But They Want The Right To Choose

Here we go! The people who want to control a woman's body want the right to pick and choose what drugs they dispense - despite a doctor's order. To me the issue of contraception is a matter of privacy. A pharmacist does not know, and does not have the right to know, if I am taking birth control pills as a precaution against pregnancy, or as is the case with many women, endometriosis or some other menstral irregularity. Now, it seems they're being funded by the Fundies!

Couching their legal battle as one of 'civil liberties' and using code phrases like 'the forced dispensing of abortion drugs,' right-wing Fundamentalist groups are underwriting legal battles in Illinois and elsewhere. Their representatives are adamant:


'Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, said pharmacists should not be forced to prescribe medication they find morally objectionable nor should they be required to refer patients to pharmacists who would willingly dispense those medications.'

Does someone's brand of faith prevent them from dispensing contraceptives, or other forms of medication, in good conscience? Fine - then it would be reasonable to expect them to refer a patient to someone who will. If it's late in the evening in an unfamiliar town, a pharmacist saying 'no' can wield a great deal of power. That's especially when someone is seeking emergency contraception, or is in urgent need of a medication.

Organized groups of 'Christian pharmacists' reject that position, and want the 'right' to say no whenever they choose - in some cases, denying patients the ability to fill the prescriptions elsewhere. Now Walgreen's has become the latest battleground in the Christian pharmacy war, after it 'effectively fired' four Illinois pharmacists (their attorneys' language) for 'refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.'

One Walgreen's pharmacist has agreed to abide by the state rule, and Walgreen's has offered to find the other three jobs across the state line in Missouri (where their behavior is legally permissible). The three would rather fight it out in court than accept these accommodations, however.

Why not? It's not costing them anything. It's paid for by a 'public interest group' funded by Pat Robertson, who has apparently been able to take a break from wishing devastation on the citizens of Dover, PA. Although Robertson's group says it is pursuing the matter with the state's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, you can bet the goal is not to fight discrimination - although they'll claim that it is. (Nothing seems to amuse a conservative more than to try using institutions that were created for progressive purposes, like the EEOC, for repressive purposes.)

Life, like Bush's job as President, is hard. But we all make choices. If I had issues with guns and knew that I could never fire a weapon at anyone, I definitely would not try to be a cop and definitely wouldn't join the military. Pharmacy students know that their job will be to dispense drugs - all kinds of drugs ... to all kinds of people. Why pursue a career when you won't want to do the job? It's funny how they want the right to pick and choose which drugs they feel are morally correct yet that very action denies a woman her right to make the same choices!