Pro life pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions

I only heard about this a few weeks ago, but it is happening across America at Walmart, Walgreens, Rite Aids, CVS, and smaller locally owned pharmacies. It's not just the morning after pill but IUD's and birth control pills. There is a group called "Pharmacists for life" who are behind it and some of them are turning women away who have valid prescriptions soley based on "moral grounds", and often with a lecture about it and/or anti-abortion materials. Apparently they can't be fired either. Here's a little from one of the NUMEROUS articles floating around.

..."The most common, widely publicized conflicts have involved pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, morning-after pills and other forms of contraception. They say they believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion and that the contraceptives promote promiscuity, divorce, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other societal woes. The result has been confrontations that have left women traumatized.....

In response, some pharmacists have stopped carrying the products or have opened pharmacies that do not stock any.

"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," said Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, which promotes a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill such prescriptions........

"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."

Everyone has their own personal beliefs regarding human reproduction. However, when it is your job to provide health services to the public, we don't understand how those beliefs are more important than the customers'.

'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs [Washington Post]

I can NOT believe this!!!

Those misled wackos should be FIRED for trying to pull womankind back into the bloody medieval times!

They probably don't believe in anesthesia for childbirth, either!!!

This shit has gone on for quite a while.

Here's an article from 2004: http://www.lifenews.com/state658.html

What could be the next step for these "pro-life" crazies? Will they have a problem with the tampons and sanitary pads sold in the stores? Will they bitch that women having their periods should have been preggo instead?

Has anyone here heard of any pharmacist that refused a fertility treatment prescription on "moral grounds"? I want to see that!

Keep working more hours, CF people! Millions of breeders depend on us.

Since I heard about it I have been reading up on it and it's a HUGE mess. One source says that while many have avoided being the one to fill morning after pills, they had other pharmacists do it. However, some study came out in 2002 that in SOME rare cases, IF the pill failed to stop ovulation, that it's POSSIBLE that IF the sperm and egg united in holy matrimony up the baybee canal, that the pill would prevent the baybee from attaching to the uterine wall, hence: it's an abortifacient.

Then you have a few who started using the "conscience clause" of their pharmacy license and refusing to fill the regular birth control pill. Well,as expected nearly every prolifer pharmacist jumped on the band wagon and while a few have been fired, most have not and the others have filed lawsuits. Now they are saying that an IUD is also an "abortifacient" so they won't fill THOSE prescriptions either. What's more, many privately owned pharmacies are refusing to even carry ANY birth control methods including condoms, they have 7 listed on their site and I am sure many more will follow.

Walmart is facing several civil suits from women who were denied their prescriptions and/or on the grounds that they were humilated in front of God and everybody by being lectured that the pill was an ABORTION when they tried to pick up their prescription. SOME will only dispense birth control to MARRIED women. The only state so far that mandates they dispense ANY valid prescription is Illinois. What if they find cancer drugs "immoral"? or drugs for Aids, or whatever? Another big what if is the prescription COULD be for ovarian cysts and the woman isn't even sexually active or is infertile. OR a pregnancy COULD endanger her life. OR she COULD already have 5 kids and can't afford another.

It pisses me off royally even though I am not personally affected by it. It's basically designed to FORCE women to give birth or not have sex. It's none of their damned business WHY I have a prescription because if it's valid, then it's their JOB to fill it.

In the UK we have some of the GPs which have moral background.
There should not be a place for people with religious/moral background in the medical proffesion.

In think that anyone apply for jobs in medial professional to have a career should religious/moral vetted or tested because most of the jobs in the hospital are not morals anyway. If the job is against their belief, then Doc Moral should be rejected on the Application/Resume.

It's their job to save lives, not to advice on their religious grounds.

If the Doctor Moral don't like what they do because of their beliefs, then they should another job and don't work in hospital.

And you're right KidlessKim, it none of their Doctor Moral's business why they should have prescription. It's one of the 'manipulate hormones' techniques which means force them to give birth. I hate people do that. They should sack on the moral ground but we can't because of so-called discrimination. What about discrimination against CF people.

Who the F### decide for Doctor Moral to say have the kid because abortion is bad, Doc Morals don't have kids and they never got raped - so what the hell do they know.

What gets me about all of this, is the inherent assumption that every woman who gets a B/C pill prescription is fertile and taking them to prevent pregnancy. This is NOT so! I and many other women (at least 5% of all women) have a condition called PCOS, in which due to androgen excess, the entire reproductive system basically shuts down. Not only can't you ovulate, you also don't menstruate, either. Needless to say, this is a risky, if not dangerous, situation for a woman to be in because this leads to all kinds of cancers if not treated. B/C pills are given to us because we literally can't menstruate without them. So in a nutshell, we PCOS women don't take B/C to prevent pregnancy -we can't get pregnant without medical intervention, anyway- we take it to prevent cancer! So by denying a PCOS woman B/C, you are potentially sentencing her to death by cancer!

Frankly, I would really like to see a group of PCOS women file a class-action lawsuit against the so-called Pharmacists for Life, designed to bankrupt them by making the case that by denying us the Pill, they are denying us vital medical care, and should not only pay us monetary damages, but also take away whatever credentials a pharmacist has so that they can NEVER practice in that field again.

Let me begin by stating for the record I am very much pro choice and do not believe any woman (or man) should be compelled to "see a pregnancy through" for any legal/religious or other reason.

That said, I am also a Libertarian/conservative who does not buy into the post civil rights-era notion that private businesses are public accommodations subject to "equal access" and "equal opportunity" laws and regulations.

If a pharmacy owner wishes not to carry a certain product or offer a certain service - for whatever reason - that ought to be his choice because it is his right. Customers are free to shop elsewhere. No one has the right to compel someone else to provide a service - or even to interact with them on any level.

It's because we've upended this once-basic principle of a free (and genuinely civil) society that we gave become a nation of special interest/pressure groups (including Moos) who use the force of the state to force others to do things "our way."

This is not a defense of religious assholes or assholes of any sort; it's a defense of all of us to be left the hell alone to live our lives as we see fit, free or coercion or hassle - until and unless we attempt to force others to do something against their wishes.

eric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is not a defense of religious assholes or
> assholes of any sort; it's a defense of all of us
> to be left the hell alone to live our lives as we
> see fit, free or coercion or hassle - until and
> unless we attempt to force others to do something
> against their wishes.


But Eric, these are pharmacists we're talking about. They hold the keys to the kingdom of health second only to medical doctors.

Presumably nobody forced them to become pharmacists, right? (Well, aside from the fact that many of them are frustrated doctors who weren't intelligent enough to pass the medical school entrance exams...) And so as pharamcists, is their Number One commitment to a) making these patients well? Or b) forcing their religious beliefs on them? One or the other commitment has to take priority, and anyone who lets B get in the way of A ought to be sacked, for they would be guilty of not fulfilling their duty as a pharmacist.

Oh, they can KEEP their religious beliefs. But they LOSE their jobs for being a danger to public health.

Here in the England, that's how it would work. Oh, plus our birth control pills are handed out FREE for ALL women over the age of 16. And we have more or less on-demand abortion available to those women who choose it, courtesy of the National Health Service, for any tragic situations that need to be resolved. Rule Britannia.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Before Tubal #2, I would get dirty looks from the little teenybopper running the cash register at Wal-Mart's pharmacy when picking up my b/c pill Rx. I would love for some bint to try to lecture me on how I chose to live my life.

The issue, as I see it, is compelling someone (anyone) to provide a service or product against his wishes. Just as I support the right of a restaurant owner (or airline or hotel - etc.) to exclude children (or anyone else, for any reason at all) I also support the right of a pharmacist (more properly, the pharmacy that employs him) to provide only those goods/services it wishes to provide - on whatever terms it wishes to do so.

I believe in freedom - in the old-fashioned sense of that term: Free association; no force or compulsion against anyone unless that person is threatening the use of force against you.

This used to be the American way - and I wish we'd return to it.

If you or I don't like pharmacist X (for whatever reason) we take our business to pharmacist Y. If he does not wish to sell to us, he loses our business - and someone else gains it.

This all cuts both ways - for good or ill. I'd much prefer that people be free to associate (and do business with)whomever they please, and under no compulsion to deal with/do business with those they prefer not to deal/do business with - for whatever reason.

The alternative is what we have - a country in which everyone feels entitled to impose their wishes - and even themselves, literally - on everyone else. This results in the crap we all hate - such as breederific restaurants that can't say "no kids" for fear of being sued; of landlords who can't say "adults only" - and so on.

To be clear: I fully support equal access (and attendant legal requirements that services, etc. be given equally to everyone, regardless of status) when we are talking about genuine public areas - such as courts, public buildings, anything that is supported by tax dollars, etc. But a pharmacy, restaurant, airline - etc. - these are private business and ought to be free to do business on whatever basis they wish, even if some of us don't especially like their attitude or how the deal with their customers, etc.

I think the country would be a much more civil (and free) place...

One of my best friends is a managing pharmacist at one of the major chains mentioned. We've had conversations about this. She had an abortion when we were in college, and knows if she had the baby she wouldn't be a pharmacist today. She said she would work her ass off to fire anyone who tried to pull this shit on a customer. We live in a pretty liberal area. I think there would be all sorts of problems if this crap started here.

Oh, Eric. Let's take the probably-not-so-hypothetical situation of a poor woman in a small town in, say, Mississippi (or whatever other ultra-backward US state you care to name).

If the one pharmacist in town chooses to not fill her birth control prescription, she CAN'T get it filled elsewhere because she can't GET to elsewhere. And the forced-birthers celebrate as she shits out a brood of brats she is neither financially nor mentally able to take proper care of. Oh, Juh-hay-zus loves that. The Earth does not.

Not to mention that the pharmacist in the next town over probably won't fill the prescription either. Because, you know, it's Mississippi and all that.

In case you think I exaggerate, please note that I come from a one-pharmacist town that is fully 90 minutes driving from the next pharmacy.

I too live in a very small town (literally, one traffic light in the entire county) and I absolutely understand what you're saying - and sympathize with the sentiment.

But I value freedom from compulsion more than anything else - even if it means the assholes sometimes make life harder for some people.

I think it's far more valuable that we allow private individuals (and privately owned businesses) to interact with and do business with others on whatever terms they wish. Because once we accept the idea that peaceful, private people can be forced to interact with/do business with/accommodate others via the coercive power of the government, we open the floodgates to literally endless micromanaging of our private affairs - including our ability to run a restaurant as we see fit, rent a property to those who meet our requirements, etc.

On this specific issue, I think the idiocy of the pharmacist who refused to provide needed medication would create an immediate opening for a less idiotic pharmacist not hobbled by religious BS. Few businesses can survive for long by allowing their personal (weird/repellent) views to affect their business practices - just as a person who is an asshole tends not to have too many friends!

I understand the temptation to try to force people who behave like shits to do otherwise - but I regard it as far wider to leave them be, so long as they are peaceful and not actually threatening anyone.

Just imagine a world where a restaurant could cater to adults only - and not have to worry about a Breeder lawsuit. A store that could tell a tit Nazi breast feeder to leave because she's grossing out the customers - without any fear of the law. Imagine being able to rent a condo to "people without kids only." Etc.

There is one huge difference between a pharmacist and a restaurateur: a restaurateur didn't have to attend several years of university in order to be licenced to own his restaurant. Thus, there is no artificial scarcity of restaurateurs.

If anyone off the street could open a pharmacy, I might be fine with your line of thinking. But that isn't the case.

Eric, hope the wife/gf of yours gets pregnant because she cannot find a pharmacist for her pills and you have twins. Feel good that the pharmacist had the freedom to deny you any protection.

I live in a rather large county (area wise) for the state, but with a population of only about 75 thousand. In a 50 mile radius there is a Walmart, Walgreens, Rite Aid, and a handful of locally owned pharmacies. The next bordering city has about the same choices. The NEXT biggest city is 100 miles away. This is still a dry county and no pornography, print or DVD, is allowed in any of the locally owned OR chain stores. Our grocery stores keep condoms and spermacides in a locked case to "keep the kids from gettin' at em'".

The nearest abortion clinic is 100 miles+ away. There are more Baptist churches in this county than there are Taxi Cabs in New York City.
IF this catches on in this area, you can bet that ALL stores will follow suit and NONE will sell any birth control. This is an area where moomie, daddy, mee maw, pee paw, Uncle Elmer, Aunt Millie, 8 or 10 cousins and the yellow dog ALL "load up" once a month and "come to town" to get supplies,doctor appointments, shop, etc... There is no way in hell that a majority of this county would have the means or the opportunity to purchase any birth control if they had to make a 200+ mile round trip EVERY MONTH in a gas guzzling junker car like most of them have.

This is CLEARLY discrimination against those who live in rural or poor areas. We have enough "on the draw" as it is around here. Toss in the lack of access to birth control for the few who are trying to better themselves, and we might as well have this county declared a welfare state. What's to stop a pharmacist from getting moral about just about anything? Maybe he thinks people ought to just pray when they have an infection, high blood pressure, a Brown Recluse Spider bite, diabetes, arthritis, bunions or poor vision. What then?

Eric...there's a difference between enforcing policy "ideal" for certain people and MANIPULATION AND DECEPTION.

And - manipulation and decepticon could be DANGEROUS in the medical field, so those so-called pharmacists SHOULD be fired for forcing THEIR own ideas on customers and their BODIES, too!

Um, no they can't take her prescription away from her and refuse to give it back so she can get it filled elsewhere. Not legal at all! The prescription she gets from the doctor is her personal property. So if pharmacists are going so far as to do this - they are violating the law.

And if a pharmacist objects to filling certain types of prescriptions, he/she needs to find another profession. Dispensing birth control is part of working in a pharmacy. I used to work in a drug store as a cashier and had to ring up purchases for bc pills, condoms, etc. If someone has moral objections to this, they need to find another job instead of throwing a hissy fit about someone's personal choices.

eric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Just imagine a world where a restaurant could
> cater to adults only - and not have to worry about
> a Breeder lawsuit. A store that could tell a tit
> Nazi breast feeder to leave because she's grossing
> out the customers - without any fear of the law.

Actually, restaurants and retail stores are private property, so you could have an "adults only" restaurant. Same thing with retail stores.

However, when it comes to getting medical help (drugs, surgery, etc.), though, its dead wrong to discriminate.

Acme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is one huge difference between a pharmacist
> and a restaurateur

The main one being that being denied a table at a restaurant won't ruin your body and your life!

Pharmacies are, de facto, part of the public health system. That trumps any personal beliefs on the part of the pharmacist, or any libertarian ideals about governmental noninterference. This fact does not apply in the same way to restaurants or most other businesses.

(By the way, a true, extreme, crackpot libertarian—I've known a few—would argue that a restaurant serving tainted food should be allowed to stay open and let the market and the tort system sort things out. In the meantime, people would have been sickened and have died unnecessarily from eating the bad food without authorities closing the restaurant. I used to be a solid libertarian, but such far-out arguments pushed me away.)

Condoms, for example, minimize the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases. The state and taxpayers have a vested interest in preventing not only the spread of disease, but also unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. As mentioned already, oral contraceptives have other medical uses besides preventing pregnancy, and their intended use is none of the pharmacist's business.

Imagine a "pharmacist" who actually became a Christian Scientist or a member of some half-baked fundie cult and believed that prayer will heal all ills—and therefore refused to issue any prescription drugs on that basis. That's the reductio ad absurdum for this issue. How long do you think he should be allowed to stay in business without some sort of intervention?

I've had this happen to me so many times it's rediculous. 2x at a Walgreens pharmacy in San Jose, California (the one on WInchester Blvd.). I ended up screaming at the top of my lungs until the store manager came out. I was 21 years old. The entire group of pharmacists tried to tell the manager I was 15... BS!

Most recently it has been through the Chinese Community Health Plan in San Francisco. THeir doctors outright refuse to prescribe contracptives. I'm stuck right now because they are the only "doctors" in the area that take my pos HMO. Seriously, their receptionists tell me to go to Planned Parenthood or keep my legs closed if I don't want to get pregnant.

It may be racist: the only times I have been denied BC or emergency BC has been when I was forced to deal with an immigrant doctor. Philipino, Mexican, and Chinese.

My wife gets her BC pills via the mail; I should have mentioned that in my initial post. I assume anyone can do the same - which solves the problem w/recalcitrant pharmacists nicely!

I'm not an attorney so I can't say for sure; however, I do know that there have been lawsuits (and enforcement action by the government) with regard to restaurants that, for example, refuse to serve certain people, renters who "discriminate" - and so on.

My argument is that any privately-owned enterprise is by definition not a public accommodation and ought to be free to conduct serve/interact with whomever it wishes (or not) on whatever basis it chooses, free of compulsion by the state.

For example, while I am a lifelong non-smoker, I have no problem with a private bar/restaurant that chooses to allow smoking. If I am troubled by the smoke, that's my problem. I can eat elsewhere - or at home. I do not believe I have the right to demand that the restaurant or bar cater to my desire for a smoke-free eating/drinking experience - beyond the "demand" that my business (or lack thereof) imposes.

Similarly, a pharmacy is a store owned by a private company. If its policy is to refuse to sell a product (whatever that product may be) that is - or should be - the pharmacy's right. We are free to take our business elsewhere; and in any case, we don't have any more right to force a business or individual to serve us than they have a right to force us to buy.

Just my Libertarian 2 cents on this....

de facto is not the same as de jure - hence the distinction!

I disagree that health care is an entitlement anymore than a "good" income or a "decent" place to live. Most of us here I think would agree that CF people don't owe childed people our hard-earned money to provide for their kids. The same principle applies here - and it is a very important principle, too.

At core, the problem with breeders is their sense of entitlement; that their "needs" trump everyone else's rights. If we wish to combat this, we need to reject the premise in principle - even when it affects us in ways we don't like so much.

Again - for the record: On a personal level I think any pharmacist or doctor who tries to foist his religious views onto others - or deny care on that basis - is an asshole (and probably incompetent, too). But I will defend his right to be an asshole - and to serve/work with people on his terms, not theirs - to the utmost.