A friend of mine recently pointed out that abortion is all-but unavailable already in large portions of America; not due to anti-abortion laws, but because nobody is choosing to provice that service. Is birth control next?
It’s a long article and one that does not lend itself to easy pulling of quotes. Here’s the gist, though:
Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist’s right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.
No need to change any laws – just get enough phramacists to refuse to fill perscirtions, and poof! Away goes the ability of women to get access to one of the easiest and most effective methods of birth control.
I’m over the initial wave of reaction from Election Day, but this is the kind of news that makes me think the apocalyptic fears of those first 48 hours are not, in fact, so far off base. It’s bad enough that Roe v Wade is under attack, but if we have to fight for Griswold too, it’s really, really bad.