Pharmacists for Life

[Massive Quasars]

Yeah that's right. They won't provide women with birth control pills. These wingnut pharmacists are in the small minority in America, and they can be avoided. They are refusing to fill out such prescriptions because of their moral objections (religious dogma).

http://www.pfli.org/

In Canada, women can get birth control pills and morning after pills by prescription with little problem. In BC, Quebec, and perhaps Manitoba there are over the counter options for women.

[Ryoki]

I bet you could order some laughing gass and a pint of raw ether with no problems though.

[Pext]

moral objections (religious dogma)

[werldhed]

I'm going to slog through the website in a second, but does it mention anything about women who take BC for health reasons unrelated to sex?
It's like a pharmacist refusing to fill a codine prescription because some people take it for recreational use.

[Massive Quasars]

There is alot of news on Terry Schiavo on that site. I see one comparison to starved children in Auschwitz. They compare Michael Schiavo to Scott Peterson.

[Pext]

i just checked the situation in germany and it seems as if both pills need a (nearly granted) prescription

[werldhed]

There's not a lot of pharmaceutical substance on that site. I find that odd, because they mention the pill so often, but the pill isn't an "anti-life" method of birth control. It is a contraceptive, so there is no embryo formed and thus, no life "killed." What exactly is their problem with it, then?

[Fender]

lil blurb from reason.com

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/03 ... tml#008970

Pill of Rights

Pieces first started popping up a few months back about pharmacists refusing to issue birth control pills, and the most recent treating on the burgeoning phenomenon shares the same infirmity as those earlier pieces (and polls). That is, they tend to focus on the useless question of whether pharmacists "have a right" to fail to dispense birth control or the morning after pill, without clarifying whether they mean:

(1) Should the state require pharmacists to dispense those medications?—or

(2) Is a pharmacy entitled to require its employees to provide customers with the medication on pain of dismissal?

The answer to (1) is clearly "no": If someone wants to provide a limited set of services in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, it's not the state's business to tell him he's got to violate his belief system to do more if he's going to ply the trade at all. But the answer to the second question is equally clearly "yes": You can't insist that a company continue to employ you if you're going to refuse to serve their customers at your discretion. Now, practically speaking, consideration (2) will probably end up being dominant: It's not in CVS's interest to refuse to sell a legal product to willing customers. Unfortunately, states seem to be considering legislation that would ignore that distinction in both directions: Some would seek to immunize pharmacists who refuse to do their jobs as a matter of purported freedom of conscience, while others would define every pharmacists job to conflict with that conscience.

Now, again, I don't expect pharamcists who presume to judge and lecture their customers to last long. But let them be punished by the market; let them be pushed into penury by their own indignant customers rather than granting their presumption the glow of martyrdom.

Another article from msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7312534/

[Fender]

There's not a lot of pharmaceutical substance on that site. I find that odd, because they mention the pill so often, but the pill isn't an "anti-life" method of birth control. It is a contraceptive, so there is no embryo formed and thus, no life "killed." What exactly is their problem with it, then?

http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

[Massive Quasars]

Yes I read that reason blurb, before that I saw an interview with someone from this group on CNN.

[werldhed]

There's not a lot of pharmaceutical substance on that site. I find that odd, because they mention the pill so often, but the pill isn't an "anti-life" method of birth control. It is a contraceptive, so there is no embryo formed and thus, no life "killed." What exactly is their problem with it, then?

http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

Oh, I know why the Catholic Church disagrees with any form of birth control. I didn't understand why the pro-life pharmacists were so opposed to the pill, which isn't a form of abortion. However, I later noticed that the organization's cause is to give pharmacists the right to refuse prescriptions on religious grounds -- not just anti-abortion grounds. That would be an explanation. It just happens that the whole site is dedicated to pro-life causes, so it's misleading.

However, they still don't explain what they do about women who take BC for heath reasons.