ABC Disparages Pro-Life Pharmacist’s Choice to Have Large Family

Photo of Matthew Balan.

[Update, 10:15 am, 12 August: Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who is a central figure in the story of Barack Obama's support for infanticide, gave a deeper explanation of Megan Kelly's background on her blog on Monday evening.]

ABC correspondent Gigi Stone’s report on Friday’s World News lined up two liberal women against a pro-life pharmacist in a segment on the controversy over whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception. She later reported in a condescending tone about how the family of the pharmacist has nine children [see video at right; audio available here].

Stone introduced the first woman, Megan Kelly, as a "married mother." Several years ago, as Stone described, Kelly "tried to fill her monthly birth control pills [when] a pharmacist refused."

In her sound bite, Kelly explained her reaction to this refusal: "It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Though Stone did report that Kelly had filed a complaint with the state of Illinois over the pharmacist’s refusal, she oversimplified how the Democratic-controlled state government responded. In April 2005, Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich instituted an "emergency rule" which forced pharmacies "to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay," as the Washington Post reported at the time. Instead of reporting this detail, Stone merely stated that "the state of Illinois... now requires pharmacies to fill all prescriptions. California and New Jersey recently enacted similar laws." She also omitted how Kelly now campaigns for government-mandated stocking of contraceptives at pharmacies.

The ABC correspondent later lead into the sound bite of the other woman, Katherine Humphrey of Planned Parenthood, by stating how "[s]ome women's rights advocates say women who are denied will seek out unsafe alternatives." Humphrey then gave her take on the issue: "Without access to this essential health care, women's health and their lives are at risk." Contraception is "essential health care"?

Substitute anchor Kate Snow, hinted at ABC’s liberal leanings on the topic when she introduced Stone’s report: "Increasingly, the corner pharmacy is no longer stocking a product used by many Americans -- birth control. The pharmacy owners say they have a right to withhold products and services they find objectionable. But critics say these drug stores are trampling on the rights of women to obtain safe and legal contraceptives."

The full transcript of Gigi Stone’s report from Friday’s World News:

KATE SNOW: Increasingly, the corner pharmacy is no longer stocking a product used by many Americans -- birth control. The pharmacy owners say they have a right to withhold products and services they find objectionable. But critics say these drug stores are trampling on the rights of women to obtain safe and legal contraceptives. Now, some lawmakers are getting involved -- with our 'Closer Look' tonight, here's ABC's Gigi Stone.

GIGI STONE (voice-over): Kay pharmacy in Grand Rapids, Michigan, looks like any other pharmacy. But there are some things you won't find -- no condoms, no birth control. Owner Mike Koelzer sent this letter to his customers, telling them he would no longer be filling their prescriptions for contraception.

STONE (on-camera): You feel so strong enough about this you're willing to lose business?

MIKE KOELZER, OWNER, KAY PHARMACY: I was and will be willing to lose the business, in order to not be a part of something that I don't agree with [sic].

STONE: Individual pharmacists refusing to sell birth control is not new. But this is a new front in the culture war. Privately-owned pharmacies refusing to sell birth control or contraceptives, because it violates their religious beliefs.

STONE (voice-over): A group called Pharmacists for Life claims it is a growing movement. This deeply disturbs married mother Megan Kelly. When she tried to fill her monthly birth control pills, a pharmacist refused.

MEGAN KELLY: It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad.

STONE: Megan filed a complaint with the state of Illinois, which now requires pharmacies to fill all prescriptions. California and New Jersey recently enacted similar laws. But in most states, pharmacies can refuse to sell anything they don't want to. Some women's rights advocates say women who are denied will seek out unsafe alternatives.

KATHERINE HUMPHREY, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Without access to this essential health care, women's health and their lives are at risk.

STONE: But independent pharmacy owners who object to contraception argue they have a right to what to decide what they sell, and people should able to choose for themselves. The Koelzers have chosen not to use birth control. They have nine children. Gigi Stone, ABC News, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

SNOW: You can join the debate and vote on whether pharmacies should have the right to refuse to sell birth control. That's at ABCNews.com.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

MEGAN KELLY: It's very, very

MEGAN KELLY: It's very, very shocking and very unsettling...

Too f-ing bad; go to another pharmacy then.

What's next, voodoo priestesses demanding all pharmacies must also dispense ground mummy and gorilla paws?

Not sure ground mummy and

Not sure ground mummy and gorilla paws fall into the same category as birth control pills.

I don't get pharmacists refusing to dispense certain pills. Why are you a pharmacist, then? It's like becoming a cop but refusing to enforce certain laws you don't agree with.

bal

It's like becoming a cop but refusing to enforce certain laws you don't agree with.

Poor analogy.  The pharmacist sells drugs, and under a free-market, has the right to sell or not sell whatever drugs he or she deems acceptable, provided they are legal.  A far more accurate analogy would be the convenience store owner who chooses not to sell cigarettes.

Is this a pharmacy policy or

Is this a pharmacy policy or pharmacist? Because then you've got one convenience store worker refusing to fill a scrip, and others that will. That doesn't make sense.

bal

I took it to be the former, with the reporter putting the typical Leftist spin on it (the subject of this blog).  If it's the latter, then I agree with you, and the employee would certainly be subject to discipline/termination according to the pharmacy's policy -- if one doesn't do their job, then one is subject to being fired.  But again, I thought this was a pharmacy policy, in which case they've done nothing wrong or illegal.

No, it doesn't make sense.

So, I would think it's safe to say that either this pharmacist owns the store, or the owners agree with the policy. If they didn't, they could always fire him.

where do our kids keep

where do our kids keep getting this idea that private stores are obligated by law to sell leftward products? hmmmm.... 

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

We use docters to administer

We use docters to administer lethal injections. Using this logic, someone shouldn't become a docter if they don't plan on administering lethal injections.

Bad analogy "We use docters

Bad analogy "We use docters to administer lethal injections. Using this logic, someone shouldn't become a docter if they don't plan on administering lethal injections" as doctors are not required to perform lethal injections or abortions.  In fact they are sworn to uphold life.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Lethal injection: a complicated, expensive, medical perversion

Of what should be a simple, cheap execution process. Hang 'em, and re-use the rope. No doc or drugs needed. Or if the government, for some reason, simply must use drugs, they should at least use what's guaranteed to work. An OD of the heroin they take from drug dealers anyway guarantees death sans 8th Amendment issues from the lawyers.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

It would work

Heroin would be a bit messy as it oftentimes triggers vomiting. 

Thiopental works nicely, with or without pancuronium to paralyze muscles used to hasten death and make the death easier to watch as there are no death throes.

Rope works well but can sometimes cause an annoying side effect of decapitation, as with Saddam's half-brother.  (not cool if you're the janitor)

RRAM Tough! 

bc

His objection lies in the way bc pills work. The estrogen inhibits ovulation (it does not prohibit it entirely), but if there is a breakthrough ovulation and said egg is fertilized, the progesterone causes the uterine lining to reject implantation of a human embryo. So the pharmacist's objection is founded in the fact that bc pills work partly as an abortifacient.

And my objection lies with

And my objection lies with the fact that the pharmacist's action could theoretically lead to, instead of the loss of a minute fertilized egg, the "killing" of an unwanted fetus several months later.

Jer

*scratches head*

That makes no sense. That's like saying if this bartender doesn't give someone more beer, they'll get mad and go to the bar down the street where they can get more drunk.

You can't guilt trip someone into going along with you because of a litany of "what ifs."

It's also possible that some of these girls might end up hearing the heartbeat and decide to let the baby live.

And really your answer is begging the question anyway. If the pill is designed to terminate a pregnancy after the fact, then it's really just an abortion done to a tiny baby instead of a big baby.

"shakes head and sighs, bewilderingly"

The scenario I describe may be unlikely--farfetched even--but to suggest it is theoretical nonsense is, well, nonsense.

Further, it is somewhat ironic to be accused of "guilt-tripping" when Democrats are rather routinely accused [not by you] of being murderers and baby killers.

I simply draw a distinction between a protoplasmic cellular mass smaller than a pin dot and a several month old fetus, and accordingly attach a greater importance to the well-being of the latter over the former.  You do not draw any distinction, and thus our views differ.  I respect your view, as I hope you do mine.

Jer

Flawed analogy

Your scenario fails to account for the fact that anyone in America can go countless places for birth control pills, including mail order and the internet.  She also has the option to choose other methods to which the pharmacist wouldn't object, although that's admittedly unlikely. 

Finally, when the pharmacist doesn't give the woman what she wants, she is not denied birth control.  She is denied a method of birth control from one supplier.  He's not imposing his will on her.  He's just refusing to participate in it.  She, on the other hand, is willing to use the heavy hand of government to shove what the pharmacist feels is objectionable down his throat.  It's his freedom that is trampled, not hers.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Not a flawed analogy, nkviking,

Not a flawed analogy, nkviking, but admittedly a rather weak premise producing a highly unlikely scenario constructed of several "slippery slope" components.  Otherwise, the logic is irrefutable.  ;-)

Jer

Biased thinking

It's not a flawed analogy, just biased thinking. Look at it the other way around. We know that increased estrogen levels greatly increase the risk of strokes for women, especially in later life. By refusing to sell her an estrogen-based product, he's actually trying to save her life, both now and in the future.

Biased thinking? Maybe, but...

By refusing to sell her an estrogen-based product, he's actually trying to save her life, both now and in the future.

Still, your statement above is irrelevant--at least with respect to the present debate.  Do you honestly believe that is the motivation underlying the pharmicists' decision?

Jer

Do as I say, not as I do?

"your statement above is irrelevant--at least with respect to the present debate"

Is it really? I’m glad you said that.

It seems to be that, by your own admission, you were using "unlikely, farfetched even," POSSIBLE situations to defend your assessment of a hypothetical situation (she didn't become pregnant because the pharmacist refused to sell her birth-control pills. So much for the relevance of your argument!). Why can't I use the same method to refute your hypothetical conclusion and come to a conclusion of my own? Sauce for the goose...

Motivation is irrevelent

BTW, the motivation of his decision is what is really irrelevant here as that is HIS decision to make. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not the lady he refused to serve. Since it is his decision and he didn't break the law by refusing to sell a commercial product to a potential customer, I don't really care what his motivation was.

it's all good Jer

I wasn't trying to jump on you - I was just stating my opinion. We've reached our fundamental disagreement so it's best to call truce and move on. :)

it's all about the point at

it's all about the point at which we become people with the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and universal healthcare

as for me I am a forty-four year old cellular mass, a fetus in other words 

feel free to abort me if I'm inconvenient to you

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Either human life begins at

Either human life begins at conception or not. If it does, than it's murder, at whatever subsequent point.

Matthew

Birth control pills are, plainly speaking, artificial chemical female hormones.  These chemicals operate in the female body by disrupting her entire endocrine system and natural hormonal cycle (anatomy aside: all endocrine glands, including reproductive, are connected in a complex system of feedbacks that one should not tamper with lightly), effectively suppressing ovulation, or worse, preventing implantation of an already conceived zygote.  The so-called "period" that a woman gets is not a period at all -- it's a simulated period.  Thus, even if one believes life does not begin at conception, there are still reasons why one may object to birth control pills on ethical/moral grounds.  And even so, thanks to the free market, these chemicals are nonetheless very readily available (until the FDA rules otherwise), this alarmist piece not withstanding.

Well, Matthew, according to

Well, Matthew, according to the current and recent Republican party platforms, life does indeed begin at conception, thus rendering the taking of birth control pills--according to your view--murder, committed by millions of American women daily, many of whom, I suspect, are Republican.  What punishment shall we mete out to them?

Jer

not quite Jer

Most birth control medication is preventative, making a woman barren so the seed doesn't have anywhere to go. That's a big difference between letting the seed touch "fertile soil" and then killing it at the last second.

You're correct, candance. 

You're correct, candance.  I don't know the usage break-down between birth control pills which are preventative versus those which are abortifacients, but my post at least implicitly overstated the latter category.

Perhaps either ginagwen or lotr, both of whom spoke very knowledgably on the subject, would have an idea.

Jer 

Very nice use of quotes, there Jer

"killing" of an unwanted fetus?

What term are you most comfortable with, then? Termination? Cessation of life forces? Euthanasia? Cull? Off?

Sickof Libs...

I'm not particularly comfortable with any of the terms.  I'll leave it to the medical and scientific community.  How about you?

Jer

I like the term baby as it

I like the term baby as it gives the true meaning of what a fetus is.  Ask any woman who intends on carrying to term and Im sure she will say baby and not the blob of tissue in my womb or fetus.  And the parents will begin to think of names for the baby, when is the last time you names a piece of skin?

Life begins at conception. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Well, Dan

When I was in Junior High, I liked the name Burford.

Russel?

Wally?

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Don't let others define your morality

Personally, I'm not going to leave morality decisions to anyone other than myself. This includes defining the terms for infanticide. Killing a child, no matter what level of development they may have reached, is infanticide, period. No amount of "medical" terms or "scientific" rationalities will change that.

a civilization must decide

a civilization must decide laws - based entirely on morality

you yourself can opt out of the process in a democracy if you wish

someone else can always handle your civic duty:) 

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

I make those laws too

I'm not going to leave it to others to decide FOR ME what my civic duty is and more than I will let them decide my morality beliefs.

Yes, society makes the laws based on common morality (to some extent), and, as a citizen, I HELP make those laws by choosing who will represent me in government. Like most people, I use my PERSONAL morality beliefs to help me decide who to vote for and I judge each candidate based on the similarities between THEIR personal morality beliefs and my own. That's how lawmakers are chosen in our society. So, I’m not avoiding my “civic duty” by having MY OWN morality beliefs, I’m actually part of the decision making process itself. As part of that process, I’m STILL not going to let someone else define morality for me. If I can’t make those decisions for myself then I’m useless in my “civic duty,” wouldn’t you agree?

why yes, i

why yes, i would:) 

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

"And my objection lies with

"And my objection lies with the fact that the pharmacist's action could
theoretically lead to, instead of the loss of a minute fertilized egg,
the "killing" of an unwanted fetus several months later."

Only if the pharmacist has unprotected sex with the woman he refused to sell birth control. If not, then the only actions responsible for the killing of an unwanted fetus months later are the actions of the woman and her partner who choose to have unprotected sex.

Laws

This is obviously a put up job by the abortion rights pro death crowd and the ACLU. The police already arbitrarily enforce or ignore certain laws. This will come out when we find out who is filing the lawsuit for her.

and what was that line

and what was that line about "trampling" on medicine "RIGHTS?!?!?" 

where do all these new rights come from i wonder

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

The Constitution...

The "Living Breathing Always Changing Liberal Constitution".  As written by Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

A few years ago, my

A few years ago, my wife required a special prescription that was only dispensed at a select few pharmacies, and the pharmacy we typically used was not one of them. 

Instead of just taking my business to a pharmacy that dispensed this drug, I should've instead sued our pharmacy... along with every other pharmacy that didn't provide us with convenient access to the prescription we needed.

*Sigh* If only I was more litigious-minded I might be living on Easy Street today.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

Did the pharmacy refuse to

Did the pharmacy refuse to stock the drug for religious reasons?

Religous reasons?

Since when does ANYONE need an approprate reason to stock, or refuse to stock, a commercial product? This is still a free market system and people are free to stock, or refuse to stock, any product they want for any reason they feel is appropriate. The "reason" itself is not important as no crime has been committed, unless you feel that "religious reasons" should be criminalized.

(on edit: that should read "need an approprate reason" and not "need a reason")

Bal

Curious. Do you also feel all OB-GYN's should be required to perform abortions?  Even late term abotions for depression (a medical condition, right)?

Cop analogy

As far as I know, pharmacists don't swear to an oath to upload the laws of the land as cops do. They ARE licensed, but I don't believe that license mandates they must stock any and all medications.

For the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about a private family-owned pharmacy business, not a national chain. What right does the government have to tell the owner what he has to sell?

My little local independent hardware store does not refill propane cylinders; should I file a lawsuit to force them to do so?

If it's an independent

If it's an independent pharmacy, then you can stock whatever you want. But if the pharmacy you work for sells the pill, but you won't do it, then you shouldn't work there.

read the article

Take the time to read the whole thing. The owners were the ones who refused it.

And apparently, according to this, you agree with our assessment. The state of Illinois passed a law requiring all pharmacies to fill scripts for every drug.

Interesting. Perhaps

Interesting. Perhaps Illinois was trying to avoid opening a can of worms where pharmacists started refusing to fill scrips for all kinds of medications based on religion or other things. You know some kooky animal rights person is just _dying_ to not fill a scrip because they tested the drug on a gerbil.

kooky animal rights

Hey if someone invests their capitol into building a company and works their butt of to succeed, I don't care what they choose to sell or not to sell. They refuse products tested on animals, whatever, it's not the end of the world.

I'm willing to sacrifice a little convenience and/or gas money to keep the government away from regulating any more companies.

 

Well if that was to happen,

Well if that was to happen, the person running the convinence store that the pharmacy was in would promptly fire that pharmacist. If they didn't, the pharmacy down the block would start seeing an increase in revenue, as people would flock to that store to get the medicine that the first pharmacy refused to hand out. I don't see the issue here. With the sheer number of pharmacies present in most American towns, this is hardly an issue.

So much for the free market system

So much for the free-market system. The State of Illinois has now taken upon itself to make business decisions that were, until now, entirely at the discretion of the proprietor. This brings up a serious question. Will this direct government interference extend itself into other proprietorships as well and will the government eventually mandate that Wal-Mart, for example, carry EVERY product simply because someone may desire it or because Wal-Mart may refuse to sell a particular product for any particular reason? For the sake of our economy, I hope not!

Wait, Wal-Mart doesn't carry

Wait, Wal-Mart doesn't carry every product?

Huh... 

It's only fair since they

It's only fair since they don't carry health insurance! ;-)

 

"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)

Sears, where America USED to shop.

Nope. Try finding a Kenmore appliance at Wal-Mart.

no cobra

You're missing the point here. It isn't about convenience for a shopper - it's about a pharmacist having the nerve to be openly religious.

We can still refuse to stock something because it's not economically feasible or we don't have the room for it. We just can't refuse on the basis of religion.

As has been mentioned on here before, daily life is full of little inconveniences since every store doesn't stock every product...and it's never been a problem until now.

This is the beginning of the government forcing private citizens to abandon their convictions or lose employment.

I get the point

I do get the point. Some people think that their rights override the rights of others. In this case, the "right" of this woman to buy commercial birth control pills, which she chooses to use based on her personal beliefs, overrides the right of a proprietor to deny her service based on his personal beliefs.

Unfortunately for the citizens of Illinois, the government has decided that THEY will make the decisions for the proprietors in order to deny them the right to make those decisions themselves. Religion is just the excuse; the practical effect is greater government control over the free market system. That's a quick trip to economic doom.

The pharmacy in this story

The pharmacy in this story is independent, so we agree that they can stock whatever they want, and they don't have to give a reason, religious or otherwise, about their choices.

I do agree with you that an individual pharmacist-employee should work elsewhere if they refuse to fill a birth control Rx that the store stocks. You could probably find a lawyer in 10 minutes that would jump on that case.

exactly sick

Some pharmacies will choose to stock it, some pharmacies won't. Employees who don't like can choose to work at a store that fits in with their beliefs. However if you force everyone to do the exact same thing, you'll see a huge drop of conservies working in that field.

I love how a woman's right to choose means everyone else has it shoved down their throats.

um no balboa

I really don't buy the argument that if you don't like something you should have to change your industry to accomodate.

Go tell someone who has been a pharmacist for 30 years and built a drugstore out of nothing, and their state authorizes the Plan B pill against their wishes. Go tell them to find a new job.

This isn't like being a bartender where alcohol is the essense of the job. This is akin to saying all doctors have to perform abortions or all pastors have to do gay weddings. You can't get in the business of forcing people to offer a service or product against their will.

If people want such products, let them patron a business that sells them. That's how the free market works - create demand and someone will be willing to sell it.

Instead of going to another

Instead of going to another pharmacy she files a law-suit....

No agenda here now is there...

By the way...what part of it's a free country, free enterprise, that Snow and others doesn't understand...

Oops...they want total govt. control, they aren't leftists for nothing.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

hey bt, do you know

hey bt, do you know which pharmacies teach evolution? American history? Math? Reading?

our local schools won't do it:(

being public institutions - they don't have to cater to us - if they don't want to, ya see 

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

When she tried to fill her

When she tried to fill her monthly birth control pills, a pharmacist refused.

So, taking this sentence at face value, we have a pharmacy with the artificial female chemical hormones in stock, but the mean-spirited pharmacist "refused" to sell them to this woman, apparently just to be mean.  Well, if that doesn't qualify as a blatantly liberal media spin, I don't know what does.

It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad.

Withdrawl symptoms?  Oh, the humanity!

My assumption is that Mrs.

My assumption is that Mrs. Kelly is probably pro-choice, based on her over the top reaction to being denied birth control by a pharmarcist for "religious reasons".  I find it completely laughable that a pro-choice person would not extend the same choice to people with religious faith.  If that person doesn't want to fill the prescription, you can bet there are other pharmacists who would love to.  Why wouldn't Mrs. Kelly choose not to give her business to a pharmacist who would sell her the drugs instead of suing to go to a pharmacist that doesn't want to do that?

This is akin to suing a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion rather than going to one of the many who would.  My wife is in the medical field and she has a right to refuse to write a prescription for someone to get an abortion, but she has to refer them to another doctor who will do that.  It shouldn't be any different here.

Darth Dutch

Darth,

Well, the "pro-choice" faction has repeatedly shown that the only "choice" they're really interested in is the "choice" they agree with.

And they'll legislate that "choice" for us, if necessary.

"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." - Henry Ford

and strangely enough, 10

and strangely enough, 10 out of 10 babies - when given the chance - choose life!

unfortunately this is something "pro-choicers" just cannot accept 

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue

Birth control tablets are prescribed for many other reasons than birth control, including treatment of benign ovarian cysts, less pelvic pain, and less heavy periods.  Including prescribing them to teens not even sexually active who otherwise would have to stay home from school on "flow days".  As an MD I have had to "argue" with pharmacists once or twice in my 20 plus year career, and it's infuriating, but very infrequent.  It began with "the morning after pill" and has resulted in that being available in my state by law, to anyone, without a prescription, who goes into a pharmacy and asks for it.

"As an MD I have had to

"As an MD I have had to "argue" with pharmacists once or twice in my 20
plus year career, and it's infuriating, but very infrequent"

Granted, I'm not an MD, but wouldn't your time as an MD have been better spent simply telling your patients to go to a different pharmacy?

Maybe so

But it's interesting that pharmacists, and people like me, don't seem to know jack squat about those uses for that medicine...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

My sister-in-law is dead

My sister-in-law is dead because the birth control pills prescribed by her physician caused a fatal heart attack. I am sure if you are a real doctor you will come up with an explanation blaming her death on anything besides the medication or the physician. The pills now carry a warning that heart attacks are possible in overweight women. This is another case of liberals wanting to control every aspect of our lives.

Bal,

You got that right. Me thinks Mr. anti-contraceptive needs a new occupation. Sorry, if you want to be a licensed pharmacist then you have to be one to all. You don't get to pick and choose what meds you want to dispense and what ones you don't. Whether you want to sell condoms and other devices is your choice but not meds/prescriptions. So either dispense them or get a new job. Just my opinion. 

So if you had your way,

So if you had your way, you'd deny an owner of a pharmacy the right to stock his store as he sees fit?

Right, Matt. My pharmacy (a

Right, Matt.

My pharmacy (a chain) does not stock a generic for a prescription I take, although one exists.

So I guess I should sue. (Hey, Silky Pony has some time on his hands... maybe he's the man for the job!)

Medical Professions

So you wouldn't have the right to refuse giving certain kinds of treatments as a doctor?  

Like an abortion? 

The government shouldn't force medical professionials to do things that are against their morals and religious choices.

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying. 

- Ronald Reagan

So every pharmacist has to

So every pharmacist has to stock and dispense every possible medication that might be prescribed?

In the 70's, when contraceptives were fairly new, there were actually Catholic doctors who wouldn't write prescriptions for them; they would direct their patients wanting them to doctors who would. None of them, that I know of, ever got sued, or went out of business for lack of clients.

But that was before we all got the the idea that our desires translate into unalienable rights, obtainable wherever we choose to demand them.

"None of them, that I know

"None of them, that I know of, ever got sued..."

Until Silky Pony galloped up in the 80s and saved the day.