I understand the point you're making, and I partially agree with it. I can accept a particular doctor or hospital refusing to perform abortions on the basis of "moral objections", given your caveat that they must then be REQUIRED to provide a referral to someone else who will.
I cannot accept a pharmacist refusing to dispense a legally-prescribed medication on such a basis, because at that point the pharmacist is setting himself up as the arbiter in the doctor-patient relationship. The pharmacist does not necessarily know for what purpose the medication was prescribed; while birth control pills are primarily used as contraceptives, a significant fraction of women who use them do so for other reasons. I had a prescription for the Pill years before I was sexually active, because it was the only thing short of opiates which would control my menstrual cramps.
It is also worth noting that the Pill DOES NOT OPERATE in the way that these loons are claiming it does -- which makes me even less inclined to sympathy for their position. Abortion is abortion, but to falsely claim that the Pill is an "abortifacent" and then refuse to prescribe it on that basis goes well beyond the bounds of "moral concern" and straight into "delusions of ownership". And make no mistake, that is what this entire mess is about: who, in the end, owns a woman's body and her right to healthcare.
And, as Janet notes above, the real issue here isn't for me, safe in a large city where I can almost certainly find a sane provider. It's the women who are trapped 150 miles from the nearest outpost of civilization, with only a single option for local care. If that option is taken away, where do they go? We're looking at the opening salvo for The Handmaid's Tale here, and I for one will not submit while I am alive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-11-19 03:22 am (UTC)I cannot accept a pharmacist refusing to dispense a legally-prescribed medication on such a basis, because at that point the pharmacist is setting himself up as the arbiter in the doctor-patient relationship. The pharmacist does not necessarily know for what purpose the medication was prescribed; while birth control pills are primarily used as contraceptives, a significant fraction of women who use them do so for other reasons. I had a prescription for the Pill years before I was sexually active, because it was the only thing short of opiates which would control my menstrual cramps.
It is also worth noting that the Pill DOES NOT OPERATE in the way that these loons are claiming it does -- which makes me even less inclined to sympathy for their position. Abortion is abortion, but to falsely claim that the Pill is an "abortifacent" and then refuse to prescribe it on that basis goes well beyond the bounds of "moral concern" and straight into "delusions of ownership". And make no mistake, that is what this entire mess is about: who, in the end, owns a woman's body and her right to healthcare.
And, as Janet notes above, the real issue here isn't for me, safe in a large city where I can almost certainly find a sane provider. It's the women who are trapped 150 miles from the nearest outpost of civilization, with only a single option for local care. If that option is taken away, where do they go? We're looking at the opening salvo for The Handmaid's Tale here, and I for one will not submit while I am alive.