Pharmacists can’t say no to contraception

[dweller]

By Gene C. Gerard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
The retailer Target recently announced that it would allow pharmacists at its stores to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception
(EC), if dispensing it would violate their religious beliefs. When taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse EC can prevent pregnancy. The
retailer will require pharmacists who refuse to fill the order to ask another pharmacist at their location to fill the prescription, or confirm for the
patient that it can be obtained elsewhere. Target joined Kmart and Costco in allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription for EC.

There has been an ongoing struggle this year between pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for EC and birth control pills, and various
municipal and state governments who either support or oppose these actions. In April, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an
administrative order that allows pharmacies not to sell contraceptives of any kind. But if they do, they are required to fill prescriptions for EC
or risk loosing(sic) their license. Illinois is the first state to do so. At least 10 pharmacists have sued the state on the grounds that the order forces
them to violate their religious beliefs. And the state has moved to revoke the licenses of two Walgreens pharmacies and an Osco pharmacy
for refusing to fill the prescriptions.

In Austin, Texas, the city council passed a measure in August requiring Walgreens, the pharmaceutical vendor for the city’s medical
assistance program, to fill any prescription “without discrimination or delay.” The measure was specifically aimed at pharmacies that have
refused to fill prescriptions for EC. The measure requires the pharmacies to fill prescriptions in the store where patients furnish their
prescriptions, regardless of a pharmacist’s religious beliefs. Austin is the first city in the nation to require pharmacies to fill all orders they
receive.

The Arizona legislature has chosen to side with pharmacists who have religious objections to EC. The Arizona House and Senate have
introduced legislation that would permit pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for any contraception if they are morally opposed to it. And
pharmacists would not be required to assist the patient in filling the prescription elsewhere. Michigan’s legislature is considering a similar bill.
The California Assembly has taken a much wider approach. It is considering legislation that would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill any
prescription for religious reasons. The pharmacist would only have to inform their employer in writing in advance.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_287.shtml

dp

[MercutioATC]

1. I'm seriously not being a smartass...

I realize this is a concern to everybody. Beyond that, how is this a GLBT issue?

Not intending to jump down your throat, it just seems like an odd forum to post this in as it's been posted on the big boards already.

[mockmonkey]

2. It is if you are

Female to Male Transgender and you can not get depo-provera (birth control) at the pharmacy because of some dolt who doesn't want to do his job.

It also is a gay issue if they decide that if you get sick it's God punishment and I'm not going to go against God and fill your Doctors prescription.

Where does this stuff stop? If my religion says no to pork or alcohol and I'm a checker at a store, can I say I'm not going to let you purchase those items?

What a world we live in.

[MercutioATC]

3. Thanks. I hadn't considered that scenario.

:)

[MountainLaurel]

7. You're dead on

It's not a far leap to think that some pharmacist might refuse an HIV-person their meds because they consider homosexuality evil (and these people assume that if you've got HIV you're gay) and AIDS a gift from God. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen info about such a case.

Frankly, I'm waiting for some fundamentalist to refuse to fill a scrip for Xanax or Prozac because they don't believe mental illness exists. And remember the man in charge of women's health at the FDA who wrote books about how PMS and fibroid pain could be prayed away?

[dweller]

5. info on the big boards

gets archived sooner, whereas others may keep an article in view for longer periods. This was posted in Health, R/E and Eds/Arts and here. And i see where you understand the relevence for this forum now.

dp

[BR_Parkway]

4. I have a religious objection to a pharmacist being paid more than

minimum wage - think any legislature would pass that law?

[TaleWgnDg]

6. I am going to incorporate a religion . . .

.
I am going to incorporate (non-profit, of course) a religion in the State of Arizona . . . its religious tenets are strongly secure in that we discriminate against people with last names that begin with the letter "S." This means that any pharmacist may not be forced to attend to any customer, male or female, young or old, poor or rich, who may cause our religious faithful to violate our religious tenets.

I shall seek the protection of the Arizona state constitution.

For example, Arizona should agree under its state constitution religious freedom protection clause to enact laws insulating and protecting our faithful believers, correct? After all, if Arizona allows pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive device prescriptions due to the violation of the pharmacists religious beliefs, then why not customers whose name begins with the letter "S?" Does the Arizona constitution allow state licensed pharmacists to discrimination against customers who want to purchase contraceptive devices over customers with the last name beginning with the letter "S?" Can the State legislature pick and choose which religion gets constitutional protection? What's the legal test for this? Who determines? What criteria?

This is what happens when government entangles itself into religion. And, this is what happens to religion when it entangles itself into the government.

Bottom line? Easy. The state grants licensure procedures including education requirements, rules of duty as a pharmacist, and other such restrictions. Thus, the state should demand that all licensed pharmacists treat all pharmacy prescription customers equally and w/ due process u/ the Arizona constitution. Simple, really.

However, it's not simple when undue politics enter the fray as it does in all legislative bodies who will not acknowledge minority rights being trammeled by the majority, the very heart of the constitution.
.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Worst case scenario: Christian Science pharmacist

"I recently converted to the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy. I now believe that treating disease with drugs is a violation of God's plan. Therefore, I will not dispense drugs. Further, I will scream about religious persecution if Walgreens tries to fire me because of my religious views. I have my rights!"

Personally, I think it should be law: If you are employed as medical personnel, including pharmacist, you have a legal obligation to do that work regardless of your personal prejudices. If you can not, in conscience, distribute legal medicine authorized by a valid prescription, you had damned well better find a different line of work.