Pharmacists sue over morning-after pill

**kfrost06** · 07-27-2007, 01:07 PM

Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

"The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.

The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.

The state's Roman Catholic bishops and other opponents predicted a court challenge after the rule was adopted, saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.

Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who brokered a compromise on the contraceptive rule and pressured the state Board of Pharmacy to adopt it, stood behind the regulation Thursday.

"Gov. Gregoire feels the Pharmacy Board went through an extensive public process to come to their decision, and she supports them," spokesman Lars Erickson said.

The plaintiffs are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy.

Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.

Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

The federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available without prescription to adults last year.

**kfrost06** · 07-27-2007, 01:08 PM

Sad truely sad, being forced to give abortion drugs. Why can't the person go to another pharmacy instead of forcing someone to go against their beliefs?

**m8intl** · 07-27-2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

Why can't the person go to another pharmacy instead of forcing someone to go against their beliefs?

Because in areas in which over zealous Christians are the norm, one might not be able to find a pharmacy that carries Plan B. In this scenario, the pharmacist would effectively be forcing his or her beliefs on persons who wanted such a product. Seriously, if they adhere to such severe beliefs, that is their choice, but preventing others from making their own choice, simply because their stature as a pharmacist might allow them to do this, is not only reproachable but morally repugnant.

**kfrost06** · 07-27-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by m8intl

Because in areas in which over zealous Christians are the norm, one might not be able to find a pharmacy that carries Plan B. In this scenario, the pharmacist would effectively be forcing his or her beliefs on persons who wanted such a product. Seriously, if they adhere to such severe beliefs, that is their choice, but preventing others from making their own choice, simply because their stature as a pharmacist might allow them to do this, is not only reproachable but morally repugnant.

The irony, you calling it morally repugnant that the pharmacist has morals.

I also do not think you have to be a "over zealous Christian" or adhere to "such severe beliefs" to be against abortion. They can not force a doctor to proform an abortion why force a pharmacist?

**gixxerboy1** · 07-27-2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

The irony, you calling it morally repugnant that the pharmacist has morals.

I also do not think you have to be a "over zealous Christian" or adhere to "such severe beliefs" to be against abortion. They can not force a doctor to proform an abortion why force a pharmacist?

the morning after pill if far from an abortion. So that comparison isn't even fair.

**kfrost06** · 07-27-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

the morning after pill if far from an abortion. So that comparison isn't even fair.

The facts:
How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):

1.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
2.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being—a life that begins at fertilization.)

That is fact!

**m8intl** · 07-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

The irony, you calling it morally repugnant that the pharmacist has morals.

I also do not think you have to be a "over zealous Christian" or adhere to "such severe beliefs" to be against abortion. They can not force a doctor to proform an abortion why force a pharmacist?

Whoa there turbo. It is morally repugnant for one to force his ideals on another. By not carrying Plan B, because of religious idolatry, the pharmacist compels the would-be-buyer to adhere to his own brand of morality. This is morally repugnant inasmuch as the ideology of one usurps the ideology of another by virtue of his unique position in society. If the banker refused to lend to the Christians because he considered them harebrained snake oil salesmen who subscribe to the most duplicitous form of quackery, his actions also would be considered morally repugnant.

Moreover, Plan B is not an abortion. If there was not conception, it can't be an abortion! The pharmacist would have to presume conception had occurred for him to find Plan B reprehensible. However, because one cannot ascertain (short of a pregnancy test, which the morning after may or not be accurate) with any certainty whether or not fertilization has occurred, the point is, and should be considered, moot.

**gixxerboy1** · 07-28-2007, 09:09 AM

also i dont know if this was a private owned pharm. But Kfrost do you think if it was a chain like a Walgreen or cvs the pharm should have the choice not to sell it when his corporation carries it and has it for sale. Would that company have the right to fire him for not selling their products and turning away customers?

**soulstealer** · 07-27-2007, 02:50 PM

I am pro choice and all for the abortion pill but I agree... Its a sad day when the government can tell people to go against their beliefs for something like this...

**gixxerboy1** · 07-27-2007, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by soulstealer

I am pro choice and all for the abortion pill but I agree... Its a sad day when the government can tell people to go against their beliefs for something like this...

then don't be a pharmacist. What about the next pharmacist who doesn't carry pain meds because his brother was an addict. Everyone can find a reason for something. Just because its religion doesnt mean its an important reason.

**305GUY** · 07-27-2007, 03:10 PM

isnt the morning after pill used the very next day after someone ejaculates in side a female. if so i wouldnt even consider it an abortion pill more like a preventer.

I remember i would bang this girl who didnt like to take birth control cause it made her gain weight or some shit. But she kept them on hand and ate a few at a time if i ever came inside her. Told me it was the same as the morning after pill. I thought it was pretty weird.

**305GUY** · 07-27-2007, 04:15 PM

its not killing an unborn baby its POSSIBLY preventing a baby from forming.

just like lethal injections in prison. if my understanding is correct, there are 3 buttons and 3 different people to push each one. 1 button releases the poison the other 2 release something non lethal. In the end nobody knows who in fact killed the inmate.

So in the case of the morning after pill, the pharmacist doesnt know whether or not there was even a possibility for a baby to form or not. so why feel bad over it? especially if they sell birth control.

**kfrost06** · 07-27-2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by 305GUY

its not killing an unborn baby its POSSIBLY preventing a baby from forming.

just like lethal injections in prison. if my understanding is correct, there are 3 buttons and 3 different people to push each one. 1 button releases the poison the other 2 release something non lethal. In the end nobody knows who in fact killed the inmate.

So in the case of the morning after pill, the pharmacist doesnt know whether or not there was even a possibility for a baby to form or not. so why feel bad over it? especially if they sell birth control.

To you it's not killing to some it is. In Washington state where this law suit is there is NO AGE LIMIT so a 13 year old girl can come in for it and the pharmacist has to sell it to her, THAT IS INSANE! Some places refuse to sell cigarettes because they believe it's deadly the government can't force them too but when it comes to something that is designed to kill(in some peoples mind) they are forced too???

Your arguement about the lethal injection is ridiculus at best and you know it.

**305GUY** · 07-27-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

Your arguement about the lethal injection is ridiculus at best and you know it.

lol. wasnt realy an arguement more like a brain fart.

...

**manwithin** · 07-27-2007, 04:37 PM

Their job is to dispense meds not to choose who can or can not receive it. If the law says that a 6 year old can buy a hammer then they have no right to with hold that said hammer. If it’s against their religion then they shouldn’t be in line of work. No one is forcing them to do anything if they don’t want to do it then quit.

**Tock** · 07-27-2007, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

Of course, you could say that it was their religious beleifs that forced them to choose between their religion or their job.

Nevertheless . . . it is the State that regulates the practice of pharmacology, not the church. When it comes to medicine, everyone is thankfully obliged to comply with the State Board of Medicine's views, not the Pope's or Billy Graham's or Rev. Jerry Falwell's. And to keep things fair, when it comes to anyone who belongs to the Pope's church, or Billy's Graham's church, or Jerry Falwell's church, they get to set the rules for their membership.

Keeping in mind the record that Religion has had on matters of science and medicine, it's best that preachers stick to their field of expertise, and let the doctors stick to theirs.

RA · 07-30-2007, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Of course, you could say that it was their religious beleifs that forced them to choose between their religion or their job.

Nevertheless . . . it is the State that regulates the practice of pharmacology, not the church. When it comes to medicine, everyone is thankfully obliged to comply with the State Board of Medicine's views, not the Pope's or Billy Graham's or Rev. Jerry Falwell's. And to keep things fair, when it comes to anyone who belongs to the Pope's church, or Billy's Graham's church, or Jerry Falwell's church, they get to set the rules for their membership.

Keeping in mind the record that Religion has had on matters of science and medicine, it's best that preachers stick to their field of expertise, and let the doctors stick to theirs.

But wouldnt you agree tock that if an entire community decided they didnt want to have anything to do with the drug that the government shouldnt then come in and force them to dispense it?

**gixxerboy1** · 07-30-2007, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

But wouldnt you agree tock that if an entire community decided they didnt want to have anything to do with the drug that the government shouldnt then come in and force them to dispense it?

No. Just because some people voice their opinions and don't want it doesn't mean the entire community doesn't. Also if its a legal over the counter product they should carry it. Even if 1 person wants it.

How would you assume they now the entire community doesn't want it. A door to door survey?

RA · 07-30-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

No. Just because some people voice their opinions and don't want it doesn't mean the entire community doesn't. Also if its a legal over the counter product they should carry it. Even if 1 person wants it.

How would you assume they now the entire community doesn't want it. A door to door survey?

hypothetically speaking of course...

**gixxerboy1** · 07-30-2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

But wouldnt you agree tock that if an entire community decided they didnt want to have anything to do with the drug that the government shouldnt then come in and force them to dispense it?

also if the entire community doesn't want it. Nobody will go in and buy it. So it really wouldn't matter either way. But apparently someone wants it because he doesn't want to sell it

**Tock** · 07-27-2007, 07:52 PM

On the other hand, suppose a pharmacist converts to Christian Science, where they don't ever take any medication. Under religious discrimination laws, if this guy refuses to give anyone any medication, can he still keep his job?

**kfrost06** · 07-30-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

On the other hand, suppose a pharmacist converts to Christian Science, where they don't ever take any medication. Under religious discrimination laws, if this guy refuses to give anyone any medication, can he still keep his job?

I would image that he/she would then find a new job. In this case the lady did not convert but always held the same beliefs should she change her beliefs to fit the governments? Maybe in Communust Russia or China but not here in the USA! The government should not infringe or force their beliefs on us, you of all people should agree with this and you would had had the arguemnet been different, like this. Gay shop owner forced to carry bibles to sell to public by the state of South Carolina. The state believes all book stores need to carry and make for sale the King James version of the Bible despite the shop owners long standing athiest views he/she is forced to carry and sell the bible. I bet you a million dollars that Bible thumpers from around the state would go out of their way to buy one at the store to "mess" with the owner just like what is likely happening to this poor old lady in WA.

**kfrost06** · 07-30-2007, 09:01 AM

Let's pretend it's not an abortion pill, just for a second. Someone believes that cigarettes are bad and does not want to sell them can/should the government come in and force that store to sell them? Well, apperently not. That also applies to condoms, you do NOT have to sell condoms but for some reason you HAVE to sell the abortion pill.