Blogs

February 2008
SMTWTFS
     
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
 

Plan B Birth Control Ruling

7:11 PM Thu, Nov 08, 2007 |
NWCN
 E-mail

A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.
In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order.

Do you think pharmacies should be required to sell the morning after pill?



26 Comments

Mary Suttles said:

Ones own personal beliefs-religious and moral- belong in only two places-in their own church and in their own home-not behind the counter of a pharmacy!

Sherri Olson said:

I applaud the court's decision in the plan B matter! I do believe that the law was unconstitutional to force pharmacists and technicians to dispense that or any other prescription or over the counter item that is against their strongly held religious beliefs. I believe pharmacist civil rights should not be infringed upon!

sean said:

yes!!!!!!!think about it. its not an abort. there is no heartbeat.

sean said:

i side with mary suttles, the first comment.i dont beleave in war but i make parts for fighter jets.i have two daughters.the truth,, one was not planned i love them more than anything.im still pro choice.

marlene said:


Yea, they are working and should abide by rules and laws just like anyone else on their job.
If they feel they can not do this then they are in the wrong job and should not impose their values and opinions at the workplace.

Fred Engh said:

The choice of dispensing Plan B is best left out of the courts. The relationship should be between the employer and the employee.
On another note, I've had to buy this at Costco (which is usually the cheapest for cash price prescriptions) and it's expensive, it's over $40.

C P said:

What gives the government or anybody else the right to decide what a private company stocks as purchased inventory for whatever reason?

When I owned my own business there were products I chose not to sell and when asked where they could be purchased, I wasn’t forced to direct a customer to a competitor.

As long as the product available somewhere… this seems less like a women’s rights issue, but more just a matter of convenience.

Julia said:

Yes, I do. The pharmacists are in a business, they dispense medications. Their religious or moral beliefs shouldn't be imposed on customers of that business. I equate their refusal to sell the Plan B drug to refusing to sell the 'AIDS cocktail' to those with that disease, or hormone compounds (which are often birth control pills) to menopausal women, or, for that matter, condoms to people who are sexually active ... after all, those are a form of birth control too. And what if it's a small town with only one pharmacy, and a real inconvenience to travel to wherever the pill can be sold? Also, I can see this spreading even more--so that they wouldn't sell, perhaps, to people of other nationalities or ethnic backgrounds; where does it stop? This is the sort of issue that can blossom into a real problem for the rights of individuals.

Michael Matz said:

This issue is skewed by the fact that a pharmacy is, essentially, an extention of our health care system. If we require doctors to have a bias for life (seek to keep patients alive at all costs), then a pharmacy must be required to offer all legally available medicines. A pharmacy is not just any other store - it is a special class of store because of its role in completing the health care our doctors prescribe for us.

If a pharmacy wants to operate in the public space and benefit from trade with the public, then they must provide all publicly available, legal medicines. If they only want to sell products that conform to their own personal belief system, then they should either:

1) be required to advertise in an obvious way that they only sell "Christian" products (or another belief system's name) so that those who do not hold those same beliefs can shop elsewhere, or

2) be required to open a store on church property.

The fact that they open a store in the public space means that they intend to serve -- and profit from -- the public... their own personal beliefs must be held in check.

jm said:

The judge made the correct ruling. It is unconscionable for governments to force someone to do what they believe is wrong -- in this case, force pharmacists to sell the "morning-after" pill. We allow conscientious objection in regards to war, including allowing objectors to serve in the military without fighting; likewise, our society needs to allow individual pharmacists to follow their convictions while letting them practice their profession.

michelle said:

I feel that the Plan b pill should be distributed with out the moral obligagtions and feelings from the pharmesist. As being a part of public service this case I feel just might be a trigger for others that today we take for granted like the library who serves the public and job requires to regard personal bias and views even if a patron desires certain book's they feel are against their beliefs. Then among other religous beliefs shouldn't realy infringe upon others when they are personal beliefs to begin with. This case just makes me sad that we as a nation/state/people who strive we are free and we are american's who now care about the dividing difference's each individual has instead of equal rights for everyone. when will we actualy live by the constitution or will this document die amongst the countless other's that have fallen or soon to evolve and change for some say a greater good?

Keith DeSart said:

Because the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception I believe pharmacists should not be forced to assist in the murder of unborn children.

michelle said:

growing up in a religous family and life style shouldn't mean I should infringe others my beliefs. take the airport for example they have a service made available for the public and when their christmas decorations made other religous belief follower's offended that they had to completely change to acomendate for everyone. With religion it's been my experience god created everyone with a free choice and will. America is sopossed to free for everyone striving on eqaulity for everyone. So if I read Harry Potter does that make me evil? My history of being a full native american mean my ansestors are in hell regardless of their love for nature,family, among other things because they were given a choice the bible or in death god will not love you. coming back to this issue of religion and pharmacists going to be a casscading trigger to hey you should either go along with my beliefs or suffer from my choice and the equality and hospitality of believing that everyone can live in a world without hate or racism in america will no longer be a land of the free. A scary thought that religion being pushed upon again when it's supposed to be a free choice of americans and not the choice to force upon others. Sounds hatefull instead of praying for those who need help and saying the life you live and choose will be your end because you don't believe what i feel is right.

Laura said:

Religious people claim piously that they are willing to sacrifice for their religion. Then they turn around and force their beliefs on others.

It is absolutely wrong for someone to become a pharmacist and be unwilling to dispense legal medicine that the pharmacy stocks. They claim they are being religious, but where's the sacrifice? They are forcing someone else to suffer. If they truly believed in their religion, and truly believed they shouldn't dispense the medicine, they should sacrifice their own job to their belief, NOT force someone else to sacrifice health for them.

They aren't religious, they are self-important hypocrites trying to control other people's bodies. There is nothing moral or correct about their behavior. The judge's ruling is wrong.

Astra said:

My real concern is that if this is allowed, what comes next? Will they be allowed to refuse to dispense antibiotics because they feel it is 'taking God's place' in the healing process? Or refuse to dispense narcotics because they are against addiction? This is a slippery slope here and I don't feel any health care worker should be able to refuse to dispense any legally written prescription or refuse to do any procedure determined to be medically necessary. I agree with Mary Suttles, the place for anyone's religious beliefs are in their home or church and should not be allowed to interfere with my access to any medical care.

All this being said, I am pro-choice. Why? Because I think the absolutely worst thing in the world is a child being brought into this world and raised by someone who does not want him/her. Been there done that and don't want it for ANY other child. Adoption is an alternative, but once a pregnancy is known, family expectations and pressures come to bear. As far as I am concerned, indifferent parents aren't any better than abusive ones. If someone is going to bring a child into the world, let it be a child that is loved and wanted.

Laura said:

I suppose next we're going to be told that firefighters don't have to put out fires at houses of people who aren't from their own religion? And maybe ambulance drivers can refuse to take people they don't like to the hospital? Police don't have to help folks they think are immoral?

If you become a pharmacist and refuse to do the job, you should be fired. If someone becomes pregnant because you refused to do your job, you should be required to pay for the upbringing of the child until they are 18 years old.

Too many "religious" folk are terribly concerned about potential children, but don't give a flying flip for the living.

Krystin said:

The thing about Plan B...
1) It is not a form of "abortion".
2) It is simply a preventitive pill in case you have had unprotected sex within the previous 48 hours, that prevents the egg and sperm from meeting. So there is no actual conception having taken place, if you use it correctly and in time.
3) If conception has already happened, it does nothing. It's as if you were to take any other form of birth control while being pregnant, it does nothing.

Whether a pharmacy should be forced to sell or not, well, you can get it at planned parenthood for free. There you go.

Denise said:

Yes I do.It is there job.If they have such strong religios beliefs that they can not do their job then maybe they should look for other employment.

Rich said:

Yes, they should sell the pill without predjudice. Who are they to determine what society should be allowed to purchase over the counter. Their religious beliefs should not have anything to do with sales of drugs. If that is the case they should find another job.

Eryn said:

Umm, the Pharmacist isn't "making" anyone pregnant- pregnancy is solely the responsibility of the two people who had intercourse. I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue, but please don't accuse Pharmacies of impregnating anyone... if someone doesn't want to take the chance of getting pregnant, keep your legs closed.

Greg D said:

Finally!! It's about time that ruling was overturned. Some fruitcakes feeeeel that they are having someone elses values and morals forced on them. In reality, pharmacists were being forced to embrace some fruitcakes secular humanism and hedonistic irresponsibility. I'm quite surprised that some are still surprised that their degenerate irresponsible behavior disgusts most people.

Laura said:

So, Eryn... if a girl is raped and the holier-than-thou pharmacist refuses to provide the emergency contraception that will prevent conception and the girl becomes pregnant, it's the girl's fault because she didn't keep her legs closed?

What, are you from the dark ages or something?

Pharmacists who refuse to do their job, especially with drugs in which timing is VITAL, should be fired and fined for endangering another person's health.

Quinn said:

I find it quite disturbing that religion is still a factor when making decisions about ANYTHING. Sick.

Sarah said:

The argument against having to dispense Plan B is based purely on ignorance. Plan B doesn't do anything different from any other hormonal birth control method. It can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Preventing pregnancy is not tantamount to abortion.

I think the scarriest part of this debate is that the pharmacists themselves are supposed to understand the actions of the drugs they dispense. So do they not understand that this is NOT an abortion pill? If they do understand and still object they are doing so based on their own moral judgement of someone who needs emergency birth control. I agree with the person who commented earlier that pharmacists have to be held to a higher standard than the non-medical retail community. If they can refuse to dispense drugs based on their own personal morality then perhaps the next time someone needs an antibiotic for an infection they could refuse because the drug is the same on prescribed for STI's. It's bad enough that pharmacists would use privilaged personal information to pass judgement, but it's scary to think they can now use that judgement to deny a person medication they need.

ChRiStInA said:


100% FREE dating site! Live Chat, Instant Message, Full Forum, Blogs, Send/Receive Emails. Meet sexy Russian, Japanese and Latin women for love and marriage here. JOIN FREE http://www.datingchating.com

Linda said:


Well, many things have been said about Plan B birth control pills but the fact is that it is very effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. It helps those women who forgot to ask their partner to use barrier methods or they fear condom might have broken while intercourse. It also helps in avoiding pregnancy in rape victims. Please visit at http://www.mybirthcontrolstore.com/planb.html


Leave a comment





Type the characters you see in the picture above.