Now I know where to send my support for the first amendment.

What does the first amendment have to do with it?

No one is forcing doctors to perform abortions, and no one is forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control if they think it is the equivalent of an abortion. If the pharmacist doesn't want to dispense, he or she doesn't have to, and the consequences of that choice are between the pharmacist and his or her employer. This bill, however, wants to prevent pharmacies or clinics from firing pharmacists or PAs who refuse to carry out one of their job functions, should the pharmacy or clinic wish to. In other words, the bill is an attempt to interfere with the employee-employer relationship in order to promote a particular moral and religious agenda. This right of conscience extends only to the issue of women's reproductive choices, not to any other kind of medication or medical issue.

"This bill, however, wants to prevent pharmacies or clinics from firing pharmacists or PAs who refuse to carry out one of their job functions, should the pharmacy or clinic wish to. In other words, the bill is an attempt to interfere with the employee-employer relationship in order to promote a particular moral and religious agenda. This right of conscience extends only to the issue of women's reproductive choices, not to any other kind of medication or medical issue."

Absolutely true. As such, it will be challenged on the basis of sexual discrimination.

I'm a pharmacist that believes that poor little old ladies shouldn't have to screw their ugly wrinkled old husbands anymore. Therefore, I will refuse to dispense Viagra, Cialis and Levitra on the grounds of moral conscience. Watch the suits fly then.

BenK, you should probably make a better attempt to understand the issues at hand before you start writing that letter. Your 'first amendment' comment was irrelevant, as others have noted. We are talking about government meddling into employers' business, not whether one has the right to consceintiously object to something.

It seems to me quite disingenuous when the gov't meddling in the employer/employee relationship is lauded by pro-union, pro-OSHA, pro-universal healthcare, pro-affirmative action people and then they are arguing that the gov't should stay out of the same relationship when it comes to religious freedoms.

I am not pro-any of those things. You are correct, though, that some people are hypocritical about picking and choosing when it's okay for government to intervene. My libertarian take is that an employer should be able to make his or her own decisions on how to handle conscientiously objecting employees.

As for those who seem to be hypocritical on government intervention, I think many people are appalled by this particular proposed regulation because they are concerned about the rights of an individual to receive proper medical care. Would you agree that, at some point, that should be taken into consideration? For example, should a pharmacist's right to refuse medication always trump a patient's right to obtain it? After all, if the pharmacy can object to dispensing one type of medication (oral contraceptive) then they can object to others, too. In other words, why should the employee have more rights than the employer or the customer?

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the pharmacy or hospital put up signs, in essence, 'management reserves the right to refuse service based on these moral objections to certain treatments or treatments in certain situations: ...'

It does seem a bit difficult to have employer and employee separated at this juncture, but in fact we have some other legal issues which make this the only way morals and conscience can be included; at the employee level.