I’ve been covering this issue of pharmacists who believe God’s law trumps their professional duty. Here are some samples from the archives:

A Preserver of Life (April 2005)

Anyway, the pharmacist’s point was that he is a preserver of life, and therefore could not in good conscience offer the morning-after contraception pill or birth control to women. That could be an arguable point on the former — there has been a conceived zygote and the pharmacist does not want to be a party to its “murder” — but the latter part is laughable. Birth control does not extinguish a life, it prevents it from occurring in the first place! He’s not a “preserver of life”, he’s an “enforcer of procreation“!

Of course, the pharmacist ignores the fact that some women are prescribed birth control to regulate hormones, moderate their menstruation, or alleviate depression. That doesn’t matter to him, though. Because the real agenda here has so much to do with controlling women’s bodies (ready for the burqha, ladies?) and the belief that sex is dirty awful nasty and should be used for making babies only. If women are going to be so slutty as to actually enjoy sex for pleasure’s sake, they should be forced to suffer the consequences of shtupping, namely baby after baby after baby.

I’m wondering when the “conscience clause” argument gets to spread beyond the pharmacy. How about a vegetarian waitress at the Outback Steakhouse, does she not only bring you blooming onions? How about the Quaker heavyweight champion of the world, does he just talk you into a ten-count? Who’s ready for the radical lesbian feminist pharmacist (say that three times fast) who refuses to sell Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra? What about the Born Again™ store clerk who won’t ring up the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? I know, let’s have racist cops who refuse to assist people of color (whoops, too close to reality on that one, Russ…)

My point is not that the man isn’t entitled to his backwater ideals of “conscience”, it is that if his “conscience” prohibits him from fulfilling his duty as a pharmacist, then go sell shoes or something. No one is forcing you to be a pharmacist! You don’t get to pick and choose which prescriptions to fill and which to ignore. (Or worse, deny; in many of the “conscience clause” cases, the pharmacists have not only refused to fill the prescription, they’ve refused to give the script back to the patient so she may fill the prescription elsewhere!) Soldiers don’t get to perform the spit-shining and the marching and the saluting, but refuse to fulfill the killing part because they’re pacifists. Firemen don’t get to choose to only save the houses of the nice rich people while letting the slums burn because they’re elitists. Teachers don’t get to teach biology, chemistry, and physics but skip over the evolution part because they’re Biblical Creationists (whoops, too close to reality again, Russ…)

You have a job — pharmacist — that holds the public trust. We have laws to prevent the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs and you are the arbiter of those laws. If the drug is legal and has been legally prescribed, it is your duty and obligation to fill that prescription. Don’t like it? Don’t be a pharmacist.

It’s really going to get this scary, people, as the theocrats reach for total control of our country. There are movements underway to allow doctors to have a “conscience clause” so they can refuse to treat gay and lesbian patients (because Jesus only heals lepers and whores, not fags). We already forbid federal funding of any overseas health clinics that even mention the word “abortion” to their clients. Public health, commonsense, and your morals mean nothing to the Rapture Right, it’s all about their morality and making sure you abide by it.

Boycott Albertsons - Corporate HQ gives OK to deny women’s birth control (June 2005)

2) But even the [prescriptions] that are for birth control are LEGAL prescriptions representing a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. We have the doctors who decide which drugs are appropriate and we have the pharmacists who carefully monitor and distribute the drug supply. We do this as a “check and balance”; we don’t want the doctor to have direct access to the stash he might abuse and we don’t want the pharmacist to be able to distribute or withhold drugs at will. The pharmacist is the pill delivery boy, not the arbiter of medical decisions.

3) There isn’t always another pharmacy to go to. This could present an undue burden on a woman trying to execute her doctor’s medical advice. Especially with regard to the “morning after” emergency contraception; if a rural woman has to spend a couple of days arranging transportation to the big city because her small-town small-minded pharmacist won’t give her what the doctor ordered, it may be too late.

4) Where does this “conscience” shit end? Does the pharmacist who thinks homosexuality is an “abomination” get to withhold AIDS retroviral medications? If she’s against sexual promiscuity, can she withhold penicillin to treat syphillis? If she’s against pre-marital sex, can she withhold condoms from unmarried couples and teenagers? If she’s a recovering addict, can she withhold the strongest narcotic pain relievers?

You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of a job you’re willing to do. If you take the job, you have to do the good with the bad. I’m a big fan of the open-source software movement, but I still have to work on and support Microsoft products. Even when Microsoft was renegging on their support of gay rights, something I was morally offended by, I still had to do my job, or I could have chosen to pick another career.

Fill the prescription, pill boy, and STFU.

Wingnut pharmacists to rape victim: Sorry, we won’t help you. (October 2005)

(Arizona Daily Star) After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

“I was so shocked,” said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. “I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this.”

“This (sex) was with someone I did not even know and did not want to have intercourse with, and I am in no place now to have children,” she said. “I just don’t think this should be the pharmacist’s decision.”

“He (the manager) said he would fill it himself if we could get there before his shift ended, within 10 minutes,” said Sabrina Fladness, a University of Arizona student and [friend of the assault victim].

“But we were more than 10 minutes away, so that was impossible. So he said we would have to come back the next morning” - after the shift of the refusing pharmacist ended.

“He made no provision for getting it that night,” she said.

And this is Tucson, Arizona, not exactly a rural backwater where there are only a few pharmacists available. What is the rape victim in Enid, Oklahoma or Girdwood, Alaska or any other remote town supposed to do in an emergency? And who are these idiot pharmacists who believe God prefers rapists to be fruitful and multiply?