Legislating From The Pharmacy
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, ScienceI didn’t realize that pharmacists can refuse to give women the morning after pill if it’s against their personal beliefs.
Apparently, neither did young Tucson woman who was raped. She spent three days searching for the pill, and finally found it, but the person on duty wouldn’t dispense it because of their religious beliefs.
From the Arizona Daily Star:
While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.
“I was so shocked,” said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. “I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this.”
But many stores are. A 2004 survey of more than 900 Arizona pharmacies found less than half keep emergency contraception drugs in stock, with most saying there is too little demand, but some cite moral reasons, according to the Arizona Family Planning Council.
This is where it gets sad. The pharmacy said they directed the woman to another that had the pill and could dispense it, but the woman denies it.
The manager of the Fry’s pharmacy at 3920 E. Grant Road, where the refusal occurred, offered to find another location where the prescription could be filled, according to a Fry’s spokeswoman. But the young woman said she was offered no other options.
Who’s telling the truth? We may never know.
But let’s make one thing clear. The morning after pill is a contraceptive device, not an abortion pill. It not only impedes the female body from releasing an egg, but it also makes sure that the lining of the womb can’t accept a fertilised egg.
That’s much different than an abortion, and yet the religious right demonizes it as if it were the same thing. Sad indeed.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 and is filed under Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:09 am
“it also makes sure that the lining of the womb can’t accept a fertilised egg. That’s much different than an abortion”
This is disputable. Many believe, as I do, that if it is an individual organism (as is the diploid fertilised egg), then it is a human being entitled to life, liberty ect… The willful prevention of the embryo attatching to the womb is thus a form of neglect that leads to the death of such embryo.
[Of course, 6 Roe v. Wade Judges disagreed, and via judicial fiat, mandated that a human being was defined as "viable, albeit with medical assistance" human organisms.]
Also, The owner of the business has the right to hire or fire whom he pleases, even if they refuse to distribute contraceptives or abortion pills (or cigarettes for that matter). This may result in loss of customers or public outrage, but again, the owner is responsible for behavior of recalcitrant employees, not the government.
98% of medical doctors in this county refuse to perform abortions because it violates the hippocratic oath. Is this “sad indeed?” If you are the proprietor of a reproductive health clinic, don’t hire one of those doctors!!
October 25th, 2005 at 11:24 am
That’s much different than an abortion, and yet the religious right demonizes it as if it were the same thing.
In addition to Noodles’s comment above, there’s also the belief that contraception in general, while not the same as abortion, is still immoral in its own way. (Of course, the central premise of this belief - that the only legitimate purpose of sex is procreation within a marriage - not only doesn’t apply to this case but is also the same premise behind opposition to homosexuality.)
October 25th, 2005 at 11:36 am
I’m curious as to why they were stocking it when they didn’t plan on dispensing it…
October 25th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
98% of medical doctors in this county refuse to perform abortions because it violates the hippocratic oath. Is this “sad indeed?�
Not performing abortions and refusing to perform abortions are two completely different things. Where are you getting your info? Can you show me where 98% of doctors feel that it violates the hippocratic oath? Would you want a podiatrist performing an abortion?
Don’t muddle the facts
October 25th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Why didn’t she just do what any normal person does when a place of business doesn’t fill their need?
Just take your business and your money somewhere else. No need to start/feed a religious feud.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
If she was a rape victim, why wasn’t this treatment provided to her as part of her, presumably routine, trip to the emergency room for evidence samples, etc.? It seems like a no-brainer, like giving someone a tetanus shot after he steps on a rusty nail. She shouldn’t have to be dragging herself into pharmacies across town.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
William,
not knowing her situation, but you must assume that perhaps she might not have the freedom of mobility that some have. Not having a car will seriously limit your shopping around potential.
Perhaps she tried, but busses don’t go out to the place where this was available. You can’t shop from store to store by bus.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:45 am
Cal, you asked…
It would have been, however, she didn’t want to report it. This is sadly the case with many sexual assault victims, as the story points out.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:09 am
It is very common and perfectly legal for doctors, pharmacists, and any other health care professionals to refuse any type of birth control and/or abortion services if they find it morally objectionable.
Furthermore, pharmacists and doctors may not provide these services and products just because they do not want to be in the “hot seat” so to speak. Obviously, if you are a doctor who performs abortions, you are going to get flack, but many other businesses, including pharmacies and drug stores may feel that people will boycott or picket them if they sell certain products and provide certain services.
Lastly, pharmacists and doctors who perform these services and sell these products often have to comply with complicated and onerous regulations that have been set by the Legislature. These laws have been put into place in order to make it impossible for women to have access to abortion and birth control since, so far, they have been unable to actually make it illegal.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Hippocratic oath contains these lines:
“…To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary[instrument or suppository] to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art….”
October 26th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Noodles, that version was written by Hippocrates in ancient Rome.
The modern revision of the Hippocratic oath was written by Louis Lasagna in 1964 and is used in widely used in place of the original version:
Nothing about abortion in this version. So which one are you going to go with? The one written thousands of years ago, or the one written forty years ago?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
One of my uncles became a doctor 15 years ago and took the oath in its original version when he began his practice. This has been controversial for some time now, there are many versions of the oath which were changed from the original form specifically because of the abortion issue. Many doctors today choose take the original oath for that reason.
The original version was always used for graduating classes of major universities up until the 1970’s//1980’s because of the political pressure from pro-choice activists.
I dont think the fact that the oath was written thousands of years ago makes it irrelevant. The wording and spirit of the new versions are strikingly similar to the old oath except for the abortion issue only. For centuries, from the Renaissance to today, Doctors have taken the original oath.
Anyway, what is it about the status of the human foetus today as apposed to 60 years ago that makes abortion a morally acceptable procedure now and not then?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Why don’t Anti-Abortion activists go off and start a new country somewhere on a far off island where they can inflict their religious and moral perspectives on themselves alone?
Righties always tell the left to move to France if they don’t like the laws in America. The same should go to the Religious Right.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Hey John, I have a better idea. Why dont we overturn Roe v. Wade, Let each state democratically decide whether abortion is legar or not, then you can move to California and kill all the babies you want!!
hoorah!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
kill all the fetuses I want Noodle. The thing you don’t get is that this is not 1973 any more. The majority want to preserve Roe V Wade. Check the numbers and your morality.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Come on people. Don’t let this devolve into “baby killer” argument.
But John is right. The majority do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. You are obviously not going to choose that for your lifestyle, but many women want the same civil rights as men, and that’s why I doubt Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Sorry. My tone was meant to be facetious in response to Johns post.
The majority of the country as a whole may not want roe overturned, however i have 2 points:
1) The constitutionality of Roe as legal precident is not up for public refferendum unless the constitution is ammended according to such refferendum. The legislative and judicial branches are seperate to prevent tyranny of the majority.
2)The majority of people in states like texas, missouri, the carolinas ect.. do want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and would vote to ban or limit abortions in their own states.
Roe v. Wade may not be overturned anytime soon, but remember it took 62 years before Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Have those of you in the states in question ever thought about not getting abortions for yourselves, and leave that excruciating decision that people have to face, up to them and their gods or their lack there of? And again this has become a constitutional issue and there for your opinion and my opinion must cross. Unfortunately for you We’re in the majority. Fortunately for you and contrary to your belief there is no one out there forcing you, your loved ones, or anyone else to get an abortion. You can just not opt for that.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
I dont wan’t to start an abortion-right-or-wrong debate here. I first want to illustrate that IF an unborn human organism were to be defined legally as human life, then the abortion would be equivalent to the willful killing of an infant child. I think we can agree with the logic of this propositon, even if we disagree in our personal opinions about the subject.
Unelected unacountable judges decided, based on their own personal opinions, that unborn human organisms could not be legally defined as human beings until after “viability.” By Judicial decree, rather than democratic legeslative process, this opinion was made law.
I believe that unelected judges do not have authority in a democratic system like our own to make such an opinion into law. No conservative wants to see the supreme court ban abortions. We just want to see Roe v. Wade overturned so that a democratic process, i.e. the people of each state, would determine the legal status of the unborn.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
First off, there’s a reason they aren’t elected. Politicizing positions that are supposed to be objective would be disastorous for our courts. Secondly, they were appointed by the people we elected, so in a sense, they represent the views of our representative democracy. Like it or not, that’s how we make law.
And frankly, if you don’t believe judges, who are appointed by your elected officials, should have the authority to make law, then you don’t believe in our constitution.
Fair enough?
October 27th, 2005 at 9:14 am
“Politicizing positions that are supposed to be objective would be disastorous for our courts”
Precisely. Deciding what constitutes human life is clearly a political issue and that is why judges should not have the authority to advocate a political position and make it into law. That is what our legislature is for, that is why we have elections so our representatives make the laws on behalf of the american public.
Judged do not have the autority to make laws, they have the authority to adjudicate specific cases based on existing laws(created by legislature), during which, these existing laws may be overturned if they are found to be in violation of the constitution.
In Roe, The supreme court decided that the state law banning abortion at that time was unconstitutional because it was in violation of the 4th amendment.
They interpreted that the constitution provided a right to privacy derived from “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” which is perfectly fine when applied to abortions, IF you regard the unborn child as a mere body part or a parasitic organism, morally equivalent to an appendix or a tapeworm.
But who decides that? Why should a judge, who must be objective without a political bias, decide the clear political position whether the unborn is or is not a human being, with or without its own right to privacy?
October 27th, 2005 at 9:15 am
The mother has no right to say what happens to her body? What about her constitutional rights? I have no concern for a couple of cells that cluster together, over the reproductive rights of women. No Birth control is 100% effective. Viability is key to this discusion. Potential for a human life can be reduced to a ridiculous level.
Quit saying your concerned for the rights of an unborn “human being”. just like with evolution the christian righties realized they lose on religious and moral grounds, so you try to mask it in pseudo science. You, noodles are concerned about one thing… That sinless human soul that is trapped in the womb of a sinful mother. Admit it.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:11 am
What does viablility mean anyway? something regarding survival with medical intervention outside the womb, correct? Did you know that in japan they can grow goat fetuses in artificil wombs from 9 weeks on? In five years, technology might be available to place a in vitro-fertilized human eggs into a chamber and grow them to full term. Is that “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid?” as the presiding Roe judge called it. Remember, 41 states ban abortion after 24 weeks because current technology offers that as a standard.
read this rather objective article on ectogenesis:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000867.html
There is nothing inherently or exclusively religious obout the pro-life argument. Nowhere in the bible does it say “though shalt not commit abortion” You can’t simply write this off as religion and then run away from the debate. Determining what is life and what is death when there is such a grey area is required by secular governments to maintain law and order, otherwise there would be no need for Roe v Wade in the first place.
“I have no concern for a couple of cells that cluster together.” You guys have such a clear idea on what does NOT constitute human life, so you tell me, in your opinion: What specifically do you regard as criteria that DOES define human life and not just a cluster of cells?
October 27th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Noodles-
I’m not running off. It is a fine line between fetus and a viable life, I grant you that. and science can push viability back to the point from fertilization a human is viable. the question is then, when do we stop? Do we go as far as to say that sex can only be used for reproduction because there is always the possibility of creating a life inherent in the act of sex? I realize that I have reduced it to the point of ridicule, but it is necessary.
Human life is precious, but sometimes abortion of life is best for the mother and the fetus, sometimes it is better for the mother and sometimes its better for the fetus… the combinations can be extended to family, society, and mankind. Should a mother have to carry a child to term if it endangers her life? No. Should the mother have to carry to term the child of a rape? No.
Life begins at understanding. Understanding is held within the brain. A cluster of cells does not have a brain. It has cells that work like brains, but not brains. It might react to stimuli, but it can not understand the stimuli. Potential for understanding is not the same as actually understanding and developing thoughts based on that understanding.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Human Life that is.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:08 am
You make good points here. First, I don’t think we will ever see debate about legality of birth control. No one disputes that sperm and egg are cells belonging to the parents, like the skin cells killed during a tatoo procedure. The real crux of the abortion argument, is not so much potentiality, rather, that the fertilized embryo, zygote, foetus ect… (which are genetically distinct organisms that require the host mother for survival) can be considered a human life that cant speak for itself, like an infant child.
Second, When the mother’s life is at stake, surely there must be stipulation in any law that limits abortion, to give favor to the life (or bodily functions for that matter) in case of danger. There are criterea, such as the capability to experience suffering or to fear death, that allow us to make moral judgements regarding the choice to save only one of two lives.
Third, most reasonable pro-choice advocates give the criterea of self-awareness or conciousness as sufficient definition of human life. I have problems with this assumption. What about the fact that signs of conciousness apear within the brain before viability? Others argue that infant children are no more self aware than primative animals; can their lives be terminated like an unwanted pet? Do chimpanzees who have brains developed like 4 year-old children have the same rights as children? What about the mentally handicapped or comatose?
I see nothing wrong with the position that a human organism has inherent moral value, simply because it is human.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Ah, Noodles hence in lies my point. Where does this “inherent moral value” come from. It lies in religion. And that understanding is that God created something special in humans that he did not place in other organisms. So, I too agree that humans have things that chimps don’t… a couple houndred thousand years of evolution. But until we cross the line that the fetus has a brain that is more like mine than an ameoba’s or a similar stage fetal chicken, I’m not really thinking of it on the same ground as the mother that contains that fetus.
“signs of consciousness” wrong kind of consciousness.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
and, by the way. When they keep writing and passing these little bills that widdle away at the women’s right to choose, they often forget to put in the part about unless “the mother’s life is at stake, surely there must be stipulation in any law that limits abortion, to give favor to the life (or bodily functions for that matter) in case of danger.” To give this group of people the option to limit this situation more would be inviting them to get to the point where sex is to be used only for reproduction.
I like sex.
October 27th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This statement seems to say people have inherent moral values that are undenyable. But it does mention God, so I guess your right. In order to be true to the spirit of america and the separation of church and state, human beings must not have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Since the Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty, the only constitutional option must be to enforce the death penalty in every state, else we would live in a “theocracy” am I right?
C.S. Lewis books and Star-Wars lunchboxes should be banned from public schools because those stories teach Judeo-Christian moral values, right?
Often times, moral truth’s proposed by secular philosophers like our founding fathers overlap with certain religious creed. I dont think you have to believe in the “Creator” part of the declaration of independence in order to agree that we have inalienable rights.
Besides, you claim that Human life begins at understanding within the brain. Well, where is the stone tablet that the rule is carved into, and what mountain did you carry it down from? Your claim does not apear to be self-evident (so obvious it doesn’t need proof), nor does my claim of inherent moral value. So lets vote on it.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Noodles-
I don’t have any interest in you believing what I believe. You would however like for me to believe as you do. And I will give you your constitutional vote. Get the bill passed through congress and I will vote against it. You want it to be a States issue so you can have a handle, some handle, any handle on this situation… A foothold to work from. Once you do, Then you’ll reach higher. The righties have States rights on marriage, and given that allowance they have managed to remove the rights of individuals they find intolerable (homosexuals). Why would I give you states rights on a pre-existing constitutional issue that you would try to remove the rights of women?
Why would killing babies in California be better to you than killing babies in Georgia? Making it a states issue would not quell your thirst on this issue. Say what you mean man. quit dancing.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:05 am
You’re right. I would continue to protest and try to persuade people in california or massachusetts that abortion is a violation of a child’s inalienable right to life, and that right is more important that the mother’s right to “privacy” in most situations.
The key is that I will try to persuade them through political action, that is what a democratic society does. When the supreme court issues a Judicial mandate (as a dictator does) that citizens cannot illicit change through elections, legeslation, or refferendum, then my voice is effectively obsolete and persuasion is useless. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned in order for any of us to vote.
If Roe was overturned, and my governor issued a refferendum regarding criminalising abortion, I’m sure it would fail and my state would continue with legal abortions as it has since 1973. I would be dissapointed, but satisfied by the political process, and try to convince more people to vote “yes” the next time there is a refferendum.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Noodles,
Congrats do you feel better that your not trying to pussy foot around what you mean. Now, deal with the fact that there is a third Branch to our system that is empowered to interpret the constitution as a living document that needs to change with time to remain viable and pertinent to society.
Now that you’re willing to speak more directly about how you feel on the subject, admit that if Supreme Court were to say that a fertilized egg was a person and that it deserves all the same rights as anyone else, that you would be praising their decision and NOT say that they’re legislating from the bench.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Agreed John. I think this whole “legislating from the bench” stuff is all in the eye of beholder.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Your Wrong. I would be upset if a judge, based on his or her opinion, mandated that an embryo be considered a human being. It is not self-evident that an embryo is a human person, the way it is self evident that a black man and a white man are both human persons (as is clearly described in the 1st amendment), but remember that the supreme court upholds unconstitutional laws sometimes too, and that is also wrong. Clearly, segregation was always unconstitutional, even though a racist population ad numerum believed it was acceptable, but the supreme court upheld it for 62 years.
I support gay marrige, my sister is a lesbian, but I dont agree with the Massachusetts courts overturning restrictions to gay marrige via judicial fiat. I would vote “yes” if there were refferenda to recognize gay marrige. I think the people should decide whether homosexual relationships have the same legal status at heteros, or whether they are more like polygamy or incestuous relationships. But thats a whole other thread.
Our constitution is living and beathing only in that you can ammend it. That requires legislation, which requires democratic political action.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
well, glad you brought up that, and I won’t mention that gays are being persecuted (i’m not one, if that was in your mind) for being gay. Much the same way that marriage laws were used against interratial couples not all that long ago. Good talking with you Noodles, I don’t think we can go too much further with this.