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.
Comments (2)
I posted on this back on May 2, this is the link:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_whoviating_archive.html#108354979579867194
At the time, I noted that I don't think the issue is a slam dunk because I do believe in the right of individual conscience. But I also quoted medical ethicist Linda Rankin:
"When people take on the life of a pharmacist, they have to realize what might be asked of them."
That is, they need to realize that filling prescriptions that might violate personal beliefs comes with the territory. If they can't deal with that, they need to seriously consider whether they can be pharmacists - or at the *very* least whether they can be pharmacists in places where there is not another pharmacist to deal with the preciptions they are unwilling to handle.
Posted by LarryE | November 9, 2004 3:41 PM
I've known about this issue also. Possibly from articles you sent me Rachel!
However, I'm beginning to wonder - and this is frightening.... - how much I care about abortion rights on the federal agenda. They're not going away here! They're not going away in any of the places I would most likely be living (i.e. R. Florida's 3 Ts - talent, technology and tolerance). Even if I did end up in a state where it was illegal and a daughter who needed one, (with 3 sons we might be done though ;) I hope that I'd raise her to be able to talk to me about it and I'd fly her somewhere to get one.
Glen's reading The People's History by Howard Zinn and bringing up the arguments that these moral issues are just a smokescreen to keep the poor down.
Do you realize Glen and I are in the top 94% of annual income earners in the U.S.? We don't make that much money!
I think I'm more concerned about economic issues and the war than these moral issues like gay marriage and abortion. I figure that if some states outlaw abortions, the service will go back to the black market. When people's daughters start dying in botched abortions, and they will because it's not like the country is going to go backwards in sexual liberation, I'm pretty sure they'll reconsider.
Do I sound defeatist? Insane? You know I'm still the far left liberal you love. ;)
kt
Posted by Katie Lipka | November 10, 2004 6:48 AM