Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Plan B: Judge says religious conscience trumps inconvenience
In Washington, Gov. Christine Gregoire had pressured state regulators to force pharmacists to dispense Plan B, the controversial “morning after pill.” But U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton last week ruled that the regulations appear to “intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception.” Leighton enjoined the regulations, saying that the government must prove that “timely” access to Plan B is a compelling state interest.
Most interesting, I thought, is that Leighton cut through the rights-talk to issues of convenience and “feelings”:
“The evidence … convinces the court that the interests promoted by the regulations have more to do with convenience and heartfelt feelings than with actual access to certain medications. Patients understandably may not want to drive farther than the closest pharmacy and they do not want to be made to feel bad when they get there. These interests are certainly legitimate, but they are not compelling interests of the kind necessary to justify the substantial burden placed on the free exercise of religion.”
IMHO, Plan B is all about convenience — the convenience of sex without either responsibility or consequences. Here’s the Seattle Post Intelligencer report on Leighton’s ruling. Did the judge get it right?
back to top64 Comments to “Plan B: Judge says religious conscience trumps inconvenience”
Of course he got it right.
Report comment to moderator
As far as I’m concerned he did. Dispensing Plan B could be as big a problem for someone’s conscience as performing an abortion. There are enough drug stores around, I don’t see why women can’t just be told where they CAN get it.
Report comment to moderator
His ruling is quite reasonable. That anyone would argue for the “right” to this drug and this pharmacy is beyond logic.
Report comment to moderator
“Patients understandably may not want to drive farther than the closest pharmacy and they do not want to be made to feel bad when they get there.”
Typical capitalist scum bag! Is it worth asking him to even consider those who might not have cars, who are physically disabled, or that have life issues like work or children that limit their mobility? For the substantial percent of the population who doesn’t have the luxury (not the convenience) of just hopping the next town over, access to legal and safe medications as just been put in the hands of individual ideologues.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, that is a flat out absurd argument.
But the illogic was not without its amusement. If you have issues with work, children or other things that limit your mobility you shouldn’t be so stupid as to get pregnant. Trust me that has its impact on all those things!
There is no “right” to breech another’s conscience with your own irresponsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Well this isn’t the first time that included class difference in policy analysis has been called “flat out absurd.” I don’t think it will be the last either. Notice though, that in his amusement Adios has failed to provide a counter warrant or reason for believing that that is not true.
Pregnant women don’t take Plan B, they get a abortions!
Women take plan B because they don’t want to get pregnant. And for the woman who has had a condom break and then ovulates a short time after the fact, an abortion will be her only option if she can’t get plan b to stop from ovulating and than becomes pregnant.
Report comment to moderator
Luke,
Aren’t you glad your mother was pro-life?
Report comment to moderator
Luke, Plan B and abortion aren’t the only two options for women. They could also recognize that they chose to welcome a new life into this world, even if not by a conscientious decision, and to love, accept and raise their child. Why must convenience trump human rights?
Report comment to moderator
Regardless of the issue, if the woman has a prescription, it would seem she has a reasonable expectation that the prescription will be fulfilled at her pharmacy. Or if the pharmacy cannot meet its commercial obligations, then a notice to that effect ought to be made public.
The nature of emergency contraception is that it takes place in a limited time frame, so a surprise notice, “I’m sorry I can’t fulfill this…” does seem to put the customer at a severe disadvantage.
Thus, the right of conscience also demands prior notice. That’s only fair.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, I am a woman who has born children. There is nothing more inconveinet than a child–no bigger blessing either. I don’t care if it is the “morning after” or in the first trimester, you can’t be a little pregnant. If the condom breaks (condoms are famously unreliable so responsible women don’t trust them)and ovulation is untimely the woman is still pregnant. You know, they have classes on this stuff.
Simply because a woman may have to take a bus to a pharmacy does not make this ruling a class issue. My husband works in one of the worst ghettos in So Cal and I could direct you, if you so needed, to clinics and PP offices where you could go with Plan B all within walking distance anywhere in the area. This is not a class issue.
But I do agree with Harris that public and prior notice by non-dispensing pharmacies is courteous and reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
Luke is attempting to convert a clear issue of religious conscience to one of “class.” The druggist, who clearly has a serious issue of conscience in dispensing powerful abortifacient drugs, gets to be called a “scumbag capitalist.” So much for decent or civilized discussion.
Judge Leighton in favoring religious conscience over convenience or feeling, however heartfelt, has made a fine decision. I hope Washington isn’t part of the infamous Ninth-Circuit, as his decision would be in danger of being reversed.
Report comment to moderator
The job of a pharmacist is to dispense whatever legal medications the patient is entitled to, not to pass moral judgments.
Anyone who can’t fulfill the job of pharmacist for reasons of conscience should find another line of work.
People are entitled to hold whatever moral convictions their consciences dictate, but they should not then take jobs and demand to be exempted from certain aspects of the job because of their beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
I would think that it would matter who was doing the refusing. A pharmacy owner should have the right to carry or not carry any product he wants, just like any other store owner. In this case, some sort of in-store notification would be appropriate, reasonable, and helpful. However, if a pharmacy carries the drug and a particular pharmacist refuses to dispense it, I would think that should be an issue between employee and employer.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, One who can prove conscientious objection to war is allowed to avoid the military draft in wartime. Following your line of reasoning, he would be told that being a citizen under serious threat by an enemy does not allow him any sort of exemption.
One sign of a civilized nation is that within reason it allows citizens exemption from some legal requirements in cases of truly conscientious objection.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, People who can prove conscientious objection to war are allowed to avoid the military draft in wartime. Following your line of reasoning, they would be told that being a citizen under serious threat by an enemy does not allow anyone any sort of exemption for reasons of conscience.
One sign of a civilized nation is that within reason it allows citizens exemption from some legal requirements in cases of truly conscientious objection.
Like the leftists radicals in the French Revolution, you are arguing that the state is supreme even regarding matters of conscience.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, I hadn’t intended to post that first draft.
Report comment to moderator
A very good point, Solon!
Report comment to moderator
Jeez, why are reading comprehension skills so low around here?
The druggist isn’t the scum bag capitalist.
The Judge is because his case analysis assumes everyone is wealthy and economic hardship is not considered in determining state interests. Adios’ empirical examples are be true of everyone, especially since she lives in an urbanized area and is trying to assert the same interests applied in LA are legit in rural Washington!
The druggist is the ideologue!
Report comment to moderator
Luke- your argument of not being able to get to the pharmacy is moot. Most pharmacies have mail delivery options.
Steve G- The job of a doctor is to uphold the Hippocratic oath to protect life, so no doctor should ever prescribe medication that takes life.
Report comment to moderator
If someone’s religious beliefs can preclude them from doing their job, one opens a whole host of scenarios:
Can a Seventh Day adventist refuse to ring up the purchases of meat in a store or at, say, Wendys?
Can a White Supremicist refuse to serve black customers?
Can a Muslim nurse refuse to give medications to a non-Muslim patient?
Would employers be forced to pay employees who refuse to do their job on religious grounds?
On to the case at hand:
One can imagine a whole host of real life situations where this ruling will have impact:
What if it’s the only pharmacy that’s open, say on the weekend or something?
What if it’s the only pharmacy in the community?
What if the person is in the 46th or 47th hour and can’t get the Rx filled?
The bottom line is this: a pharmacist is under a legal and moral obligation to dispense a legally written Rx. To do otherwise is to say that a pharmacists religious beliefs trump the sound medical judgment of a physician and the sound medical care of their patient.
Also, let’s not forget that many of these renegade pharmacists object to giving referrals. They want to be able to take the prescription and tear it up, as has already happened in several cases.
If one cannot do the job they were trained/hired for, then they should seek another line of work.
Report comment to moderator
I think the judge got the decision right.
However, I am puzzled as to why the “religious freedom” argument must even be used in the first place. Is it not permissible for a private business to simply decide not to stock a product? One of the plaintiffs in this case is a company who simply does not stock Plan B. Why can that not be a simple business decision by a private entity?
Here’s a real-life example without the political baggage: My son has a skin condition for which his allergist prescribed a specific compounded drug product. Most pharmacies do not stock one of the key ingredients in the compound–I found out later, by asking around, that many pharmacists are not even familiar with the name of the ingredient. There are a few pharmacies in our area that specialize in compounds, and the allergist mentioned several of those when writing our prescription. We had it filled at one of those specific pharmacies, even though it was inconvenient for us to do so: the pharmacy is several miles farther from home than our normal pharmacy.
Despite the inconvenience, I did not even consider going to our normal pharmacy and demanding that they carry this ingredient so that we can avoid going to this other out-of-the-way pharmacy. I assumed that our normal pharmacy made a simple business decision not to carry the ingredient, and that I would have to sacrifice a bit of convenience to care for my son properly.
No “free exercise of religion” argument is needed for that.
I admit that is a different story for an objecting pharmacist working for an employer who has decided to carry Plan B. In that case, the pharmacist’s job entails performing a duty to which he is morally opposed. The best advice in that situation is probably, as Anlir put it, to “seek another line of work”, or at least another employer.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, there are a fair number of single (and married) women out there who take a version of Plan B for Endometriosis (sp?), which is a very painful condition, that has nothing to do with pregnancy. Why should they be made to suffer? I have a good friend, who is single, who has the condition. Why should she have to drive from pharmacy to pharmacy to find one who is willing to fill it?
Report comment to moderator
Peter L suggests we mail emergency medicine.
Jeez! or more classically LAME, super LAME!
Report comment to moderator
The judge is to be commended for this eminently reasonable decision. No one should have the right to force a pharmacist to violate his conscience.
Report comment to moderator
OK, so let me see if I have this right. So a pharmacist who has been doing his job for 20 yrs or so should find another line of work because he won’t dispense this relatively new medication? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet, but it’s early. Why should he be expected to leave his job because of someone elses poor decisions and planning, or lack of? Why should he suffer because of someone elses stupidity?
If they didn’t want to get pregnant, they shouldn’t have sex. And if they’re gonna, then at least work to prevent pregnancy. Todays public schools teach kids all about sex, and the methods for preventing pregnancy. And PP gives it out for FREE, so the poor women argument is lame.
It amazes me how some here think the pharmacists should be the knight in shining armor, saving women from their own poor decisions and lack of planning. And I find it equally amazing that if he won’t, he suddenly becomes the villan, not the poor decision maker who is really at fault. What a sad day it is when someone who won’t help you kill your baby is considered the villan. Amazing and stupid at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (22): Progestins, the class to which Plan B belongs, are certainly used for treatment of endometriosis. However, the dosing is completely different and every pharmacist would know that.
The facts the Plan B is a progestin and progestins are used in the treatment of endometriosis are true, true, and unrelated. No pharmacist would withhold progestins for the treatment of endometriosis just because a similar compound, taken in a different dose on a different schedule, is used as Plan B.
Report comment to moderator
Irregardless of the arguments over religion, if the prescription was done by a physician for a medical condition and the medicine is legal, I think pharmacists should be required to dispense it. A person’s religion should not be able to trump sound medical care.
Report comment to moderator
“…sound medical care.”
The real question here is whether a matter of convenience is actually “sound medical care”…
Enough of the “sky is falling I’m having a baby” crap already. It’s just a baby. People have been having them for millenia. Deal with it. Don’t kill it.
Report comment to moderator
The problem of course is that there is no end to the mischief this kind of ruling might cause. If pharmacists can decide not to stock Plan B, what about birth control pills generally? What about Viagra? What about certain kinds of narcotics? There are a host of medicines about which someone could hold (or find) a “moral” or religious objection.
I should not have to go to 10 different places (assuming there are such choices) in order to receive legal, prescribed medication. The state interest in access to health care absolutely trumps the objections of some worker. That individual is entitled to whatever view he or she wants but should have absolutely no control whatsoever over my ability to receive lawfully prescribed medications.
Report comment to moderator
DC L 29 –
There is a vast difference between an ‘abortion pill’ and Viagra or birth control pills, which are not ‘abortion pills’ –
The ‘PILL’ in question is abortion – no one should confuse the issue as to other medications being withheld so that one can justify making a pharmacist dispense ‘Plan B’.
The same should also hold for those doctor’s who DO NOT, and WILL NOT perform abortions. No one should be made to perform an abortion if they believe it to be murder/killing –
Those pharmacists who wish to dispense the ‘Plan B’ pill can put a sign on their front windows advertising their ‘Plan B’ pills, and there availability, which I believe would be a terrific idea. In which case, I would never shop there again -
I wouldn’t go to a doctor whom I knew performed abortions -
Report comment to moderator
I have mixed feelings about this issue. However, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to Plan B should certainly have the right (the duty, actually) to inform patients of his opposition. So, what would you say to a policy in which a pharmacist’s instructions include a discussion of mechanism of action?
Pharmacists don’t prescribe medications. Withholding medication is just as much a medical decision as administering medication. In the case of the individual pharmacist, this is a sticky wicket. In the case of a pharmacy, it’s nothing. There’s no way the state should force a pharmacy to carry a particular medication.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria — your objection is irrelevant to my point. My point is, once again, that allowing pharmacists to pick and choose this way based on allegedly moral objections opens a door to a host of other medicines being withheld. Must we go back to the days when birth control could only be sold to married people? Give the pharmacist to pick and choose what to sell and to whom and that’s what you get.
Stubob — I completely disagree. The pharmacists objection is irrelevant and I shouldn’t have to hear it. There’s certainly no duty here. What do I care about his/her personal beliefs. The only duty a pharmacist has is to inform of specific medical contraindications. Your second point is much the issue for me. Withholding medication is practicing medicine. It’s overruling a doctor and I don’t think pharmacists should have that power. Why should a pharmacist not be required to carry particular medications? Maybe we should just have state run pharmacies if enough private ones won’t do their job properly.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s overruling a doctor and I don’t think pharmacists should have that power.”
Evidently the judge didn’t think so. Objection overuled indeed…
Report comment to moderator
IF the pharmacists have been around for twenty years or so, then they have already dispense a version of Plan B. The older birth control pills weren’t much different.
If the pharmacy decides not carry it, then its a business decision. However if it does carry Plan B, the pharmacist should not opt out. As Anlir points out, this opens a can of worms. And yes there are class considerations here.
Report comment to moderator
I still think the liberal argument is all wet. No matter how you much you want to say it is, this is not a necessary medical perscription. A child is not a sickness or terminal illness that needs to be cured. It’s still a matter of convenience, and you’re just frustrated because the judge saw the right of it and shot down your pet ideology.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I’m puzzled by a lot of these comments. First off, Plan B must be taken within 72 hours to be effective, and the sooner after intercourse, the more effective. It basically blocks implantation–much like an IUD, or a double dose of birth control pills (which is what the girls in the dorm used to do if they forgot to take the pill one day and had unprotected intercourse back in the dark ages when I was a teenager).
It’s also available without a prescription here in California if you are over 18.
If your pharmacist for some reason won’t put this together–but why not?, it’s NOT RU-486 which IS an abortifacient–someone else could pluck it off the shelf and hand it to the individual with the prescription. No big deal to me.
It seems to me the perfect product for Planned Parenthood; maybe they could even give it away for free?
And for those of us pro-life, isn’t the problem terminating the already begun life? Most Chrsitians I know don’t have a problem with birth control–so why wouldn’t this product be considered a help? Our crisis pregnancy center deliberately does not take a position on Plan B, much as we don’t take a position on birth control.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Report comment to moderator
IF the pharmacists have been around for twenty years or so, then they have already dispense a version of Plan B. The older birth control pills weren’t much different.
Actually, the older birth control pills were more different than the current ones. The lower the dose of estrogen, the more likely is ovulation. Pills with 50 mcg of estrogen used to be “low dose pills.” Now, they’re the highest dose you can get, AFAIK.
And for those of us pro-life, isn’t the problem terminating the already begun life?
If Plan B works by preventing implantation, then it’s terminating an already begun life. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to prove exactly how it works. It certainly prevents ovulation. However, it is also effective if taken after ovulation. Does it prevent implantation of an embryo? Does it make cervical mucus hostile to sperm? Does it make the uterine lining hostile to sperm? Nobody knows for sure.
Report comment to moderator
DC L – 32
My point isn’t irrelevant, it just doesn’t agree with yours.
We aren’t taking about a host of other medications, we are talking about this particular pill, ‘Plan B’ – It’s not a ‘med malt’ with all ‘meds’ thrown together, its ONE medication we are discussing -
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Michelle — your point on doubling birth control pills in the past is where I was going with my badly construed comments. Also, I recalled a similar debate on Plan B here quite a while ago, when similar information was presented but I wasn’t confidentI knew the details correctly.
Report comment to moderator
Where’s the sword and the baby.
Oh, that’s an old story.
Who’s got the answer to the “new story?”
Oh, the old answers are supposed to be good for the new stories. I’m so relieved.
Report comment to moderator
Lance in 21 said something I had been thinking. Surely not every pharmacy stocks every drug ever invented. Not stocking this one seems an acceptable choice, not worthy of legal action.
I once worked at a drug store in a senior-citizen town (Sun City AZ). Our stock varied accordingly. We stocked very little baby formula and very few tampons, for instance. We stocked a lot of Depends and Metamucil. When the store brand of Metamucil went on sale (as it did regularly), we ordered it by the case and knew we might still give rainchecks. Had Plan B been available, we might have chosen not to stock it because there wouldn’t have been much demand for it!
These things are business decisions as well as moral ones. There is no Constitutional right to access to Plan B. There is a Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB,
Sometimes I read posts here that I feel are above and beyond the norm for WMB. You have posted some today. Most of us are not as articulate in expressing our opinions.I appreciate your wisdom, and opinion. I tip my hat to you Sir, well said.
Report comment to moderator
Solon at #15: SteveG, People who can prove conscientious objection to war are allowed to avoid the military draft in wartime. Following your line of reasoning, they would be told that being a citizen under serious threat by an enemy does not allow anyone any sort of exemption for reasons of conscience.
Not at all. That’s just my point, in fact. People who are morally opposed to killing in war should not be soldiers. (And should not be compelled to be soldiers.)
If you’re a vegetarian, don’t take a job as a restaurant cook and demand that you don’t have to cook any meat. Get a job in some other field.
If you’re unable to dispense a legal pharmaceutical product, don’t be a pharmacist.
Make It Man at #25: No matter how you much you want to say it is, this is not a necessary medical perscription. A child is not a sickness or terminal illness that needs to be cured.
No, but it is a legal medical product, and it’s not the pharmacist’s role to make moral decisions for other people. If the patient wants it, and is legally entitled to it, the patient should get it.
Report comment to moderator
Get your legal dunce caps out, folks: This was not a judgment on the merits. It was a preliminary injunction (PI).
A PI is an equitable remedy that a court issues after a brief hearing. It has the effect of preserving the status quo until the court can hold a full trial on the issue. One factor in the four-factor PI test is the complainant’s likelihood of success at trial. But in administrative law, that factor is rarely decisive unless the complainant’s case has no merit whatsoever. In fact, in administrative law, challenged regulations are almost always held in abeyance through the issuance of PIs.
The judge looked at the inconvenience issue because the four-part test requires the judge to consider the relative hardship that issuing the PI will have on the general public.
The decision on the merits probably won’t come for another 1-2 years.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG – 43
It is the pharmacist’s decision based on his religious beliefs as to whether he would dispense a product which would bring about the termination of a pregnancy. It is no different than expecting a doctor who believes in pro-life to perform an abortion.
Any person can find a doctor or a pharmacist who would dispense the pill or procedure to end their pregnancy, that’s their right. WHAT THEY DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO is DEMANDING ASSISTANCE from either a doctor or a pharmacist!
There is no reason why a pharmacist must dispense a pill which will cause a woman to abort a child. Pharmacists who are PRO-LIFE have a right to believe the way they do, and still continue in their chosen profession.
Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t believe in joining the military, going to war ….. during the time when the ‘draft’ was in full force, (JW’s) didn’t participate in our country’s defense during any war. The United States ALLOWED them to be EXCUSED from military combat.
Why would a Believer against abortion be made to dispense an abortive pill, but a JW allowed (during the draft) to be excused from ‘combat’ during WAR?
Report comment to moderator
Michelle (36):
You’ve hit the nail on the head! Your confusion is understandable. “Plan B” is not an abortion pill, although there is some evidence that indicates that its use may occasionally result in post-conception efficacy. This is true of all birth control pills too, although the risk is lower with the newer pills.
But I think you’re coming to see that for most evangelicals, abortion is not really about preserving life. Instead, it’s about regulating others’ sexual practices. The comment by Vincent at the end of her post reveals that she is more interested in playing the “sexual schoolmarm” than in preventing the taking of life. Most evangelicals, after all, are only intrigued by the abortion issue because they want to have government regulation over the sexual practices of consenting adults.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Why would a Believer against abortion be made to dispense an abortive pill, but a JW allowed (during the draft) to be excused from ‘combat’ during WAR?
Because having to go to fight in war is not always a duty of being a citizen. Many people are excused from combat: Anyone too young or too old; women, until recently; people who are not mentally or physically fit; and even most people who could go to war are not compelled to.
Being a citizen of a country is not the same thing as having a job. A pharmacist who, for moral reasons, can’t perform the duties of a pharmacist can always go into another line of work. And a citizen of a country who cannot go to war for moral reasons can serve the country in other ways.
These are not parallel cases.
There is nothing wrong with having a moral stance against Plan B drugs. There is a problem with being in a position where supplying them is part of the job and refusing to.
Report comment to moderator
“It is no different than expecting a doctor who believes in pro-life to perform an abortion.”
-from 45
Can you really fail to grasp the medical differences between Plan B and an abortion? To equate the two is to dimunize the trauma of abortion!
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 47
Avoiding the military because of religious beliefs is no different that a doctor who says “I will not abort a child” OR, “I will not dispense a pill which will abort a child” –
Both of the above are religious reasons, they are based on ones beliefs. Either way, one should not have more access to FREEDOM of RELIGION than another -
Report comment to moderator
#48–In terms of trauma to the woman, Plan B and abortion are not the same. In terms of lethality to the developing life, they are equally effective.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #49:
I agree that they should have freedom of religion. But in this case, their religious beliefs conflict with their professional responsibility.
Freedom of conscience doesn’t mean you can refuse to do something your profession obligates you to do. It sometimes means you have to choose between your convictions and your profession, and go into another profession if necessary.
It IS different than avoiding the military because no one is obligated to serve in the military by virtue of being a citizen. Even in times of draft, which are rare, there are many reasons why someone who is called may be allowed to not serve. It is built into the system, so it is not some kind of extraordinary exception.
Report comment to moderator
Now that’s a steaming pile of compost right there…
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG
No where in medicine, does it say that refusing to abort a child in any way shape or form is an obligation or a law.
(Modern Version)
I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.
TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.
WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.
WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.
Report comment to moderator
The bottom line is that a few renegade pharmacists are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. They are perfectly free to hold those beliefs. They aren’t free to impose them on other people. If the pharmacists can’t do their job they should find another line of work. A preacher for instance. Or a missionary. I have to serve all kinds of people that I find morally offensive. Racists, homophobes, and sexists for starters. I can’t refuse to serve them just because they don’t have the same beliefs as mine.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, if it bothers you, then find another pharmacist. The pharmacist certainly doesn’t need to find another job because his religious beliefs are being trampled and mocked.
Call around, you can find someone to dispense the ‘Plan B pill’.
Report comment to moderator
“trampled and mocked?” How?
Nobody’s denigrating their beliefs or questioning their right to them. It’s just that some of us feel they don’t have the right to force those beliefs on others that they’re obligated to serve as health care professionals.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
You can’t force your belief upon a pharmacist. Certianly you can find another pharmacist to assist you with the Plan B pill -
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi at 346: But I think you’re coming to see that for most evangelicals, abortion is not really about preserving life. Instead, it’s about regulating others’ sexual practices. The comment by Vincent at the end of her post reveals that she is more interested in playing the “sexual schoolmarm” than in preventing the taking of life. Most evangelicals, after all, are only intrigued by the abortion issue because they want to have government regulation over the sexual practices of consenting adults.
Make It Man at #52: Now that’s a steaming pile of compost right there…
Really?
The Real AJ at #25: Why should he be expected to leave his job because of someone elses poor decisions and planning, or lack of? Why should he suffer because of someone elses stupidity?
If they didn’t want to get pregnant, they shouldn’t have sex.
Oh yeah, Kiyoshi is SO wrong. Not.
Report comment to moderator
No, Kwerna,
Plan B can often work prior to conception, just as a birth control pill does. Abortion always occurs after conception, typically well after conception.
If one has moral objections to Plan B, then one must also make the same objections regarding the use of birth control pills. Some portion of the time, birth control pills take effect only after contraception. Bur rarely do I hear evangelicals equating abortion to taking the pill. If Plan B is the same as abortion, then so is taking the pill.
Nevertheless, abortion and Plan B do have one thing in common: They are often used by women who fear the risk of an unwanted pregnancy after having had promiscuous sex with a guy. And many evangelicals believe that this woman should have to suffer the shame of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy as punishment for “sleeping around.” Various Christian researchers have identified this as the primary driver behind evangelical opposition to abortion. And I’m inclined to believe that it’s the primary driver behind evangelical opposition to Plan B.
If you talk to evangelicals long enough, it becomes apparent that most value the “life” argument for little more than its rhetorical value. In other words, it gives people a sense of power to be able to refer to their opponents as murderers. This blog illustrates that perfectly well. “Pro-life” folks here throw around murder accusations with flippant ease — an ease that belies their claims that abortion is indeed murder.
What evangelicals really want to say is this: Women should not be having sex in situations where they will not want to take the risk of becoming pregnant. In other words, save yourself for marriage!
As a fellow evangelical, this raises two concerns for me: (1) Why are we so comfortable jesting about the taking of human life? (2) Why have we shrunk back from talking about sexual purity?
During my time on WMB and WoW, I have become more convinced that abortion is evil (although I’m still not sure that criminal sanctions are the best means of preventing very early-term abortions). Nevertheless, I’ve also become concerned that most evangelicals oppose abortion for the wrong reasons. If we really believed that it’s murder, wouldn’t we be doing more than sitting on the sidelines using the issue to cast aspersions at Hillary Clinton?
Report comment to moderator
Until you know more about what the Christian community does in regards to pregnancy , and abortion…. I would suggest you learn what many are doing to help the young woman who is expecting a child. Its an endless job, which the Evangelical Church has been undertaking for ‘years’ and secular society has not a clue as to what’s involved.
There is no ‘right reason’ for abortion. Its a selfish choice which is made to relieve the expectant mother of responsibility, either to adopt the child out, or keep and love it.
You can talk about ’sexual purity’ all you want, but those who don’t believe in God or don’t want to follow Christ are not interested, they have sex when they want.
So killing a child in the womb gives someone a sense of power? It would seem so, the adult who’s body carries the infant is powerful over whether it lives or dies. The sense of ugly power dwells in those who seek abortion and those who perform them.
Abortion is murder, it isn’t a ‘flippant’ phrase,
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
I believe abortion is murder. That’s a different issue than fornication being wrong, but yes, I believe that as well. (I’m 40 and single, and that’s more than just words to me.)
None of us can single-handledly change the fact that abortion is legal in this country. What “more” can we/should we be doing? I don’t believe that bombing abortion clinics, or other acts of civil disobedience, is the right response to this.
What have I personally done? Less than a lot of people here (such as Michelle). But I have: consistently voted pro-life, occasionally given money to pro-life organizations, signed a few petitions, volunteered for a year at a CPS (planned to volunteer longer, but the director didn’t like me, and a year was enough), attended at least one CPC banquet and stayed informed on “the issues,” prayed, gone through the hassles and hurdles and a lot of expense to become a foster mom, written letters to editors (one got published when I was a teenager), and spoken out on this blog. I have also consistently connected marriage and child-bearing when I’ve spoken to young people.
Could I do more? Yes, probably. But this isn’t my primary ministry, and “doing” won’t really win this one anyway. We live in a culture that has lost respect for life (yes, including respect for chastity and for marriage). I think many Christians could give similar lists: no grand life-changing stuff, but a whole list of practical ways they have been involved.
Oh, by the way, I don’t believe (and I suspect the vast majority of us do not believe) that pregnancy is a fitting “punishment” for sleeping around. It is a natural consequence of sleeping around, and killing the child doesn’t solve the problem. But I believe that pregnancy is a good thing, not a punishment; it’s a bad thing in the wrong context, but it is not a punishment. If anything, it’s proof that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust, that He sends babies to those who don’t really “deserve” them.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
You are doing a lot….I have read your posts about the children you take and care for, it doesn’t go UNNOTICED.
God Bless you,
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi – 59
__________________________
What wrong reasons are there, to appose abortion?
___________________________
Report comment to moderator
Wow STEVEG, that was a bit dishonest there pal. You use me as an example of us just trying to interfere in others sex lives, but you left off the last part there steveg.
“And if they’re gonna, then at least work to prevent pregnancy. Todays public schools teach kids all about sex, and the methods for preventing pregnancy. And PP gives it out for FREE,
See I know, and could pretty much care less, that people have sex. I really don’t care. But I do have a problem with killing your offspring. There’s no excuse for it. There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy, but it requires some personal responsibility. And you can’t expect someone else to clean up your mess by helping you terminate it, it wasn’t his fault. Why should innocent blood be on anyones hands, at the whim of another?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!