Like we need more. Turns out Health and Human Services is drafting a regulation to redefine birth control methods like the pill, Plan b and IUDs as forms of abortion, despite the shaky science behind it, (not to mention the invasion of privacyin order to allow health care workers (like your pharmacist) off the hook, if you'll pardon the expression, in refusing to supply them based on moral or religious grounds. That regulation will nullify the law in 27 states. Without the approval of congress, the president, or the courts. Nicely played.

Although I disagree with defining "the pill" as a abotofactant, it can be used in that manner. The morning after pill is really nothing more than a large amount of the same chemical that is in the pill.

I got into a 100 post long fight with some people over this at XX factor a while back. Basically the issue for me comes down to this. Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions based on religious grounds. Happens all the time. In fact they've long been protected from being fired for doing so. Is there some principled reason pharmacists should be different?

Here's another question to ponder: Let's say my local gun shop owner decides to not sell some type of gun for whatever reason. I have the right to buy guns under the 2nd amendment. Is he in any way infringing upon my 2nd amendment rights by not selling me the gun that I want, given that it's legal? Basically, to what extent do your rights obligate someone else to perform a particular action that facilitates them.

... MoveOn.org. Planned Parenthood would have the same petition if you're interested.

Birth control pills are over the counter in South Korea. No pharmacist necessary. The counter person still has to ring them up and take the money, so there's that.

I hate to say it, but technically speaking, the pill, Plan B and IUDs are forms of abortion. The egg is fertilized in the tube and then prevented from embedding in the wall of the uterus. So, the little fertilized egg is flushed out, along with the lining of the uterus, and we get to bleed for a few days. (We bleed whether the egg is fertilized or not. Oh, goody.) The pill, of which Plan B is simply a jacked up version, and the I.U.D. prevent implantation, not fertilization. That's why we need a pill for men. No fertilization, no chance of pregnancy. Unless you're Mary.

Thanks for the post. Sign the petition.

was tossed out the window in a proposed regulation change.

(Currently, fed agencies proposing some action that might harm a listed species do their own internal assessment, then are required to "consult" with Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, which must issue a Biological Opinion of "no jeopardy" to the species' survival and recovery for the project to go forward unchanged. About half of proposed projects fail this consultation step; i.e., the proposing agency says they won't jeopardize the species, FWS/NMFS concludes they will. Yet, in spite of this failure rate, the admin proposes to eliminate this consultation step and make the proposing agency's assessment final and subject to no independent, external review [except possibly in court; don't think they can change that by regulation, though I'm sure they would if they could])!

Anybody who cares about any value or benefit provided, controlled, or protected in any way by gov't regulation had better be on full alert from now to 1/20/09, cuz we're all about to get buried in a tsunami of shit like this, whereby these criminals attempt to deliver to their patrons and cronies via stealth administrative regulation changes what they couldn't manage through, ya know, governance -- legislation, f'rinstance, or having their actions survive legal tests in court.

Clearly the public school system has failed you.

If you read my link, you'll note that Columbia University medical information states quite clearly that the pill is not an abortifacient. The morning after pill, if you read the link, is an entirely different medication. I really wish you would inform yourself before you waste 100 posts fighting with people.

The rules for being a pharmacist have long been established, and now a few folks want to change them. That's different than what doctors' rules are. The pharmacist has no right to practice medicine: he/she has no idea why the drugs are being prescribed. Perhaps the woman was raped. Perhaps the pills are being used for some other hormonal problem. Perhaps it's a matter of life or death should the woman become pregnant (as was the case with my mother). Who made the pharmacist a doctor? Certainly no licensing board I know of.

hi ya DT2. Well, not really.

First, the pharmacists’ code of ethics (it’s formal and published) prevents them from substituting their judgment for the doctors; off label prescribing is common. Second, preventing implantation isn’t the same as aborting—failure to implant is a common and unremarkable experience. Happens all the time and it’s not considered an abortion.

Third—and most important—birth control pills are prescribed all the time to synch cycles for couples undergoing IUI, IVF and other fertility treatments as preparation for injections and embryo transfer. That’s a very delicate timing act—miss it by a bit and the embryo is gone. Meaning that (perversely) a pharmacist refusing to fill a script for birth control pills could be in fact be preventing the fruition of a $30,000 procedure and dooming the very embryo he or she seems to be so concerned about. Which is why we don’t let pharmacists make decisions reserved for doctors.

...pharmacists are not doctors. Phramacists are basically educated store clerks. If you let them impose their beliefs on their customers, where does it end? Cab drivers can refuse to give rides to drunks, because they're anti-alcohol? Teachers don't have to teach gay kids, because it's against their religion to be gay? Do I have to continue to allow creationist students into my biology classes? Why do I have to serve black people in my diner when I can find biblical passages that indicate that they are supposed to be slaves?

Some versions of the morning after pill are different from the pill. Some are not:

<link>

<link>

You should really learn to google stuff. That took me less than a minute.

So pharmacists are less educated than doctors (well some are, for all I know my pharmacist might have a PhD in art history), lets stipulate that fact We are not talking about a situation in which a doctor makes a decision based on a medical situation. Let's be very clear here. We are talking about a case, identical to the pharmacists, where a doctor refuses to perform an abortion for no other reason than that they find it to be immoral to do so (for whatever reason). In all of those cases the doctor is protected from any kind of negative effects being incured. Why is the pharmacist any different?

It can't be because pharmacists are less educated because there is no reason that the degree of education someone has should make a difference in the ethical options they have open to them. Essentially, you would be saying that the longer someone spends in university the more rights they have to opt out of things for reasons (ethical ones) that have nothing to do with their education.

Oh...and by gosh you're right that birth control and guns aren't the same thing. Who'd a thunk it? But if you want to have a discussion about the extent to which other peoples rights compel anyone to perform a particular action (which I take it is what this case is about) then the right to guns is as much on the table as the right to an abortion.

My turn:

A woman and I live in a small town. She needs an abortion and I'm the only one with a car. Am I obligated by her right to an abortion to drive her the 200 miles to the big city so she can get one?

My students want to put up posters that I find offensive but are perfectly legal. Am I obligated to help them do it?

Some guy walks up to my house, knowing that I have some extra guns kicking around, and invokes his right to bear arms. Am I obligated to give him one?

Do I have to spend the rest of my life in a blur of facilitation to make sure that every right that people have that they would like to take advantage of is made easier by my actions?

Or is there some point at which it is permissable for me to say "no...even though you have a right to X, it is not my resposibility to facilitate your use of that right."

We can play slippery slope (man that sounds dirty) all day long if you like, but it's not going to get us anywhere because both sides of this issue are bad options. Women should be able to get the pill or RU-486 or whatever they like, but people should also have the right to say "no" to something they find unethical without being punished for doing so. So there will be negative consequences no matter what happens.

There's no way to differentiate whether a doctor is making a decision for ethical or medical reasons, and, indeed, there's a great deal of overlap. It's perfectly possible that a doctor will decide that a woman needs birth control pills or morning after pills for all kinds of medical reasons. A pharmacist is not qualified to make medical decisions, so if he refuses to serve a customer, it has to be for moral reasons (or at least, what he perceives to be moral reasons, which amounts to the same thing). We simply cannot allow pharamcists to override the decisions of doctors.

...you were not given a license by the state to practice Driving-You-To-The-Abortion-Cl­inic, and you don't work for Tony's Abortion Clinic Deliver Service. What pharmacists want is the right to work in a store that sells birth control pills, and then to decide whether or not they want to sell them to particular customers. They want to be protected from being fired by CVS or Walgreens for not selling perfectly legal substances to customers that have every legal right to have them.

See, nobody is forcing the pharmacists to sell morning-after pills. If they don't want to sell them, all they have to do is get another job.

. . . it'd be kind of cool to pick up some extra part-time work at a record store if I could refuse to sell albums by the Eagles on the basis of a moral objection to music that sucks.

A woman and I live in a small town. She needs an abortion and I'm the only one with a car. Am I obligated by her right to an abortion to drive her the 200 miles to the big city so she can get one?

Not unless you're a professional driver. The analogy makes no sense, unless we were arguing whether someone who had birth control pills in his or her own medicine cabinet would be obliged to dispense them (like, say, if they had them to treat ovarian cysts, which is why my wife was on them for so long).

My students want to put up posters that I find offensive but are perfectly legal. Am I obligated to help them do it?

Your job is to teach. If your job were to distribute posters, you WOULD be so obligated.

Some guy walks up to my house, knowing that I have some extra guns kicking around, and invokes his right to bear arms. Am I obligated to give him one?

Are you a licensed gun dealer? If not, then no. If so, there are other questions--does he have the money? Has he undergone all necessary checks? If so . . . well, I'm inclined to say you have to sell him one, assuming that he has behaved appropriately as a customer.

Again, you're confusing the obligations of someone who works in the field with those of someone who happens to possess certain items.

Or is there some point at which it is permissable for me to say "no...even though you have a right to X, it is not my resposibility to facilitate your use of that right."

Of course. I'm not a doctor; it's not my obligation to perform surgery on someone who needs it.

"you were not given a license by the state to practice Driving-You-To-The-Abortion-Cl­­inic, and you don't work for Tony's Abortion Clinic Deliver Service"

Don't doctors work for the We-Perform-Medical-Prodecures place. Aren't abortions medical proceedures?

All I'm asking for is consistency.

Not all hospitals or clinics perform abortions. But if you were a doctor who went to work for a Planned Parenthood clinic, then refused to perform abortions, you'd be asked to relocate, don't you suppose?

Lots of people who work at Wal-Mart think it's immoral to sell cigarettes. What do you think happens to them if they refuse?

I know what you're saying--we make a special case for doctors. But there are lots of reasons. Not the least of which is that you really don't want someone performing a procedure on you whose heart is not in it. Or at least I don't.