So...now, 20 states have laws protecting pharmacists who choose to deny customers their birth control (pills, condoms, morning after, etc).
Um. So, what the fuck?
People use the whole "right to religion" argument going, saying that if birth control goes against a person's religion, they shouldn't be "forced" to do something that goes against their religion. Well here's the deal, no one is "forcing" them. They CHOOSE to work at the pharmacy, the KNOW what the pharmacy does.
Imagine this; you walk into a butcher's place, and you ask the butcher for 2 lbs of lobster tales. The butcher is Jewish and says "I find the consumption of shellfish to be a sin and I refuse to sell you any shellfish". Do you think this guy should keep his job? You are working at a butcher's place, people go there to get all types of food, including shellfish. Your job is to sell what the store provides, not dish out your religious and political views to the customers. This is the same case with the pharmacists.
What happens if someone's religious views find heart medicines and ADD medicines "immoral", and refuse to dispense them to the customers? Where can a line be drawn to make it possible for people to get their MEDICATIONS? That's the key word, MEDICATION. Doctors have seen fit to prescribe these medications to their patients. Pharmacists are NOT doctors, and have no right to deny any person a medication they have been approved for. If you don't agree with birth control, don't work at a place where one of it's primary functions is to dole out medications which inculde birth control.
Another argument is that no employer has the right to "force" their employer to "do something they don't want to do". So using this argument, say I apply to work at Abercrombie. And I decide I "don't want to" go to work. I just want to stay home and still get paid. So basically, my boss has no right to fire me because he has no right to "force" me to come in to work.
Here's the deal; women's rights to BC are getting pushed upon more and more these days, and as someone who has been on birth control for four years, it pisses me off. If you don't agree with birth control, fine, don't use it. And you know what, you have every right to speak out against it if you wish. But the second you start denying us rights, rights that are (still) our LEGAL rights to something because YOU wouldn't use it, you go beyond you're right to speak out against something and deny someone their right to use it. Pharmacists who deny BC to their customers should not be protected, but should be fired. Pharmacists are not doctors, they put pills in a bottle. They are no where near qualified to decide who "needs" medication or who has a "right" to a medication. If they want to preach, keep it in a church, not in a CVS.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Right ON!
A lot of people are on BC pills to regulate things, such as migraines, menstrual flows, and symptoms of menopause. I have had a tubal ligation. I have three beautiful children. If I were to have anymore the pharmacist's tax money would be paying my bills because it would probably force me onto welfare or something, and he'd have less to donate to his designated church... it would ultimately make him look lesser in the eyes of his GOD.
Kiss my butt! I'm an American, and honestly a pill isn't abortion, and get over yourself for thinking you can dictate what God had intended for us. If HE wanted me pregnant, there won't be a darned thing in heaven and hell I could do about it... there is only 99.99 percent effectiveness with those bad boys you know... perhaps the other .001 percent is divine intervention.... if he truely believed, anything is possible.
I'd like to let you know your employer can fire you for attendane but that's totaly irrelevant to the subject. You did an amazing job on this post, this goes along with what I just posted about religion and discrimination, I'm starting to wonder if we're at the end of the line. I'm Roman Catholic so I don't believe in the use of Birth Control for a contraceptive for myself but I do believe that any woman should have the right to choose wether she takes it or not, it's not my body, I don't rule over it nor do I wish to, I have enough problems with my own.
Great Job!
Alexa
WOW! That is crazy! That's stupid. A pharmacy is not the place for that. Why should a pharmacy deny someone birth control? What about the people using it to regulate hormones or to prevent having a baby they can't afford to have??? That should be up to the individual!
~pyrochica
The sad truth is that women's reproductive rights always seem to be in jeopardy, be it abortion, birth control, etc. What baffles me the most is that while many religious people believe that birth control is morally wrong, that it is like playing God, they do not oppose In Vitro Fertilization or any other prescription use.
Actually, most Christians do oppose INV. They do consider it playing God and you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't support birth control but supports INV. Trust me, I've had numerous arguments on the subject.
However, I do agree with you that I find it funny that Christians don't have anything against medical intervention. i.e. if you have a heart attack, Christians find nothing wrong with having doctors do "unnatural" things to your body in ordr to keep you alive. They do not boycot puting a cast on a broken arm, donation of organs, nor anything else "unnatural" in the medical field. Their main excuse is "a doctor is not playing God because GOD himself is keeping the person alive". Well, then, in retaliation, if GOD didn't want a woman to be pregnant, wouldn't he make invitro not work? Just like if he didn't want a person to live, he wouldn't let an operation work?
Nah, most Christians pick and choose what "morals" work best for them. Most think they will never have infertility issues so they don't see the plight of so many infertile women, nor do they sympathize. But apparently God doesn't discriminate when it comes to heart attacks, the flu, broken bones or car accidents, so speaking out about doctors "playing god" when the reality is they probably will at some point in their life need to be physically "saved" is not going to help them, it will harm them. They are smart enough to know that they themselves will probably need a doctor to help them survive, so boycotting medical aid is not in their best interest.
Yayyyy hypocrites.
Your argument is nonsense, Stefanie.
Are you saying that if I find pornography objectionable, then I shouldn't be allowed to run a video store or a convenience store because these are venues where pornography can usually be found?
What about cigarettes? Lots of people find cigarettes objectionable? Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed to run a store because I don't want to sell cigarettes? If I'm opposed to selling firearms, does this mean I shouldn't be allowed to run a sporting goods store?
Pharmacy owners are within their right to not stock items that they find reprehensible. If you don't like the fact that you can't buy condoms at your local PharmaSave, I'm sure there's a Shopper's Drug Mart down the street that will fix you up with a box of ribbed ramses.
You want the government to keep its laws off your body. Maybe you could reciprocate by keeping your laws off our pharmacies.
You're argument is nonsense, actually, EA.
I'm not complaining that the pharmacy chooses not to STOCK the pills/condoms/etc. They stock it. Here is how a scenerio would work with your examples.
You OWN a video store. Your video store DOES in fact sell pornography, as you have no objections to it(for arguments sake). You hire a 17 year old Christian person to work the register. A person comes up with three movies. All Dogs Go to Heaven, Major League, and Jenna Haze; Lust Teens. The 17 year old girl YOU HIRED proceeds to tell your customer "I find pornography disgusting and completely objectionable, and I refuse to take your money or allow you to watch this filth. I am not going to allow you to pay for it or rent it."
Here's the same with the cigarrettes; you OWN a Te-Amo store. You hire a 20 year old health nut to work your register. Your store does in fact stock and sell cigarrettes. A person, of legal age, comes into your store, and asks for a pack of Camels. Your clerk proceeds to tell your customer "I think smoking is vile and disgusting, and I don't believe it is right. I refuse to sell them to you".
There in lies the difference. Clearly ALL PHARMACIES stock most medications, including the birth control pill. I wasn't really talking so much about condoms, because the refusal of those products hasn't been as rampant as refusal of actual medication, nor are states trying to enforce laws protecting those who refuse to give the medication the pharmacy provides. It's not that the pharmacy isn't providing contraception all together (as in just choosing not to stock/sell any products INCLUDING the pill), it's that its clerks are denying people to pick uptheir prescriptions they requested the pharmacy to fill. You can't exactly go down to Shoppers Drug Mart if a.) they don't take your insurance, b.) they don't have your history, c.) they don't have your prescription.
Another HUGE difference is that the birth control pill, at the end of the day, is a prescription medication, if nothing else. A doctor, with a PHD, felt it right, healthy and at times necessary to prescribe this medication to their patient. Not always for sexual purpose, might I add. The drug store clerk is not a doctor, and is in no right to deny a customer her MEDICATION. Like I said, if a patient believes only in homopathic medication, and a diabetic came in and wanted to pick up their prescription for insulin, would it be "within the pharmacy's rights" to allow a person who works at the register to deny the patient his insulin? Absolutely not.
My :laws: protect people from religious biggotry. My laws (the laws that exist) SHOULD be in place on "your" pharmacies because it is a right every person has. If a pharmacy offers a specific medication, you should be capable of receiving that medication. Clearly if a pharmacy doesn't offer the pill, I'm not going to go to that parmacy to get the prescription filled now am I? There is no reason a 17 year old clerk's opinion should take presedence over an actual doctor's reccomended course of medication. It's ridiculous. If you choose to work at a pharmacy, know what you're selling and either do it or don't work there. It'd be equivilent to me working in a sex shop and refusing to sell dildos or vibrators; clearly that's what people are coming for, at least some customers, why am I going to work somewehre that I object to what they are providing their customers? Would theylike it if they walked into Kwik e Mart and were denied toilet paper or candy bars or a gatordae because the man at the desk "didn't approve" of those things?
Nice try though, your hostile and condesending nature almost made it sound like your comments had any relevance. They didn't, though. In fact they were completely unrelatable, as I pointed out. Apples and Oranges.
Hey, and wha pharmacies do you own? Seeing as they are "your" pharmacies, and not "everyone's" pharmacies, I'd like to keep a distance.
And btw, I don't want the government to keep its laws off my body-I want religious zealots to keep their beliefs out of my government and the laws I am required to follow.
How would you feel if Jews brought their beliefs into our government? No more shellfish, no more pork/ham/bacon...
If you're talking about EMPLOYEES of pharmacies refusing to sell items that the store stocks, then I agree with you. In fact, I'd further state that an employee who engages in such practice could, and should, be terminated. Clearly, if someone has a moral problem with what the store sells, they shouldn't be working there in the first place.
However, your original post condemns pharmacists, NOT clerks. Since many pharmacists own their stores, they have every right to refuse to stock the items they find objectionable. Some people find birth control morally objectionable and there is no reason why these people should be disqualified from being pharmacists. (And please note, I am talking solely about the people who own the stores and thus have the right to make these sorts of decisions, NOT their employees.)
Do you really believe pharmacists should be forced to provide unecessary medication (which birth control is, like it or not) if they find it morally reprehensible? Don't you find such legislation a little Draconian?
Your argument reminds me of a little coup we had up here in Canada with hospital employees who object to abortion for moral or religious reasons. The government passed a law saying that no employee - be it doctor, nurse, or intern - could be fired or disciplined for refusing to assist in an abortion. Is this law wrong? (I would also point out that abortion access has not been hampered since the law has been put in place.)
Finally, I'm afraid that your insulin argument does not have any bearing in this example because clearly a diabetic *NEEDS* this medication. It is a matter of life and death. Birth control medication, with very few exceptions, is not a matter of death. Comparing the two is a classic example of the proverbial apples and oranges you mention near the end of your post.
Regards.
EA
In regards to your statement that birth control pills are unnecessary medication, I'd like to point out that the number of women with hormonal inbalances is growing drastically (usually due to chemicals we are exposed to throughout our lives; mainly in foods), and the number one prescription to help these women out is some form of birth control pill.
My mother is one such woman, as am I. I could provide you with some far-too personal information about the problems my body has that could only be solved by birth control.
Also, would you rather have those who can not afford to raise a family take their risks with unprotected sex or have these options readily available? Don't bother to talk about abstinence, because we all know that they won't refrain from having sex just because they aren't taking a little pill every day. For our society, it has become a necessary thing to lower the number of unnecessary abortions, abandoned infants, welfare families, and overflowing orphanages (which there are plenty of, without the added stress of all those who did not have the opportunity birth control afforded them).
By pharmcists I did mean those who work in a CVS type pharmacy (as those are the ones closest to me and the ones in question). They do not own the pharmacy, they simply fill and ring up prescriptions that are filled there. I did not mean the company's owners. If CVS, for example, chose not to stock birth control or condoms, I would agree with you- their store, their policies, their items. However, this is not the case I'm refering to.
You made a point-BC, *with few exceptions*. Some women with very bad hormonal inbalances DO in fact NEED hormonal treatment (which is usually a prescribed form of birth control) to sustain normal hormonal ranges. So do you suggest that women get a special seal of sorts on their prescription that says this medication is REQUIRED? Not all medications are required, in fact most aren't. I have yet to hear of one pharmacy denying a Viagra prescription. Can a pharmacist ensure that the Viagra is going to be used for sex within a marriage? Why should women have to prove their contraceptive medication is being used in a "moral" way, but men do not have to prove that their enhancing medication is being used in a "moral" way? Why has it been only birth control that has been denied? It is very hypocritical.
As for your abortion description, personally, if you are a doctor or nurse working in a clinic that provides abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, yes, you should be willing to perform the proceedures that clinic offers, and if you're not, I don't think you should be working there. In terms of a public hospital situation, then no, I don't think punishment is required as most likely that doctor/intern/nurse did not sign on to a specific role. The doctors/nurses/interns are not working in a specific field as those who work at clinics like Planned Parenthood do.
And, like i said-in the cases I presented (where it is simply an employee, not an owner of a store/branch/pharmacy), I do think they should fill whatever prescription is given to them because it is their job. Their job is not to preach to customers about religious values or morals, and if they want it to be, become a pastor. If you sign on to do a specific job, do it. Do not sign on to make it hardr for women to access birth control.
Go to a different pharmacy if you don't like what they do or don't sell.
Simple as that.
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
Let said that there in only one gas station in your small town. the owner of the town is expecting to retire soon and has hired a teenager at the gas station. two month after the teenager had work there, he decied to become a greenpeace and sierra club activist. when ever someone came to get gas, he would denied gas to that person because he believe that it contribute to global warming. should that employee rights be respected and the owner must continue to allowed the greenpeace activist to work at his gas station because it would be discrimination?