In 2002, Neil Noesen, a Wisconsin pharmacist and devout Roman Catholic, faced a nightmare after he was slapped with $20,000 in court fines and restrictions on his license for refusing to hand a patient prescription that could be used for an abortion.
That case, like dozens of other similar cases that have dotted the nation, have spurred the development of a growing number of new “pro-life pharmacies” that cater specifically to guarding the religious objections of pharmacists opposed to contraceptives and abortion drugs.
Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, said that the new pharmacies – now over a dozen and growing – were an important milestone. Pro-life pharmacists could take solace in knowing that their constitutional right to defend life would be protected in the workplace, she said.
"This allows a pharmacist who does not wish to be involved in stopping a human life in any way to practice in a way that feels comfortable," she explained, according to The Washington Post.
Although pro-life and family groups have been uniform in their praise of the rise of new pharmacies that defend the rights of the unborn, opponents say that the pharmacies would hurt women who may be turned away during times when they find themselves badly in need of contraception.
"Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center.
The Family Research Council, however, disagreed.
“On the contrary, what endangers women's health is the propaganda by Planned Parenthood and others that insists ‘emergency contraception’ is safe, when it can and has caused serious side effects,” the group said in a statement.
“The lack of contraception isn't killing any woman. Sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, is. We commend these drugstores for creating a safe environment for employees and consumers of moral and religious conviction,” the FRC added.
Pro-life pharmacies, the FRC stressed, would be identical to any other pharmacy, except for the absence of contraceptives and drugs that could be used for an abortion like the so-called “morning after” pill.
“Although some decry the pharmacies as discriminatory, it is well within the proprietors' rights to adhere to a higher moral code than political correctness. If customers don't like it, they are free to take their business elsewhere,” the FRC said.
At present, there are only nine states that have passed legislation protecting the moral objections of pharmacists who refuse to hand out contraceptives, highlighting the importance of pro-life pharmacies nationally.
RSS
"refusing to hand a patient prescription that could be used for an abortion."
So the prescription was for RU-486, mifepristone? Because if it was anything else, then this article is misleading. Sure, medications that prevent implantation don't count as abortifacients from a medical perspective but do from many religious perspectives, but this should be acknowledged in the article. If the pharmacist refused to hand over the morning after pill (often confused with RU-486, even though they do different things and work in different ways), then this is about contraception and not abortion from a medical perspective. Again, some people view both as immoral, but it is a distinction that should be acknowledged in the article. The abortion issue is too closely tied to the sex issue as it is. There is no need to tie them together more tightly.
Speaking of clarifications, it is the FDA that declared, after more than the usual amount of debate and testing, that the morning after pill is safe enough to be sold over the counter. It is perfectly reasonable for Planned Parenthood or anyone else in the country to agree with the FDA's position. Again, it was RU-486, not Plan B, that Planned Parenthood said was too dangerous.
If a pharmacist does not want to fill prescriptions that the patient and his or her doctor have decided are necessary, then that pharmacist needs a new line of work. These places should be boycotted until they can do their duty--and it is a duty.
I notice no one's brought it up yet: How many of these places also have "moral objections" to Viagra? Almost none of the men who get prescriptions for Viagra get them because they're actively trying to reproduce. It is about sex for fun. The fact that we don't hear about moral objections to Viagra suggests that this is more about discomfort with sexually liberated women than it is about discomfort with promiscuity in general.
blue1018...women in the situations you mentioned should be taken straight to the ER...period. There should never be a corner pharmacy involved.
Also, C. Everett Coop co-wrote a book with Francis Sheaffer called "How Should We Then Live?" where he documents the cases anti-life people point to are few and far between. In fact, in all his years of practice he NEVER saw a case where the mothers life was in danger. Very few women conceive from rape according to the numbers as has been stated.
It is an attempt to make a rule based on an exception.
pvlman---the same was said about people of color in the 50's. What part of the pharmacists have rights too are you missing? It is difficult to understand the logic of your arguement. Why is it right for people to force their beliefs on the pharmacists?
Part of the 'free exercise thereof' is to protect the pharmacists from doing something that they believe is immoral. You say Christians aren't being persecuted in the USA yet this case persecutes pharmacists if they hold to their Christian beliefs. 2+2=4
You are right in that Jesus didn't isolate himself from the mainstream society. That's what landed Him on a cross....
pvlman,
You said "As a male I would like the opportunity to take my business elsewhere than support someone who feels they have the right to force their beliefs on others." I agree with you. I think all pharmicists should advertise their particular beliefs. As a man, I would like the opportunity to take my business elsewhere than support someone who feels they have the right to force their belief that a baby (which is what is known as a fetus after conception) is not alive and therefore does not deserve to live. I don't think it's their right to push their beliefs on me.
blue,
Apparently the idea of "adoption" is not in your vocabulary. I get tired of hearing about the number of couples that want to adopt new borns, but can't because there aren't enough. And though a girl may not have the "phycical" evidence of her rape, she'll always have the emotional and psychological scars.
"As a male I would like the opportunity to take my business elsewhere than support someone who feels they have the right to force their beliefs on others. "
I believe there is quite a line between forcing beliefs on others as opposed enabling others to practice beliefs they deem improper EX: taking business elsewhere is not forcing your beliefs but refusing to enable someone to practice their beliefs that you have deemed improper....there is no difference.
blue, the two situations you share represent less than 3-5% of cases where women are requesting a termination to a pregnancy. I can't speak for any of the pharmacists who are refusing to distribute specifically the morning after pill, but the exception is not their issue rather it is the policy of distributing the morning after pill to anyone who requests it regardless of the reason. If the practice of abortion violates their religious and moral views why should they be forced to distribute products that violate those views. And considering there are many other pharmacists who will freely distribute these products there is no person who will not be able to aquire these products.
what about a young teenage girl who is raped and tortured, finds herself pregnant, and is denied a morning after pill? Denied a legal right to not carry the burden of rape with her through life? What about a woman, married to an abusive alcoholic man, finding herself taken advantage of and in need of contraception? I'd like these pharmacists to look these women in the eyes and tell them NO. Because one day it might be THEIR wife, or sister, or mother, or aunt, or friend - raped or abused - and then they will see how the right to contraception is a RIGHT, not a will.
I'm sorry, but the idea that The idea that Christians are being persecuted in the USA is ludicrous. The idea of Christians should separate themselves from mainstream society is more so. Did Jesus isolate himself from the mainstream society? Sounds like sour grapes on the part of Christians, whenever they are tharted from forcing their beliefs on others.
Will the pharmacists be advertising that they will not be filling these prescriptions before a customer hands them prescription to be filled? As a male I would like the opportunity to take my business elsewhere than support someone who feels they have the right to force their beliefs on others.
This is both a happy and sad development. Happy for obvious reasons, but sad because such a separation in pharmacies is required by secular persecution of Christians. And since such persecution is only increasing (e.g., civil magistrates being sued for not "marrying" gay couples), I suppose Christians will have to further separate from mainstream society.