, they should be in a different profession, perhaps a ministry, not at the pharmacy front desk serving the public. Pharmacists should comply with the law or be put in positions where there is always another pharmacist available who will fill these prescriptions. Choice is the law of the land.

A pharmacist who refuses to dispense a drug, any drug, should have his/her license suspended. That license is not granted to them by any church or religous belief but by the people of Washington.

Hypothetically, does this mean a fundamentalist baptist pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for a person with mental health problems and tell them to go visit a church to "drive out their deamon spirits" instead.

Are there any other exceptions to requiring pharmacists to dispense legal prescriptions? If not, then there is no legal or ethical basis for denying service and those that refuse should be subject to discipline. If there are legal exceptions, then this requires closer examination to determine whether this is a legitimate exception. IMHO this exception will not meet any legal test.

I work in the pharmacy world and feel that if the pharmacy is unwilling to carry the morning after pill it shouldn't have to. If the person who the pill, has to look for it, thats their problem. Maybe they should have had a little more thought in what they did the night or day before. With all the other sexally transmited disease out there. A little more thought should be taken in what your actions are.

Do I think pharmasists shold be forced to give out the "Day after" pill if they dont want to? Hell Yes!!! Who do these people think they are GOD? If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchin.

The "State" provides Pharmacists a License that allows them the opportunity to make a very comfortable living.
The "trade-off" is that they legally dispense products that in some instances they may not fully support. In this case, they need to either dispense the morning after pill, or get into another line of work.

No...pharmacist should not be able to pick and choose which pill they can dispense and to whom. That would be discriminating and to refuse to dispence a pill that is for women only is taking their civil rights away. Was the doctor kidding when he advised that women could get the medication through onine services? In 72 hours? yeah right!
Also, if a pharmacist does refuse to give such medication to a woman then I want them to put a sign on their counter stating that, so I know who to boycott.

I concour with Pharmacists who have adopted a "conscience clause," saying they should not have to dispense a drug if it violates their moral beliefs.
Science has clear evidence that a human life begins at conception. That this human life not part of the mothers body, therefore the drivel Its My Body is rubbish. If Washington state passes a law to crimialize Pharmacists who act according to their conscience, I would reccomend they either disobey the law or leave for a state who has no such law.

What if a pharmacist was morally opposed to heart transplants and therefore refused to fill prescriptions for anti-rejection drugs that transplant recipients have to take for the rest of their lives?

While it is true that many pharmacy options are available in Seattle there are many rural and low-income women in this state that don't have the option to just go to another pharmacy. For Dr. Macaulay to suggest that anyone could get the drugs they need online illustrates that he is not considering the entire population of patients who might be denied access.

Are there any pharmacists who refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions?

I feel that Pharmacist should have the right to refuse carrying the morning after pill but should also be required to let people know they don't when doing advertising or on their listings in the telephone directories. That way it's would reduce vital time for someone in urgent need of the medication.

I am so tired of so called "Christians" constantly trying to force their beliefs on people weather they want to hear them or not. If a pharmasist does not want to dispense a leagal drug with a legal prescription, Then that pharmasist should consider a career change. Perhaps they should go into the ministry where they can spout their narrow minded opinions to their hearts content.

Women have been refused traditionl birth control medications by pharmicists before, and this is unacceptable; many times 'the pill' is used for purposes other than birth control; having a history of endermetriosis, I know this for a fact. I would think such issues are between a patient and her doctor.

I think, given a woman must obtain a doctor's prescription for the 'morning-after pill'(which takes time), that it is reasonable in light of the 72 hour window that a pharmicist supply her with a legal drug. The male guest suggests that ordering the precription online is an option. I find that laughable -- as if it would get to a person in 72 hours, not to mention the possibility of recieving less than quality medications. If pharmicists were intended to make decisions about what medications their customers should recieve, why have prescriptions in the first place? Noting and preventing a medical error of conflicting medications is one thing; making a arbitrary moral choice for a woman is quite another.

Chris wrote "I do not 'believe' that anyone should be able to force their religious beliefs onto another adult." Yet this is what requiring pharmacists to provide the morning after pill does.

We complain about officials that followed Hitler's directions rather than follow their conscience yet we expect pharmasicts to do the same thing? Both are life and death issues. Pharmasists work in a private industry thus why should we single them out for providing a controversial product, especially if they could be held libel for what could potentially turn out to be an unsafe product. Doctors aren't Gods; they too are moral agents that can make mistakes. And finally, whatever this issue is about it is not about discrimination against women. I am a women and would refuse to give it in the same position. Furthermore, most consciensious objectors would probably be equally opposed to dispensing it whether the perscription is picked up by a man or a woman.

I read the arguments that say that we should force pharmacists to dispense drugs despite their conscience, and I wonder how long before all surgeons will be required to perform abortions. After all, they serve the public, their license is issued by the state, and they have no say in how their business is run. At least that's how I read the comments presented above. Do any of you want to step up and try to make the argument that all surgeons should be forced to perform abortions?

The people of Washington grant pharmacists a license. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense any drug he/she should have that license revoked.

As a health care professional I'm expected to care for smokers, yet I am vehemently opposed to smoking. As a care provider, as is a pharmacist,I am concerned with the needs of my patients, not my own.

It frightens me to think that someone with a 16th century mentality is allowed to handle drugs.

It's a pharmacist's job to dispense medications legally prescribed by a physician. They should not be allowed to pick and choose which medications they will dispense, this isn't their job. If they have a problem with dispensing any drugs at all they need to choose an entirely different profession.

I am flabberghasted that this is even a discussion. Any pharmacy should have the liberty to stock and sell whatever drugs and prescriptions it wants to. A pharmacy is a business in the health care profession. Pharmacists are NOT public servants and we cannot force them to do anything they do not want to.
And who are the goofballs making this a religious issue? This has nothing to do with religion. This is a civil liberties issue. How is a religious belief being imposed on you from a pharmacist who refuses to sell this product?
I also saw the King5 interview with the person who said that pharmacists cannot refuse this health care. This isn't health care - this is a contraceptive. I mean - you've got to be kidding. Trying to make this a "health care" issue?
If my pharmacist does not carry or sell the drug I need, then I go to one that does. I don't whine and try to get my government to force them to sell it, thereby taking away the pharmacist's civil liberty.

This "morning after" pill is nothing more than an act of murder for a womens convenience for not taking responsibility for her actions. We talk about how about the "womens rights", well how about the babies right, how about the pharmacists right. Planned parenthood has been the biggest downfall of our society. Women think thay are going forward, you are not going forward when you murder babies in the name of rights, we are not going forward when we murder deformed babies as they have started doing in the Netherlands. We need to turn back to God America. Bonnie Schwartz for pharmacists that are trying to hold onto their moral beliefs

Am I missing something? I thought I was free to sell what I chose to at my store? Since when does anybody HAVE to come?

Thank you

First of all, there are 2 ways to obtain "morning after pill."
1. Through regular prescription written by doctor.
2. In WA, a person can obtain morning after pill at some pharmacies where the pharmacist is certified to dispense morning after pill without requiring a prescription. The catch is the pharmacist AND pharmacy have to be certified. Not all pharmacists are certified to do this. In this case, there is no obligation for the un-certified pharmacist since it will be illegal if they actually dispense the "morning after pill" without prescription.

If the pharmacists cannot or refused to dispense the "morning after pill," they should at least help the patient find or locate another pharmacy that could to their best effort. However, there should be no law forcing a pharmacist to dispense. Why? Becuase this law can be easily abused by doctors and/or patients to abuse drugs by forcing pharmacists to dispense certain medications as long as the prescription is "legal."

For those that in favor to put a law forcing dispensing medication, how about a law forcing all doctors to do abortion? How about a law forcing all insurance companies (including state insurance, your tax money) to pay for the "morning after pill"? (some insurances actually do cover it). With spring break coming, maybe a law also forcing pharmacies to give condoms/contraceptives. "Hey, if they had given me free contraceptives, I would have not become pregnant...."

Not mean to disrespect, but pharmacists are a bunch of wimps. Just look at the medicare part D. Pharmacists are pretty much bullied by the government and insurance companies to do their job in helping the seniors. Seniors are paying premiums to insurance companies, yet pharmacists are the one helping them trying to figure out co-pays, covered drugs, etc, for free. So, the board of pharmacy can easily implement any laws, and most pharmacists will probably follow without saying much.

The anti-choice bloggers should know that the "morning after" pill prevents ovaries from releasing an egg and can prevent fertilization. The morning after pill should not be confused with chemical abortion pills that expell a fertilized egg after it has implanted itself on the womb's wall. Instead the morning-after-pill keeps the zygote from implanting onto the womb's wall.

Using the logic of some of the posters on this site I guess some people wouldn't object if I refused to take care of certain kinds of patients. I have a huge moral problem with Republicans so maybe from now on I'll refuse to take care of them--surely they can find another nurse to medicate their pain and wash their bodies.

Nurse Melz,
I don't see anyone saying that a service should be refused to a group of people or a person. It's a right to refuse to sell a PRODUCT that is the issue - and it would be to ALL people because it's a PRODUCT. If you want to quit being a nurse, no one would force you otherwise. Should you be forced to always be a nurse? If you are a nurse, should you be forced to do in-home nursing? What about convalescent home care - should you be forced to go work in such a place? Of course not - silly questions.

To me this is 'disgusting' that a woman is now having to FIGHT & JUSTIFY the right to have control over her reproductive health. It's VILE... Pharmacists should be fired for not doing their jobs... THINK ABOUT THIS!!! -- the 'stigma' that women would have to endure and for onus on the woman having to JUSTIFY (over the counter) to a pharmacist to fill and hand over her legal prescription should BE A WAKE UP call to ALL women and mothers as to where their daughters rights and destiny will be heading. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Every one should keep their moral values. If a pharmacist does not want to sell the morning after pill, perhaps they should also be disallowed from selling condoms, birth control pills or the antibiotics to cure infection after back room abortions. Of course, this will also cut into their rights; to make more profits for themselves and drug companys.

WakeUpCall said: "... should BE A WAKE UP call to ALL women and mothers as to where their daughters rights and destiny will be heading."

I wonder where WakeUpCall thinks daughters will come from if mothers keep aborting their babies.

How come all you Planned Parenthood types weren't at the Board meeting? Why won't PP let you speak there?

Todd: Your hyperbole brings nothing to the debate on your 'supposed' population decline of daughters due to abortions -- might want to look into the problems of miscarriages as well? It would appear we live on different planets you and I.

ME: Yes, why not have Planned Parenthood types at the board meeting? I know NARAL sent out the news release. But IMHO this is not a partisan issue == it's a health issue regarding womens respect and control over their own health, life, liberty and welfare issues. This is not about $$$ lobby groups and grossly hypercritical republican politician, who would pay for an abortion or birth control via whatever means for their own daughters.

Request (out of interest): please name me a republican politician teenage daughter who has followed through on an unwanted pregnancy?

Plan B prevents implantation, it does not cause an abortion. Pharmacists do not have the right to make judgments on what we do in our own bedrooms nor what we do with our own bodies that the law says is legal. In much of the state a patient could NOT receive the medication in the required time frame. I'm sick of the religious right's attempt to regulate my life and the lives of my family. Do your job or find another one!

I am amazed when I read the words of self-centered people who have no regard for life. Bottom line, there are plenty of ways to prevent getting knocked up. Abortion and morning after pills should not be used just for birth control. It really makes me want to puke when I hear it called "medication" what a joke. Seattle is a sad place full of self-centered, political correct, morally bankrupt people.

WakeUpCall:

How come you say that this isn't a partisan issue and then use the word "Republican" twice? It seems that you're the one making this a partisan issue.

For what it's worth, I'm a libertarian. Let people live their own life as they see fit long as it doesn't affect others. In a case like this, the question is really about whether or not the actions of a few pharmacists are going to have a big impact on your life. From my perspective, there are enough pharmacists in town to fill your prescription, so there's no need to force those who would differ from your viewpoint into providing service to you. And even if no pharmacist wanted to serve you, they don't have a duty to help you end your pregnancy. It was your choice to get pregnant, so it's your responsibility to figure out how to terminate it.

As a libertarian, I also believe in liberty for the unborn. If you don't want your baby then give it to someone else and give that baby the opportunity to live. Killing for the sake of convenience is morally reprehensible. And any abortion beyond that to save the life of the mother is done purely for convenience.

For those saying that pharmacists have to provide drugs for whoever comes in the door with a prescription, do you think they are your slaves? For those saying they are telling you what to do with your body, you have it backwards: you are telling them what to do with their body (making them do something for you they don't want to do), while they are only telling you "Don't make me do something I don't want to do. You are free to do whatever you want but you do not have the right to make me be a part of it."

Ocoee Quote: "I am amazed when I read the words of self-centered people who have no regard for life." But Ococee --- it is so easy to see YOU as 'self' centered and and wanting to emblematize your belief on others existence. Your statements 'possibly' based on your own biased ideas of life -- nurtured or brainwashed by whatever means, but not necessarily the same ideas of life as mine or indeed others.

paula m quote: "For those saying that pharmacists have to provide drugs for whoever comes in the door with a prescription, do you think they are your slaves?"

WakeUpCall: No, they are not slaves but employees that should be doing a job under their job description and get fired accordingly if they do not carry out the job of a state pharmacist.

Todd: Personally, I don't believe it is a partisan issue, HOWEVER, the "REPUBLICANS" have definitely made and marketed it as a partisan issue --- delving and mixing the issue of womens reproductive health MOST DEFINITELY in the issue of Separation of Church & State... If you missed that then you need to catch-up.

Being a libertarian is your label, again this is not a partisan issue --- you may think that pharmacists not filling out a LEGAL prescription is no big deal to you, but I think many Libertarian women think otherwise...

UNBORN or even the BORN?? Have you really -- I mean really thought it through? Do you have any idea how many disabled or even abled body children are in the foster system that can't find homes, for WHATEVER reason that they were placed there?

KILLING?? I'm not even going to go into the EPA sanctioned corportized poisoning of our waters and environment or 'morally' Bush sanctioned war -- Where did you rationalize your philosophy on where life begins and ends??? -- It is bizarre the contradications and dangerous visceral response ...

No one should have to do what is against their conscience. As far as losing the 72 hr. time limit. Why couldn't the dr. or hospital have a list of pharmacy's that carry this pill? I know that many hospital have their own pharmacy's. As a christian we should not have non-christian believes shoved down our throats either...and I might add that we do put up with that , daily.

Paula, Paula, Paula...get it right, it's O C O E E.

Life has taught you to use words like biased to get your way. Illegal aliens use the word racist in much the same way. Perhaps you forgot to call me a racist. Your words come from a self-centered, uneducated person.

By the way, we don't have "state" pharmacists here. Perhaps you would be happier where the state controlled everyone. We have pharmacists licensed by the state. We don't have state drivers. We have drivers licensed by the state.

We, for the most part, live in a free society. Not a democracy, a republic. EACH person should be free. NO PERSON should have more freedom than another person. These are not religious or biased beliefs. But you can call them biased if you choose. That dosen't make it true. You have freedom to do whatever you choose with your body. The state is not here to manage you or me. WE are here to manage the state. You should have learned that as a small child. Too bad that was neglected.

Kathey,

If Christian pharmacists refuse to do their jobs they should find another, it really is that simple. Just like if I refuse to take care of Republicans or get a patient into a wheelchair to go to Catholic Mass then I'm in the wrong field. (I do both of these things regularly and my patients never even have a clue of my feelings about these things.) And I do have problems with the "morality" of both Republicans and the Catholic Church.

The libertarians posting make it clear that the only civil rights they care about are those of the people whose opinions they agree with. If you believe in civil liberties you're not allowed to cherry pick them, sorry.

You folks that don't want to give the pharmacist a choice only have that choice because your mother gave you life rather than killed you!!

As a pharmacist I believe we have the responsibility to fill any legally written prescription presented. As always certain medical criterion should be considered, drug interactions, etc etc. The bottom line is care for the patient and dispensing drugs as prescribed is and should be to the patients benefit, regardless of ones personal views.

It just amazes me that all these feminists say they are "pro-choice", but they don't want to allow someone to CHOOSE to follow their conscience. (Do they not see the hypocrisy here?) Women can CHOOSE to go to another pharmacy. To force someone to go against their religious and moral beliefs because it is too inconvenient to go to another pharmacy or ask for another pharmacist is outrageous.

From one Christian to the others, May God only judge you as strictly as you have judged others.

After reading all the comments, I think I've actually changed my point of view on this issue. Rite Aid (or insert your local pharmacy here) is not a public servant, neither are the pharmacist who are employed there. I do believe doctors can refuse to write a prescription for the morning after pill, so why can't a pharmacist refuse to fill the prescription. My suggestion to women who get the prescription for the morning after pill is to ask your doctor which pharmacies carry the medication before you leave the office.

Making a personal choice about my health and body is different than choosing not to do specific tasks in my job description. Taking a job implies I will carry out the duties expected of me and if I don't like it I am free to find other employment.

And it apparently can't be said enough that the morning after pill doesn't kill a baby. I know that's inconvenient for those of you on the other side but you might try incorporating facts into your opinions.

It's your job as a Pharmacist to dispense medication. Get over it and leave your personal opinions to yourself, otherwise, find another job!!

Some religions do not support gay/lesbian beliefs, so does that mean that you as a Pharmacist will not be able to assist these patients either?

I am very tired of hearing everyones opinion on how i deal with my body...some of you talk about how i should have thought of getting pregnant the night before when i willingly brought on my situation, well let me ask you a question... what if i was raped on my way home from a store or work last night? do i still have the right to try and not become pregnant as a result of that rape? or what if i was a young girl who was just sexually molested or raped? should i too be forced to become pregnant? Take a stand on that moral issue screamers... do either of these sceanrios make me any different from a woman who seeks to not become pregnant for any other reason? And all of you pro choice freaks need to get a god-damn clue...this pill is not an abortion pill, there is no viable concieved child that is involved when you take this pill...it merely keeps an egg from releasing and a zygote from implanting, much in the way that the Pill does, or a IUD or any other female form of contraception. Do i think pharmacists should have to dispense this pill? YES. if a pharmacy carries a legal drug in it's stock, then it is not the pharmacists job to decide the worthiness of any person to receive that drug...if a prescription is presented they must fill it. I am sure there a many people who find themselves doing things they don't agree with or even like, such as a doctor who is forced to save the life of a man who just killed a policeman...does he want to save that man, Probably not. but does he do it, yes because that is the job he took and he does it. Just a pharmacists should. This is not an abortion issue, this is not a abortion pill, this is about a womans right to not become pregnant due to any circumstance...just as legally getting a prescription for any other form of birth control is.

The first post here says, "All I have to say, is keep your moral beliefs to yourself!"

I agree. Keep your moral beliefs to yourself: do not force your moral beliefs on pharmacists.

They also say, "It's MY body, not YOURS."

It's MY pharmacy, not YOURS.

It's amazing to me how pro-choice people don't see how their own arguments about choice and lack of government intervention is the exact same argument used by the pharmacists here.

One more point: there is no such thing as "emergency contraception." Unless you were raped -- in which case you should go to a hospital and get a D&C or similar procedure, which has the same essential effect -- you chose to have sex. You knew that you might need this drug. Your lack of preparation does not create an emergency that obligates someone else to violate their own ethics to help you.

getoffit: as you note, the pill does not merely prevent an egg from being released. If that is all it did, this would not be an issue for most pharmacists for whom it IS an issue. The pill also prevents implantation of an already-fertilized egg.

You may believe a zygote is not a "viable conceived child," but it certainly is, by every biological definition, a conceived human being. You can disagree about whether it has human rights, but it ends up being nothing more than that: philosophical disagreement.

It is a new and entirely unique organism of the species "homo sapiens," and I believe it has rights; you do not. You cannot prove I am right, I cannot prove you are wrong.

Nurse Melz: same to you. You can say it does not kill a baby, but only because you choose to define the zygote as less than a human being. You cannot prove it is less than a human being. And it certainly is not a "fact."

Nor, Nurse Melz, is it a "fact" that dispensing any medication the government says is legal is part of a pharmacist's job description. You won't find that requirement anywhere in the pharmacist's oath, or in the law, or in tradition.

Make all forms of birth control (including the morning after pill which is a preventative measure not a termination) available over the counter. There, problem solved. If drugstores don't want to stock plan-B or ortho-28 day, or condoms then fine, they'll lose business.

Please consult a physician on this one "viable" is not a term extended on a fetus until well into the second trimester by any physician in the known world. before that it is not viable, if born, it will die, there is no way to save it, miscarriages are most common in this period, do i say that after so many weeks a fetus is a person, sure do. at any point losing a baby is a hard thing to deal with. whether by choice or not. but really if you look at it scientifically, in those first hours of possible conception, there is nothing more there than cells, there is no person, no heart, no mind, no body. nothing so far that has required your assistance for survival. but i notice in the line of thinking of so many is that there is something inherently wrong in using the morning after pill, there isn't. what if people started hating those of you who have ever miscarried...was it your fault? sometimes no, sometimes it can be a womans fault for her miscarriage...but do we trash those people for not carrying their babies to term? no, we cry for them and feel for them. but a woman who chooses an abortion for her own reasons, and sometimes for someone elses reasons also live through their own hell, just as a woman who miscarried does, never believe that it is a simple as it seems, it is a difficult decision to make, and an even harder one to live with, as is adoption. no matter how you choose, it is hard, it is life changing, and it is your choice to make. come on people, is what's really important here what you want? if i were to make a law that forced you to have a hysterectomy so that you might never have the opportunity to concieve....how would you feel? or maybe i made a law that outlawed a medication that keeps you alive, just because i don't believe in taking pills to change your life expectancy(as some cultures do) how would you feel? apply your morals to your life as they affect you and please allow me to apply my morals to my life as it applies to me, and we'll get along a lot better in this world. To each his own, my decisions are mine to make, my mistakes are mine to burden, to live and let live is your lot in my life.

"Judge not, lest you be judged" is my take. I believe that anyone, especially pharmicists and others who deal directly with people's personal issues, should take heed and leave their personal morals - however noble or hiddeous - out. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS. For doing so you should worry plenty about losing your job, as this case might warrent; but, more so, you ought to fear the wrath of God for meddling with another person's God-given right to make mistakes.

Larry J: I agree, judge not, lest you be judged. So do not judge the pharmacist who chooses to not provide the drug. You should take heed and leave your personal morals out, and not meddle in the pharmacist's God-given right to make mistakes.

tiredoflaws: Yes, of course, it is not viable until 20 weeks or so, for now; someday, surely, it will be viable immediately on conception. The way I see it, that makes for a terribly poor standard for when to apply rights: our own technological ability to keep it alive. Viability is, morally, beside the point.

"but really if you look at it scientifically, in those first hours of possible conception, there is nothing more there than cells, there is no person, no heart, no mind, no body."

Well, no. It's true there is no heart. But there certainly is a body. And science cannot prove there is no mind, because a mind is a metaphysical construct that we relate to, but distiguish from, the brain. Science cannot pinpoint what the mind is. Maybe it is entirely physical, but science is unable, at this point, to say so.

And as to person: science does not, cannot, and never will define what a "person" is. That is purely the realm of philosophy, not of science. And it is, of course, the crux of the issue: what does it mean to be a person? Science cannot tell us, and you cannot tell me that there is anything resembling an empirical fact that proves it one way or another.

"apply your morals to your life as they affect you and please allow me to apply my morals to my life as it applies to me, and we'll get along a lot better in this world."

Exactly. Let the pharmacist make his own choices about what medications he will provide.

"To each his own, my decisions are mine to make, my mistakes are mine to burden"

Right. And so too is the pharmacist's decisions his to make, and his mistakes his to burden.

Nurse Melz: it is extremely disingenuous for you to say anyone is saying that certain TYPES of patients should be excluded from being provided service. That is clearly not what is going on here. No one is refusing to provide service to any type of person, but is instead refusing to provide a specific drug for a specific purpose. Those are two entirely different things.

Since Pharmacists must carry malpractice insurance and are held responsible for any drug they dispense, they have a right to refuse to dispense and medication. A doctor is not forced to treat a patient, a lawyer is not forced to take a case, why should a pharmacist be forced to dispense a drug?

A pharmacist should have the freedom of choice whether or not to dispense a drug, following their firmly held religious beliefs. It is hypocritical for some to argue that a woman has freedom of choice, but a pharmacist does not. She should have her choice, and the pharmacist should have their choice. For some to impose on the pharmacist a duty to abandon a religious belief is imposing on the pharmacist the religion of others.

The bottem line here is that no one should have someone elses beliefs forced upon them. Whether you believe in pro-choice or pro-life... you lead your life your way. It's a very arrogant person who thinks that the way they lead thier life is the only and right way. Let women make there own choices! If you don't like it - that's your problem. You can't change people's actions only your reaction to it... I don't want the government that intimate with my life and my choices as a woman.

Shelly: "It's a very arrogant person who thinks that the way they lead thier life is the only and right way. Let women make there own choices! If you don't like it - that's your problem. You can't change people's actions only your reaction to it... I don't want the government that intimate with my life and my choices as a woman."

Right, absolutely!

Let pharmacists make their own choices! If you don't like it -- that's your problem. You can't change people's actions, only your reaction to it. I don't want the government that intimate with my life and my choices as a pharmacist.

Of course not. One person does NOT have the right to deny another a service provided by their store based of the fact they disagree due to a differing belief they hold. What if the person seeking the morning after pill had been raped, does that make it ok to make them have to carry a child that was created by an act of crime? No. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you have the right to make that decision for them. That would be like a EMT deciding that because the person is a criminal that they don't have to try to help save his/her life.

If a doctor does not want to perform an abortion do they have to? If you don't wear a shirt in my shop do I have to serve you? I don't think you have to give someone something that goes against your beliefs. There will be plenty of places to go get it so what is the big deal. To the people that scream they are tired of Christians forcing their beliefs on others we did not force you to need the pill. Why should I be forced to act counter to my beliefs.

pudge: I am not judging the phamicist who exercises the right to carry whatever drug that suits their moral or financial beliefs. I am only asking for that person, as well as you and me, to stop judging and handing out punishment. Withholding the drug to make it an inconvenience for a woman to obtain a legal drug is, I fear, a blatant form of punishment, just as is forcing a woman to carry viable sperm and eggs -fertilized or not - so she can go through the joyful excruciating pain of birth to teach her a lesson.

So...if a woman gets raped by a man who used Viagra to get an erection to commit the crime, does the pharmacist still object to the M.A. Pill?

To getoffit: How come the abortion issue always seems to revolve around the issue of rape and incest? It's as though you think a high percentage of unwanted pregnancies are due to these factors. The simple truth is that most unwanted pregnancies are due to the fact that people are careless in their sexual behavior, and it's a moral shame that we kill off these children because they're unwanted or they'll be an inconvenience. If you want to have a separate debate about rape and incest then be my guest, but don't muddy the waters of the abortion debate and try to justify a travesty of humanity when there is no real excuse for the vast majority of abortions.

Larry J: "Withholding the drug to make it an inconvenience for a woman to obtain a legal drug is, I fear, a blatant form of punishment"

But no one is doing that. The pharmacists in question are not trying to prevent the woman from exercising her rights, they are simply refusing to participate in what they believe is an immoral practice.

The pharmacist featured in Robert's piece even went so far as to help a woman get the drugs from another pharmacy. This is not, for the overwhelming majority of people, about "punishment."

"just as is forcing a woman to carry viable sperm and eggs -fertilized or not - so she can go through the joyful excruciating pain of birth to teach her a lesson."

I know a lot of people who are against abortion, and not a one of them has ever expressed to me any sentiment remotely similar to that. It's not about punishing the woman or teacher her a lesson; for it to be about that would trivialize the belief that causes someone to be pro-life/anti-abortion in the first place, that the life in the womb has rights that it is the obligation of government to protect.

Heck NO: "One person does NOT have the right to deny another a service provided by their store based of the fact they disagree due to a differing belief they hold."

That's generally accepted to be true. And that is not what is happening here. No *person* is being refused service, rather, a specific *service* is being refused, and it is being refused to *everybody.* This is not discrimination against people, of any sort. It is discrimination against a certain medical procedure, and people certainly do have the right to refuse to participate in a procedure they find morally offensive.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you have the right to make that decision for them.

And clearly, that too is not happening. No one is making a decision for anyone (except you, and others, are obviously trying to make the decision for the pharmacist). No one is saying the woman cannot get the medication. They are saying that they will not provide that medication. There are always other options for obtaining it.

That would be like a EMT deciding that because the person is a criminal that they don't have to try to help save his/her life.

Again, no, it is not like that at all, because this is not discimination against people, but against practice. It would be more like an auto parts company refusing to sell parts for military vehicles, because they are pacifists who abhor all war. They have every right to do that, even if I think they are being silly.

I just left a Rite Aid store and there is a sign that reads we have the right to refuse service to anyone... sounds like the pharmacy has that right to me

Pudge,

I agree that my example of refusing to care for Republicans due to my beliefs about their immorality is a poor comparison. I already made a better one, which you ignored--and that is a nurse refusing to assist a patient who wants to attend a Catholic Mass. This would be a valid comparison but I would never do this because I accept that other people have every right to support a religion I feel has done much harm in this world. I choose not to be Catholic but I have no problem with others who make that choice even if by doing so I believe they support (and even contribute to) some really bad things.

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions legally prescribed by an MD. They can offer advice to the patient and they can confer with the doctor if they have concerns about the prescription but their job is to dispense medications--and not just the ones they approve of. If they don't like this they can choose to find other work.

I already made a better one, which you ignored--and that is a nurse refusing to assist a patient who wants to attend a Catholic Mass.

Yes, that is better, but still not good enough to be valid. As has been noted several times, this is about refusing to take an active role in a process that someone finds to be immoral.

If the drug or treatment, rather than enabling someone to go do things that you may find objectionable, actually *results* in something that you may find objectionable, then that's comparable.

If your scenario were a valid comparison, then we would see pharmacists refusing to provide, for example, pain or cold medication to women who needed to get out of the house to get an abortion. We do not see that, no one is doing that, and no one is proposing that. What makes this different is that the drug itself is, in the view of the pharmacist, the agent of the immoral act.

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions legally prescribed by an MD.

Yes, but it is not their stated obligation -- legal (for now), moral, or professional -- to fill EVERY legally prescribed prescription. That has never before been a part of the deal. They've always before had the right to refuse a drug they believed was going to be used for immoral purposes.

If they don't like this they can choose to find other work.

Yes, they can. Or, they could keep doing the job they are doing now. You have no business telling them they can't. You pretend that there is some sacred "pharmacist's oath" out there that requires them to provide these drugs when they are so prescribed. But there is not.

"I already made a better one, which you ignored--and that is a nurse refusing to assist a patient who wants to attend a Catholic Mass."

Yes, that is better, but still not good enough to be valid. As has been noted several times, this is about refusing to take an active role in a process that someone finds to be immoral.

If the drug or treatment, rather than enabling someone to go do things that you may find objectionable, actually *results* in something that you may find objectionable, then that's comparable.

If your scenario were a valid comparison, then we would see pharmacists refusing to provide, for example, pain or cold medication to women who needed to get out of the house to get an abortion. We do not see that, no one is doing that, and no one is proposing that. What makes this different is that the drug itself is, in the view of the pharmacist, the agent of the immoral act.

"A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions legally prescribed by an MD."

Yes, but it is not their stated obligation -- legal (for now), moral, or professional -- to fill EVERY legally prescribed prescription. That has never before been a part of the deal. They've always before had the right to refuse a drug they believed was going to be used for immoral purposes.

"If they don't like this they can choose to find other work."

Yes, they can. Or, they could keep doing the job they are doing now. You have no business telling them they can't. You pretend that there is some sacred "pharmacist's oath" out there that requires them to provide these drugs when they are so prescribed. But there is not.

"Maybe they should have had a little more thought in what they did the night or day before. With all the other sexally transmited disease out there. A little more thought should be taken in what your actions are." as posted by vicki

vicki: My mistake! I'll take care to always carry condoms with me and offer them to a rapist when he attacks. I'm sure he'll listen and respect my choice for protection.

Bottom Line: The job of Pharmacist is to dispense ALL legally prescribed medications. If your beliefs conflict with your occupation, either choose to get into another line of work or recognize that your occupation, civil society, and government are not there to validate your beliefs.

If your faith is so weak as to require such validation, then pray.

Well, I disagree. If my actions allow someone to engage in behavior I find morally reprehensible then the comparison's valid. Another example might be me refusing to administer legally prescribed narcotics to a drug addict. Should I refuse to do so because I disapprove of their "lifestyle"? Undoubtedly many people posting here would think so.

What you and others miss is that while pharmacists function in a retail role thay also function as a member of a health care team--quite a bit more than a shop owner who can order a shirtless customer out of their shop. Pharmacists, like doctors, nurses, PTs and others who care for health have a relationship that requires trust. Customers expect that they'll be treated professionally and with respect for health matters that might be delicate. If a patient has an STD he/she needs to know the person prescribing the drug will not judge them. This is much different than one's relationship with the person selling them oranges.

If the pharmacy board decides their members can refuse to dispense meds as ordered hopefully there will be a database of which ones won't so patients will know who they can trust. Or perhaps we can picket those pharmacies who have employees that refuse to dispense certain meds. The anti-choice people have paved the way for this.

My post above was addressing points made by Pudge and I should've made that clear.

pudge: so it's about time to get the punishment charge back onto the table; it was the only sentiment against abortion - except that it often caused death to a woman - before sonagrams brought the fetus into the living room. The "right to life" argument, however admirable and self-serving, can be carried into so many avenues that it muddles the issue, especially when it comes to those religious people who forget that it is souls that they are trying to save, not bodies. No, I don't believe that all conceptions are part of God's plan any more than that God has a plan for every sperm and egg. If you are saying that ALL forms of contaception are prohibited, then I have no argument with you.
Now, when you can tell me when a soul enters a human "body" without refering to that sonagram, then you and I could easily come together in agreement. For starters, I was in the room when my first daughter's soul entered her body over my voiced objections (I was scared by the experience as much as in awe). She was over nine months from conception and a few days from her birth. Care to add your experience in the matter?

EC and birthcontrol are NOT health care. Their only purpose is to alter a woman's natural and healthy state of either fertility or pregnancy. EC is NOT a life saving drug. Yes, I know many pro-abortion folks like to believe that having a baby will kill you but with today's medicine your health is better served by carrying a pregnancy to term.

I think it is interesting that those who believe in "the right to choose" will not extend that right to Pharmacists. A woman's health is not at stake because of a choice made the night before. Pregnancy is a nature part of life and can only occur given specific circumstances. MOST of the time those circumstances are created by choice. The right to choose is before, not after. Once you have choosen, the child within should have the right to live to make choices of his or her own.

Nurse Melz: "Another example might be me refusing to administer legally prescribed narcotics to a drug addict. Should I refuse to do so because I disapprove of their "lifestyle"?"

If you believe they are going to abuse those drugs, absolutely, you should have the right to refuse. No question. I am not a pharmacist, but if I were, I would see that as my obligation.

It's similar to firearms. There was a story not long ago about a kid who was trying to get shotgun ammunition, and went online to ask people where to go, because apparently, the stores would not sell it to him, as the people there believed him to be unstable. I see no difference between that, and this.

Oh, and by the way, the kid found a place that would provide those shotgun shells to him, and he killed someone else, and himself.

"What you and others miss is that while pharmacists function in a retail role thay also function as a member of a health care team"

I do not miss that at all. However, I do not believe this is an area where the government has a legitimate role. If the pharmacy is not adequately serving the public, then they will lose business, and other options will take its place.

"Customers expect that they'll be treated professionally and with respect for health matters that might be delicate."

What YOU are missing is that in the opinion of the pharmacist in question, he is doing just that. You might disagree, but many of his customers certainly do agree.

"If the pharmacy board decides their members can refuse to dispense meds as ordered hopefully there will be a database of which ones won't so patients will know who they can trust."

Or, which ones patients CAN trust. I would love to be able to go to a pharmacist that I know takes his job and responsibility to seriously that he will refuse to provide the morning after pill. That makes me trust him all the more.

"Or perhaps we can picket those pharmacies who have employees that refuse to dispense certain meds. The anti-choice people have paved the way for this."

Of course you can. Absolutely. I would not in any way question your right or ability to do that, so long as you do not block my entrance to the facility, etc.

Larry J: "so it's about time to get the punishment charge back onto the table; it was the only sentiment against abortion - except that it often caused death to a woman - before sonagrams brought the fetus into the living room."

Only? No, that's not true at all. Where do you get that from?

"Care to add your experience in the matter?"

Talk about my family with strangers online? No, I do not care to do so.

Pudge-

In fact where I work we cover a patient's drug addiction and then provide additional narcotics to cover their pain. This is the standard of care and to do otherwise is unethical. A nurse who refused to give their addicted patients the dosage to do this would be reprimanded or even terminated (if she/he was refusing because of moral judgement. There are legitimate reasons not to administer narcotics such as signs of over-sedation). The same logic should apply to pharmacists whether the drugs are narcotics or morning after pills. Of course you'll argue it doesn't and on and on, so I'm done.

See you on as you walk through the picket line.

Carrie: There is no comparison between a woman's right to choose what happens to her OWN body and a Pharmacists right to choose whether or not they'll do their job.

Ultimately your argument comes down to the religious beliefs you choose to accept. You need to recognize that not everyone shares those particular beliefs, nor should they, nor do you have any right to insist that they do.

"In fact where I work we cover a patient's drug addiction and then provide additional narcotics to cover their pain. This is the standard of care and to do otherwise is unethical."

And I never implied otherwise. Read again what I wrote. I specifically said IF you believe they are going to abuse those drugs, then you could refuse providing them. Obviously, that is not the case here. So it does not apply.

Pharmacies are not required to stock every single medication (prescription-based or over-the-counter) available. There has been no uproar because Rite Aid didn't have the cherry flavored cough syrup I wanted. Why should there be different requirements regarding this single drug? If a business doesn't carry a product you want, you go to someplace that does. How ridiculous would it be if the government tried to force Wendy's to carry Whoppers just because a consumer didn't want to have to drive to Burger King.

BB: "There is no comparison between a woman's right to choose what happens to her OWN body and a Pharmacists right to choose whether or not they'll do their job."

Yes, there is. A very strong one, actually. MY BUSINESS, MY CHOICE.

In America, we used to protect the rights of businesses to do as they pleased, within certain limits. We considered that to be a very important notion, one that set us apart from totalitarian states. Now you just want to say, "well, *I* want something, so *you* have to give it to me, it's your *job.*"

That's not freedom.

And you are wrong to say they are not doing their job when they refuse to provide the medication; that is false. Only the owner of the pharmacy can say that, considering no law or pharmacist's oath says it.

"Ultimately your argument comes down to the religious beliefs you choose to accept. You need to recognize that not everyone shares those particular beliefs, nor should they, nor do you have any right to insist that they do."

Right. Unfortunately, the only people here insisting anyone should follow someone else's beliefs are you, and the other people who say the pharmacist must provide the drugs against his will.

I have no idea why you would imply that your opposition in this argument is insisting anyone accept beliefs they disagree with, because that is just a reversal of reality. Up is down.

The pharmacists who do not wish to provide this drug, and those who support them, are not insisting anyone accept their views, let alone prevent anyone from exercising their own free will in regard to those views. We're only saying that the pharmacist should not be compelled to help them; they are still free to seek other avenues to get the drug.

Pudge: I think you're getting wrapped around the axle trying to mix commitment to God with commitment to civil society. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's.

The job does not change based on the beliefs of the individuals employed to do it. The job is not defined in the context of any specific religious belief set. If the Pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription they are refusing to do the job. Their reason for making the choice does not change that in the least.

No one here is asking the Pharmacist to change their beliefs. We are just saying that, if they choose to be a Pharmacist working in a pharmacy then they should be expected to do that job.

I'm sorry, the rest of what you said makes no sense to me.

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. And when a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate". : from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

I could argue with religious fanatics all day until my head exploded, but won't bother. This proposed amendment makes the pharmacist the Big-Daddy and gatekeeper. Sounds like communist China or Puritan colonial America.

When the pharmacist's daughter gets knocked up, he or she will no doubt make an exception.

I say stop the madness and get rid of that pill allready. women who don't want to have kids has no business having sex. stop the killing save the life of the baby

This issue is easily soved by the FDA OKing the sale of Plan B, an over-the-counter form of the morning after pill. In fact, they were prepared to do so but the religious wingnuts got to them.

We simply have to get rid of every Republican we can in the next election or we'll be allowing this country to step back at least a hundred years.

Please stop wasting sperm and eggs. It's MURRRRRDDDDDERRRRR!!!!

:>)

There are consequences to every action. One of the possible consequences of engaging in sexual activity is getting pregnant. It isn't the only consequence. Other physical consequences are the wide variety of disease that can be contracted - each having unique and live-long consequences (which there are no "magic" drugs for).

Then there are the emotional consequences, when you pretend you are married and aren't there is going to be a "divorce" of sorts, whether in the morning, next week, next month - when the relationship ends. Ask anyone who has gone through a break-up - it's always harder when when the couple has been sexual intimate - the more intimacy the harder it is.

There are also Spiritual consequences. Now before you roll your eyes, let me place a scenario before you. Gravity makes me mad. It makes me feel heavy and limits my abilities (basically it cramps my style). I can choose not to believe in gravity. I can even go as far as saying "The is no gravity" as I step of the roof of my house. In the end, I prove the law of gravity as someone picks me up off the ground. We are spiritual beings. We can ignore this fact, but eventually we will have to face our spiritual side (even if it is on our death-bed). Every physical act has spiritual significance. Sex is no exception - if fact - it is one of the physical acts that directly affects us spiritually. We enter into a bond with the person we have sex with. It's a bond that is meant to last a lifetime. When we have "casual sex" it's like gluing two pieces of paper together and then trying to peel them apart after they dry. Even if you are successful in getting them apart, they are never again the same as when you started.

This drug prevents only one of the consequences of a sexual encounter from occurring. It cannot heal the other consequences that occur, and could possible cause more wounds, emotional and spiritual.

When a medical professional looks at this and says "This isn't a good answer, it's not even a good band-aid. I will not be providing goo quality medicine if I give this drug to a woman/girl." I think that they should be allowed to say that. I don't think that they should be asked to hand out medicine they know will not fix the individual standing before them.

Just because something is a "law" doesn't mean it's right. Ask the slaves of 200 years ago whose ancestors are still trying to find a place in our society that is equal to that of other people in it. Ask any Jew whose parents, grandparents or other relatives were rounded up by Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin and killed because of the circumstances of their birth.

Just because you say that a fetus isn't a person yet, doesn't mean that they aren't a person. Someone may come along some day and make it a law that the sky is now blue (or that the emperor really is wearing clothes). That won't change reality.

The reality is sex is for for two purposes - pro-creation and bonding a husband and wife together (and the two shall become one - and in 9 months you may have to give that "one" another name!). When sex is removed from this context you end up with all kinds of problems and lost of people trying to solve problems that don't need to exist at all.

The other reality is that the life of someone starts when the egg and sperm meet and get married inside the womb of a woman. To end the life out of convience isn't the only way to deal with one of the foreseen consequences of sex. There is another option - adoption. There are thousands (10's of thousands) of loving families waiting with open arms for someone to say yes to life for them. It's 9 long months for someone who may have said "yes" when they should have said "no." The difference is that in saying "yes" they gave life to someone else and gave a family a child. To abort is to be selfish "if I don't want this child - no one can have it."

This whole is issue is too big for a drug to fix.

Plan B is not a contraceptive pill. If there is an emergency, women can go to the emergency room. Pharmacists are being targeted for the contraversial issue of dispensing the morning after. The problem is that when lawmaker passes a controversial law, the people who are against it are forced to accept it or be penalized. If assisted suicide becomes legal, are all doctors required to give out lethal injections or they'll be sued by their patients? Tobacco selling is legal, are all stores required to sell tobacco?

Morning After pills are just like abortion. It kills an unborn life. Pharmacists have a right not to be involved in killing an unborn life. Doctors and nurses can choose not to work in abortion clinics. Just because some government officials make this pill legal does not mean everyone in this world thinks it's moral.

Yes, doctors and nurses can choose not to work in abortion clinics but pharmacists can also choose not to work in retail pharmacies.

As a licensed professional, they need to keep their personal beliefs separate. They are serving the public dispensing legal medicines. If they can't and have a personal conflict, then they need to take a different line of work.
Women's personal choices are difficult enough.

If a pharmascist owns his own business, I guess I feel he has the right to do what he wants. It's like the private business owner that is own his own property, who can't allow smokers any more. How can anyone tell anyone else to not do something that is legal on their own property? Gestapo!

The morning after pill, Plan B, shouldn't be available in the community pharmacies in the first place. Plan B is used to end a life. It cannot be compared to other regular medicines that are used to cure sickness. If someone truely believes that his or her act will kill a human being, why can he or she not refuse to do it?

Before we force all pharmacists, or anybody, to do what may be immoral but legal, we have to consider the big picture. Is the law above moral beliefs? If gay marriage becomes legal in Washington, will all priests be required to perform gay marriage or they will be sued or be forced from priesthood? If assisted suicide becomes legal, will all doctors be required to give out lethal medicines or they will have their license suspended? The issue here is that women who choose to use the morning after want the medicine available to them. One solution is to compile a list of pharmacies which supply the morning after pills in the community and have that list available for doctors and patients. If we force all pharmacists to provide this controversial medicine, it will open a can of worms with all other controversial laws in the country and there will be no end to the debate.

If we look back at history, some things that were considered legal in the past are now considered illegal and immoral. It was Okay for men to beat up their wives or children before and now it is abuse and is illegal. It was okay to use slaves and treat them as second class citizens with no human rights. It was okay to slaughter as many animals as we want without considering the extinction of certain species. The law now says it is Okay to use the morning after pill to end a life because we don't consider it a human being. I wonder what will the law say fifty or a hundred years later. People may look back and say the pharmacists who are speaking up now are heroes who are trying to save the unborn who don't have a voice in the society.

Can the delivery person who delivers drugs to a pharmacy refuse to deliver any packages to the pharmacy because the packages may contain something that is contrary to his moral beliefs?

Can a supermarket cashier refuse to sell food to a pharmacist who chooses not to dispense certain medications, because she finds his behavior morally objectionable?

I find open heart surgery objectionable. God does not want a man's chest to be cut open and his heart handled by another man. It is in the bible.

I find it morally objectionable that religious fanatics continually try to remake the world in their image. Please move to Afghanistan and be subjected to a true theocracy!

I find it ironic that all the folks who are in such a hurry to make the 72 hour limit to get their morning after pills, can't spend a few moments picking up some condoms. You don't find the pharmacists who object to your promiscuous life style out trying to prevent you from sleeping around, but yet you want them to participate in the repercussions of it. I'm sure that pharmacist would be happy to sell you some condoms - next time. It isn't a "medical need" as you claim, it's taking care of your irresponsibility. What has all the advanced sex "education" gotten us? People still dumb enough to have unprotected sex. CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE, try choosing before conception, for a change.

Yes Ann, people are dumb. It's part of the human condition. I have no unwanted children that I know of, but I'm nearly perfect. Like you, I never make mistakes.

Why would that same pharmacist be happy to sell someone condoms. Isn't the pharmacist condoning a promiscuous lifestyle and the wasting of sacred sperm? Sounds morally objectionable to me.

I think people who want birth control should have to get permission from their local Ayatollah. Don't you?

eric1956 says: "Can a supermarket cashier refuse to sell food to a pharmacist who chooses not to dispense certain medications, because she finds his behavior morally objectionable?"

Huh? What in the world does that mean? The sale of a PRODUCT to EVERYONE is the issue!! Unbelievable that some people just don't get that!! What is going on in your heads??
- No one is being discriminated against!
- The pharmacist is not forcing a religion on anyone!
- The pharmacist is not taking away anyone's choice! The pharmacist never said you had to shop at his/her pharmacy.
- The pharmacist is merely exercising a right to choose to stock and sell products that he or she wants to!!

And by the way, what makes some of you so arrogant as to think you make the job description for the pharmacist?

Pro Liberty:

Let's cut to the chase on this. You want to have your little circular arguments to justify your ends, which is to prevent people from getting birth control. You have taken on the pseudonym Pro Liberty in a naieve attempt to conceal the fact that you are a boldfaced fascist, who doesn't believe in anyone's liberty except your own.

Why are you hiding behind a false argument? Admit that your goal is to prevent others from exercising their rights, instead of hiding behind some libertarian hogwash.

eric1956:

Thanks for your response.

A couple questions for you:

1) How is it that you come to an accusation of fascism when I am only defending the liberty and rights of the pharmacist to sell the products she/he wants? In fact, a fascist regime is the extreme example of a government power that would force the pharmacist to sell products she/he would not want to, which is what you and others are wanting.
I have never argued against the right for someone to get their legal prescriptions. Go back and re-read my posts.
2) How did you come to the accusation: “to prevent people from getting birth control”? My spouse and I regularly purchase prescribed birth control from a pharmacy for ourselves. But, if the pharmacist decided to stop selling it, even if it remained legal to obtain, I would never think to try to force the pharmacist to sell it, just because I have a right to get it. I respect the pharmacist’s rights to conduct her/his business freely. I would just go to a pharmacist that would sell it to me.
Putting that aside, I don’t care what the legal drug is – if a pharmacist does not want to sell it, then she/he should not have to. Period. And I, you, or anybody should just go get it from a pharmacist that WILL sell it. Like I said in a previous post, the pharmacist is not trying to force me to shop at his/her pharmacy.

Regarding one of your earlier examples on the opposition to open heart surgery – I defend your right to believe that and practice it, and even preach it. And if you were a heart doctor I would not try to force you to give open heart surgeries just because they are legal and I have a right to one. I defend your right to run your medical practice how you see fit and do not feel that you are taking away my rights or forcing your religious beliefs on me by doing so. I just would not come to you for an open heart surgery, which is my right. This is freedom for you and for me.

By the way, I am not sure what you mean by "libertarian hogwash" as I am not a libertarian, politically speaking. So, I am not familiar with their stance on this issue.

I do not believe that a pharmacist should be capable of refusing to dispense a prescription drug. No matter which side of the fence you are on - if it's legal, it's legal.

if thay can get away with not giveing the plan B pills what are the going to take next the plan B pills could save lives without an abortion the earlyest an abortion can be safely done is @ 6 weeks by that time there is a heart beat i would rather see weman take the plan B then have an abortion

First, Pharmacists are there to do their job and have no right to dictate to anyone what they can and cannot take as long as it is legal. If they feel they are bound by their own morals or beliefs then they need to change jobs.

On the other hand, nothing irritates me more than those of you who say, "it's my body." There are consequences to every action we take!

Religious beliefs or not, this is about the fact that someone made a choice to have sex knowing those consequences. I find it funny that they didn't think twice about abusing the one most sacred thing that was givien to us as human beings knowing what the ramifications were, instead of preparing themselves by taking the pill before hand!

If you don't want a child, then be responsible and do what you need to do to prevent yourself from getting pregnant by getting the pill or don't have sex! Quit shurking your responsibilities and do what you need to do to prevent it from becoming an issue in the first place!!!!!

If people did that, then this wouldn't be a problem. And yes, I know it is not 100% effective but, at least it's a start!

Krissypoo,

Ever have a condom fail? Ever make a mistake and forget to take your pill? Ever been a victim of date rape?

Do you really think it's accurate to assume that every time a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly it is due to her negilgence?

Dawn, The crux of the matter of the pharmacist's moral objection to selling the Morning After Pill, or Plan B as you like to call it, is that it causes an abortion. Also, there is little accountability for the deaths that have resulted from the use of this "legal" drug and media censorship, by ommission, of reporting the dangers of its use. I'm sure that grieving family members are not above taking the pharmacist to court. He has the RIGHT to LIBERTY
and for him to exercise that right is NOT infringing on your liberty. You have the liberty to obtain your prescription drug of CHOICE somewhere else. Deal with it! Why are you trying to "cram your morality down his throat?"

This is an interesting blog in spite of the rancorous tone. I don't think pharmacists should be allowed to say 'no', but there's been some good remarks on both sides.

My concern is that there are no limits; any pharmacist can refuse to dispense any medication, urgent or not, for any reason. A pharmacist could decide that birth control was making black women too promiscuous, and refuse it to them only. There are no controls to record who refused what to whom and why. And no way to make sure that people who are refused urgent medication get it in time.

For example, there have been reports of pharmacists refusing to transfer a prescription they refused to fill to another pharmacy.

Many pharmacists and doctors that refuse to dispense the Morning After pill also refuse ordinary birth control pills, believing it to work by abortion. There are many accounts of this in the media. Soon, women in conservative areas may have a hard time getting regular birth control at all.

Many people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to homosexuality, which is associated with AIDS. Do these pharmacists also refuse to dispense lifesaving AIDS medication? Again, there are no controls and no records of what they do.

This is also a hypocritical policy. The drugstores don't allow their cashiers to refuse to sell condoms, alcohol or cigarettes, even though many religions oppose those things.

I atke offense on the commercial of a guy driving thru buildings and advertizing a beautiful smile. What kind of message does this sent to our youth? Get rid of these "sick" ads. I don't even remnember the name of the prodyuct and I have seen it several times. Get real!

you reak what you sow! if they dig lightly and i mean lightly theyll probably find that same physician prescribed his fav-RITE drug also with the physician name on the bottle. that alone should give the judge all the reason to prosecute. WBR LeoP

Time to change jobs if he finds it unethical to dispense drugs that are stocked on his shelf. The principle would remain the same if he was a member of another faith. WBR LeoP

I am against abortion personally. My girlfriend ,now my wife , became pregnant after 1 year of us being monogamous together.We were not ready for a child but abortion was out of the question.I believe a certain magic happens at the moment of fertilization.I believe it to be A precious gift and i would never thing of destroying that gift.So i believe the morning after pill kills a living being , nomatter how small , it's still a human life.I would understand a pharmacist refusing to fill it.That would make him an accomplice to murder.EXAMPLE: guns are legal , but should a gun shop sell a gun to person who tells the gun dealer he would like to shoot his wife.NO WAY, because he would be partially responsable .When it comes to death or murder of a human being , putting the means to do so in a woman's hands is a very important decision and should be solely up to the pharmacist.Technically , a pharmacist could partially be responsable for thousands of innocent embriotic human lives.Would you like to be one of those pharmacist?It's easier on one's conscience to refuse to fill the morning after pill.PERIOD.

This is larger than a birth control issue. The issue is whether a pharmacist, with no knowledge of a patient's history, medical conditions, and without any skill in clinical diagnosis is able to deny medical care based upon personal perceptions and incomplete clinical information.

I was recently denied having a script filled because the pharmacist didn't know the doctor, and despite the fact that she was able to confirm that he had a license that was valid in my state, I had to go without my medications. Nurses, doctor's, and other medical professionals are not allowed to make medical decisions that are external to their certifications. Pharmacists are trained in medication interactions and dispensing said meds. That has nothing to do with whether the medication is appropriate to treat a medical issue. Therefore druggists do not have the training to intercede in my medical care. When they deny medications, they are practicing medicine without a license. I believe that is illegal in any state.