« Romeny makes sex ed accusations | Main | No comment necessary »
July 30, 2007
Anti-choice pharmacists sue over...having to do their job
Extremist anti-choice pharmacists are suing Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception. You know, do their job.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.""The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.
The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.
This is just so upsetting. A woman's medical decisions are between her and her doctor--a pharmacist has no right to deny women access to medication.
Posted by Jessica at July 30, 2007 11:03 AM
Comments
And you call yourselves "pro-choice"? Or is that just for people who believe the same things you do? These pharmacists are simply "choosing" to do what they think is right, and you say that they can't do that. In the small town I live in there are no less than 8 places that you can get prescriptions filled. There are also about 20 more within 15 minutes driving distance. If one pharmacist won't fill your script to kill your unborn child, then go to another one.
I am pro-life, and pro-choice. I believe that everyone has the right to choose to have sex, or not. If you choose to do so, you have the right to choose to use some form of pregnancy control. If you do use pregnancy control, then you should be aware that none of them (other than strict abstinence) is 100% effective.
Once you have chosen to have sex, and chosen whether or not to use a form of pregnancy control, then your choices are at an end. You should have to live with the consequences of your actions. But that is what this is really about. You don't want to have to do that. You want to be able to fornicate like a wild animal, but not be responsible for the outcome.
Now I know what all of you are thinking, "What about rape, women don't choose to be raped." And I agree with that. I don't approve of abortion, but I would accept a law that says that a woman who has been raped can have an abortion, with 1 condition:
A police report has been filed within 30 days of the incident, and before the woman discovered that she is pregnant.
This keeps women from getting pregnant with their boyfriend/husband/one-night-stand/whatever, and then deciding that they don't want to be pregnant and filing a false police report (a felony if I am not mistaken) just so they can have an "abortion of convenience".
In cases of incest, there are two kinds, consensual and rape. One would fall under the rape law I have proposed, and the other falls under "right to choose".
I welcome any and all comments on this, assuming that the editors aren't too scared to have my comments posted on their website.
Posted by: prochoice&life at August 4, 2007 9:52 PM