An older campaign, but an extremely important cause...
This campaign specifically deals with some pharmacists who refuse to fill Plan B perscriptions based on their personal moral beliefs. Target, among other major chains, have refused to change their policies to reflect a stronger commitment to providing timely prescription to women seeking basic health care under the direction of their doctor. Target claims that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they are respecting an employee's religious rights, and that they are providing a reasonable accommodation. Under Target's policies, a religious pharmacist can decline to fill the Plan B prescription, and refer them to another pharmacist, or Target store. This type of accommodation can hardly be considered reasonable, because it directly interferes with basic healthcare, and a woman's ability to fill a medical prescription.
Target claims that they are not unduly burdening their customers with this type of policy, however, the practical application of the policy has a discriminatoy affect on female customers. Suppose a woman, with a plan B prescription (issued by her doctor after a private, confidential consultation), goes to her local Target store, and confronts her religious minded pharmacist, who refuses to fill her order on moral grounds. How many pharmacists do these types of chains usually have on the clock at any one point and time? Usually, one, with several aiding assistants. (At least, this has been the general rule of thumb with the stores I have visited.) If that pharmacist denies service and refers them to another store in the chain, the customer has to then drive to another city to find another Target, or try to find another pharmacy that will fill the prescription. If a majority of pharmacies have these types of policies, a customer could end up going from pharmacy to pharmacy, being denied service on "moral grounds."
This is not only a discriminatory experience, but a degrading one as well. Target specifically states that pharmacists are not allowed to share beliefs with customers, or to "pass judgment" on them. However, by denying service on moral grounds, passing judgment is exactly what the pharmacist is doing. The way I see it, the pharmacist is passing judgment where they really, have little place. Once the woman has reached the prescription counter, she has already made a decision within the realm of the doctor-patient relationship. The pharmacist has a duty to respect that relationship, and fill the prescription within that clearly defined role. If a pharmacist has a problem doing their job, perhaps they should find another career that doesn't trek these murky moral waters.
Granted, there are places where it is appropriate to question a prescription, including situations where the pharmacist feels that filling the prescription would lead to some type of harm to the patient. However, in the case of Plan B, the drug has been extensively looked at by the FDA, and it was determined that it would be safe for over the counter use. (In Canada, it is an OTC drug.) Fact is, the only reason it hasn't been approved for OTC use has been based on political pressure. The head of the FDA resigned over this issue, since she felt that it was not within the FDA's jurisdiction to withhold drugs based on the political climate and burning religious debate. (And by religious debate, I specifically mean Christian, and only some sects of Christianity.)
Some states have already passed laws that require pharmacists to fill these types of prescriptions, regardless of religious leanings... and this is of course, a step in the right direction. However, in states that have not passed these types of laws, there is a huge issue with corporate policy.