ST. LOUIS — Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule. The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said. A rule imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule. Ed Martin, an attorney for the pharmacists, on Tuesday called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said they would consider legal action if Walgreen doesn't reconsider. Disgusting. If a woman wants to kill her unborn child, then let her, it is not my right, nor is it yours, to stop her. It is her choice. I'm totaly with Walgreen on this, as the pharmacists obviously did something against state law, and broke policy in doing so. They denied somebody choice. What I really want to know though: where the hell has common sense gone?! At least I won't deny you choice. Now click this link damn it!
This is an important note THE MORNING AFTER PILL DOES NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill Emergency contraceptive pills (here called "ECPs"), are an oral drug containing high doses of hormones found in regular oral contraceptive pills, which, when taken after unprotected sexual intercourse, may prevent pregnancy from occurring. There are several ways ("mechanisms of action") by which such drugs may work. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, this drug may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the ovum or sperm cell, interfere with fertilization, or, in cases where it fails to prevent fertilization, prevent implantation. In this respect, emergency contraceptive pills work by triggering the same hormonal changes in the body as regular birth control pills or even breastfeeding —but they require much higher doses and are less effective than ongoing hormonal contraceptives. The phrase "morning-after pill" is a misnomer that is falling out of use due to the fact they are licensed for use up to 72 hours after sexual intercourse. Here's a planned parenthood fact sheet explaing the the difference between emergency contraception pills (morning after) and medication abortion: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...edicalinfo/ec/fact-contraception-abortion.xml
A moral objection? Even the pro-lifers can't argue that there is a life at risk after one or two days. But no they would rather that an unwanted life was brought into the world, when there is no need for it to get that far. At that early stage, we are not talking aboutlife, but more the potential for life.
Some people are against ALL contraceptives though. Although you shouldnt try to induce your faith on other people if it's your job to do something the state requires. I say that, but then if I went to an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia I wouldnt expect to be able to go out and get something alcoholic outside of a hotel, but then again, those serving drinks in hotels dont tell me I cant drink.
What's funny.....alot of the women in their 30/40s that are against the morning after pill, abortion, and sex before marriage had their children before they were married.
It's also his right to not give it to her. But then it's also his right to go to jail because of his reasoning. Nobody said doing the right thing is easy... I do think he doesn't understand what the pill does exactly and in this is certainly mistaken. But the point I think he's making is that it's still life being formed and in that taking something like this is taking the so called "choice" away from the unborn. It's hypocritical...
I just think the women should have gone to the next town over and gotten it from there. I mean, these guys may be pharmicists, and we may be living in a time when pro-choicers are seemingly behind the more popular and poltically correct cause, but that doesn't mean people should all of a sudden have to change what they believe in. They should have to think about what they beleive in, but if they've thought it through and they still feel this way, there is plenty time for the women to get to another pharmacy, so, live and let live, I guess.
specofdust, I understand what you're saying, but still that's not right. Why should the woman go elsewhere when she's already at the place she needs to be to get said item? It's like if I went to a nice restaurant and wanted a nice yummy filet mignon, only to have my waiter refuse to serve it to me cause they're vegan/vegetarian. If the waiter doesn't want to eat meat, fine - they don't have to. But their job entails serving me meat if I order it. The same concept goes for the pharmacist. If he's so against it, then fine - he doesn't have to use it. But his job description entails filling prescriptions and the like for customers. Yes, I understand there is freedom of religion, but by the pharmacist wrongly inacting his religion, he is removing the woman's freedom of "religion" (used lightly and more synonymously with "beliefs").
If the pharmacist has such an issue dispensing prescriptions, perhaps he or she needs to look long and hard at a career change. The restaurant analogy is excellent...if you're such a 'committed' vegetarian as to deny others their own rights based on your preferences, then you should not go work in a steakhouse. Your rights to protest end where another's rights to receive a prescription signed by a doctor begin. I'm a firm believer that you have the absolute right to control your personal space. But if that means that the pharmacist can't dispense the prescription because of his or her beliefs, then please find another career that better serves your ideals...such as gardening or waxing chia-pets. On an off topic note, this whole conversation reminds me of George Carlin's skit on "the sanctity of life": Did you ever notice that the women who head up the pro-life debate are women you wouldn't want to f*** in the first place?! ... They always talk about the sanctity of life. Life is sacred? Since when? Sanctity of life...don't give me that s***. All life is not sacred...gnats, mosquitoes, botulinium, "crabs"...nothing sacred about those things, is there? When's the last time you saw a bumper sticker that said "I break for advanced melanoma"? So at the very least, the sanctity of life is a selective thing. We select what is sacred, and kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? Know how we got it? We made it all up!!! The whole thing is created out of an incredibly self-interested and biased point of view because WE'RE ALIVE.
I've tried quite hard, but I can't actually think of any arguements to counter what you guys say. Thats the last time I argue the other side on bit-tech I think to be honest you guys are probably right, if you can't fulfill your role in your job you shouldn't be in that position. Perhaps, these pharmacists in particular feel they spend their whole lives dispensing pills to make people better to improve and save lives, and to them, they're being asked to dispense ones that are going to be killing someone, it must seem like a contradictory thing to do. But, as a few of you rightly pointed out, a vegetarian shouldn't work in a steakhouse.
My argument (always very effectively welded against pro-life campainers) is that if they are against abortion, pro life etc., then they should offer the mother-to-be an alternative. I mean, there they are, picketing anti-abortion clinics and shouting abuse, threatening staff, hurling insults at women who generally have really good reasons for not wanting to put a child into this world. They often are church-going family people, firmly embedded in a social support structure, well off, and experienced parents. Now, I sort of ask myself: if they feel so strongly about it, why don't they offer a viable alternative? Why don't they walk up to these worried women who perceive themselves to be in a big fix, and say: "Hey, you don't have to go through with this. I know you are probably loney and scared, and worried about how you're going to support and raise this child. Well, we can help you. We can support you through this. We are experienced parents. We can give you advice, practical support, friendship. You don't have to go it alone." Many women might still turn down the offer (for good reasons of their own), but at least they were offered a real "pro-life" choice. But guess what: the picketers never do. I guess it's more exciting to kill doctors (pro-life, indeed) or shout at people in self-righteous indignation. Funnily enough, I never see them hit the streets to protest against child abuse and neglect --a sort of "abortion after the fact". I never see them hand out pamphlets on how a significant majority of children live below the poverty line. I never see them support a struggling underfunded nursery or community day center. I definitely never see them support struggling single mums. Frankly, the whole hypocracy of pro-lifers makes me want to vomit. There are few things I feel that strongly about, but this is one of them. I just can't stomach their dumb, sickening, insincere, hypocritical sentimentality.
I said it again, but obviously it didn't work so I'll try again. These pills do not terminate a pregnancy These pills do not cause an abortion These pills are contraception These pills prevent pregnancy - not end it.
We know, but we were discussing the moral reasoning behind the pharmacist's beliefs, not their factual accuracy. We cool now?
Yeah - from reading some of the posts, I wasn't sure that everyone got that. This is along the lines of the pharmacist not selling birth control pills, diaphragms, and condoms.....
Abstinence? Honestly, though, you're completely right. But, please don't judge the entire pro-life movement on the most extreme, vocal members. There are groups who do precisely what you've suggested. Yes, there are those who yell and scream and protest and burn abortion clinics. However, there are more people who are much more moderate. They still think that abortion is wrong, but they are dedicated to the preservation of life, not to the destruction of abortion.
Da_BaCoN F.T.W.!! LOLLERSKATES! (sorry, I couldn't help pointing out that I did a good job on something ) *runs off to show his mum*
Not very realistic. Although I'm the first to endorse being very careful who you hit the sack with, you have to factor into the equation that sex is as firmly wired into our brains as eating and breathing. Biologically speaking, it's what we exist for. Given their average intelligence, people will make mistakes. A child should not have to pay for those for the rest of its life. That's good to hear.
