Actually, Plan B is NOT an abortion pill... it is a contraceptive. http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx. "Plan B® prevents pregnancy by temporarily stopping the release of an egg from a woman's ovary, or it may prevent fertilization. In addition, emergency contraception can also make the uterine lining inhospitable for implantation by disrupting normal hormone patterns. Emergency contraception will not cause an abortion if a woman is already pregnant." http://www.shs.unc.edu/library/articles/emergency_contraception.html. So, a chemical abortion is not technically being performed by the woman taking the medication or the doctor. Also, a pharmacist is NOT performing any medical sevices by providing oral contraceptives to his patients... he is merely filling a prescription. The medical service occurs in the doctor's office, within the realm of the doctor-patient relationship. The pharmacist only performs a very limited role in providing the prescription.
The argument that the inconvenience isn't burdensome is faulty. We are lucky enough to live in an area that does have a lot of pharmaceudical options. However, there are towns that only have one pharmacy, in more rural areas. What if that pharmacist on duty does not believe in filling this type of prescription? The burden of the woman in this type of situation is greater. Even in a town with ten pharmacies, the fact that a woman is getting turned down at ONE pharmacy by virtue of what her doctor has prescribed to her is discriminatory. Besides being merely "inconvenienced", the potential customer is forced to endure the moral judgment of someone not entitled to a judgment in her personal life. And what about other contraceptives? Would the same pharmacist deny a man condoms? What about spermacides, or other types of oral contraceptives? Where do we draw the line for reasonableness?
I understand that people have the right to express religious freedom. However, there are reasonable limitations on expression, especially in the workplace. Here, employees are expressing religious freedom at the expense and burden of the potential customer. Here, the accommodation is simply not reasonable, because the pharmacist is refusing to do their job, at the expense of the women who come in seeking basic customer service.
I appreciate your thoughts though.. I love chewing on the issue. Feel free to knock into the argument.
http://www.shs.unc.edu/library/articles/emergency_contraception.html.
So, a chemical abortion is not technically being performed by the woman taking the medication or the doctor. Also, a pharmacist is NOT performing any medical sevices by providing oral contraceptives to his patients... he is merely filling a prescription. The medical service occurs in the doctor's office, within the realm of the doctor-patient relationship. The pharmacist only performs a very limited role in providing the prescription.
The argument that the inconvenience isn't burdensome is faulty. We are lucky enough to live in an area that does have a lot of pharmaceudical options. However, there are towns that only have one pharmacy, in more rural areas. What if that pharmacist on duty does not believe in filling this type of prescription? The burden of the woman in this type of situation is greater. Even in a town with ten pharmacies, the fact that a woman is getting turned down at ONE pharmacy by virtue of what her doctor has prescribed to her is discriminatory. Besides being merely "inconvenienced", the potential customer is forced to endure the moral judgment of someone not entitled to a judgment in her personal life. And what about other contraceptives? Would the same pharmacist deny a man condoms? What about spermacides, or other types of oral contraceptives? Where do we draw the line for reasonableness?
I understand that people have the right to express religious freedom. However, there are reasonable limitations on expression, especially in the workplace. Here, employees are expressing religious freedom at the expense and burden of the potential customer. Here, the accommodation is simply not reasonable, because the pharmacist is refusing to do their job, at the expense of the women who come in seeking basic customer service.
I appreciate your thoughts though.. I love chewing on the issue. Feel free to knock into the argument.
Reply
Leave a comment