Of course the intent is to ban contraception. And of course the Bush Administration is being coy about it. After seven years does anyone here seriously believe that we can believe "intent" statements, as opposed to what the Bush Administration will actualy do?

I absolutely guarantee that, within five days of this being "official", the Pro-Life team will begin working on pharmacists everywhere to start denying birth control pills to women on "conscience" grounds.

And every one knows it.

Absolutely.

Ofcourse, contraception is key to preventing abortions. But logic doesn't seem to factor into this at all.

Remember the Monty Python skit where the fellow goes into a cheese store and tries to buy some cheese only to find out that after a long and drawn out taxonomy of all cheeses possible, that in fact he wasn't in a cheese store at all.

In the near future, will there be establishments set up that instead of selling you pharmacuticals, their chief function will be to dissuade you from using pharmas altogether? Or dissuade you from taking your doctor's advice on a course of action and instead follow the advice of their conscience?

That doesn't sound like Christianity to me, it sounds like Scientology!

Not so far off, actually. There are already a lot of pregnancy crisis centers that work to pressure women into having the baby and scare them away from having an abortion. They don't advertise themselves as such, of course; instead, they pretend to be neutral.

Re: "Ofcourse, contraception is key to preventing abortions. But logic doesn't seem to factor into this at all."

The "logic" has nothing to do with preventing abortions and everything to do with controlling women. If you understand the Conservative agenda, it all makes perfectr sense.

"The "logic" has nothing to do with preventing abortions and everything to do with controlling women. If you understand the Conservative agenda, it all makes perfectr sense."

I used to think the term Christian Taliban was pretty harsh. I've since changed my mind.

Where does the right of conscience end?

Could pharmacists decline to dispense contraceptives (of any kind) unless proof of marriage were offered, if they believed that sex outside of marriage was immoral? After all, they might be facilitating an immoral act.

Could pharmacists refuse to dispense Viagra to unmarried men, for the same reason?

If a pharmacist believes that a drug is potentially harmful, could he or she refuse to dispense it? There have been occasional claims that some of the drugs used to treat ADHD, for example, might have adverse, even fatal effects, but the medical consensus so far is that they are generally safe when used as prescribed. But what if a particular pharmacist doesn’t believe the reassurances, the “experts,” and decides that the drugs are dangerous, potentially fatal, and refuses to dispense them?

Of course people shouldn’t be forced to act against their consciences, but perhaps if a particular job is going to compel a person, as a requirement of the job, to do something that comes into conflict with his or her conscience, then it’s the wrong job for that person. If you are a pharmacist, your job is to dispense the prescriptions, not to dispense moral judgments. If the demands of your conscience are so imperative that you cannot do your job, then it is you who should make the sacrifice for your conscience, not others: quit your job, and find another that allows you to live your life with the tranquility of heart and soul that only a quiet conscience can bring. Although as for that, I suspect a quiet conscience is a dead one.

vangoghscat,

Or, if a pharmacist (or physician) thought that AIDS was the wrath of god, could he refuse to dispense (precribe) antivirals on grounds of concience?

apropos1,

You are right that this is not a matter of logic.

It is, instead, a matter of morality. Leavitt (and the Catholic church, and many in the anti-abortion camp) see no meaningful moral distinction between abortion and contraception.

For them, it is not a matter of promoting contraception to reduce abortion. More contraception is the same thing as more abortion, morally.

If this is the way you think, then it is perfectly natural, even logical, to restrict them both.

Trebuchet:

Remember the Monty Python skit where the fellow goes into a cheese store and tries to buy some cheese only to find out that after a long and drawn out taxonomy of all cheeses possible, that in fact he wasn't in a cheese store at all.

In the near future, will there be establishments set up that instead of selling you pharmacuticals, their chief function will be to dissuade you from using pharmas altogether? Or dissuade you from taking your doctor's advice on a course of action and instead follow the advice of their conscience?

That doesn't sound like Christianity to me, it sounds like Scientology!

Sounds more like imposing religious dogma and beliefs just like the taliban wants world wide.Jefferson,madison,adams ,ets must be spinning in their graves over this attack on limited goverment.Btw ,if one has a objection to something in their chosen field why choose that particular field to be in unless this is an attempt to interfear with indavidual freedoms and liberties?IIf you don't like chevys don't work at a chevy dealership.If you don't like loud music do not work at a concert venue.If you do not like freedom do not live in a free country and try to restict freedom for the vast majority that does.