I think it might fall under the "life begins at conception" notion that allows them to rationalize selling condoms and not this drug.

This would imply "religious freedom" means "the right to cherry pick when and where I use my position of power to feel superior to another human being." And THAT sounds like someone who's listening to the Great Deceiver, not someone who's following the tenets of any religious belief. Sure sounds better when you call it "religious freedom" than it does when you call it what it is..."freedom to give in to the sin of pride without facing any repercussions." Unfortunately, the public face of religion in America today is mostly being shaped by people who are so busy looking for sins in others that they have given in completely to their own.

And what happens when the pharmacists decide that they are against antibiotics and antidepressants because they may be overused? The physician is supposed to make those decisions, that is the very basis of our medical system. Otherwise there is utter chaos.

Anyway, if the pharmacist refuses the Plan B treatment...then the purchaser should send him the abortion procedure bill.

What's next, demand that every pharmacy sells chocolate flavored pills?

If the pharmacist actually owns the store, he/she is free to decide. If not, it's up to the pharmacy. If it's a corporate chain or part of a grocery or other store, the company sets the policy. If the pharmacist doesn't agree with that, then polish up the resume and go find some other place to work where you're more comfortable.

I can promise there will be a list on the internet of the stores that dispense it and those that don't. As a woman I will not buy anything from those stores.....period. Let them see how much their "religion" means to their profits.

Then those pharmacies should be boycotted .

Kathryn Sullivan

I can promise there will be a list on the internet of the stores that dispense it and those that don't. As a woman I will not buy anything from those stores.....period. Let them see how much their "religion" means to their profits.

I fully support every woman's right to shop where they please. And I also fully recognize that there are business people who place personal integrity (not just in the religious sense) above profit. In fact, those are exactly the type of people I search out and do business with.

let me know if you find a lawyer that fits the bill, Bill. not that i need one i would just like to see one.......:)

Cassandra

And what happens when the pharmacists decide that they are against antibiotics and antidepressants because they may be overused? The physician is supposed to make those decisions, that is the very basis of our medical system.

What an idiotic remark. Pharmacist go to school to help people with a medical problem and not take a conceived life. They still have a conscience based on their personal beliefs. You might be surprised how many of them really want no part of selling Plan B. This is only the beginning of the future problems. The next one that they see coming are the drugs used with assisted termination of life drugs.

Just the beginning.

IA.ScooterTramp

let me know if you find a lawyer that fits the bill, Bill. not that i need one i would just like to see one.......:)

Let's make it a contest. I'll look for a lawyer with integrity while you look for a unicorn. Smart money's on you.

common, pul-lease. Pharmacists do a 5 year program as a Chem major in Pharmacy, it's not rocket science to those so inclines. We went to a big Pharm school in Ohio, and knew several of them well. It's a nice job, but don't read too much into it.

And if they some day can sell assisted suicide drugs, after watching my family member drown in their own fluids from lung cancer - not having to use my plan for a bottle of wine while sitting in my garaged car with the motor running - well, drugs would be a bit easier than that scenario. Gosh, imagine having as good an option for death as a pet dog or cat already has.

@Cassandra-854239

And what happens when the pharmacists decide that they are against antibiotics and antidepressants because they may be overused?

You go to a different pharmacy to get those scripts filled. Duh

A diaphragm has to be fitted by a MD or OBGYN. They are the ones that then gives it to you, not the pharmacy.

Cassandra-854239 DUh Cassandra big government has already decided that. You can't get antibiotics without a prescription. And if you want to spend the money to visit several doctors and get several prescriptions for the same antibiotic you can overdose.

Why don't you just open up the yellow pages and call 10 pharmacies and see what % will sell it. Or if you are really lazy, call up the manufacturer of the drug and ask them which pharmacies in your neighborhood sells it. I am sure you can have immediate access.

Backcountry-- if you really lived in the backcountry, you might realize that there could be only one pharmacy within an hour's drive...

"Religious Freedom" - isn't that an oxymoron?

What's next? A Schientologist pharmacist refusing to sell Xanax and anti-seizure medications? A Muslim cachier refusing to ring bacon and alcohol? A Catholic cashier refusing to ring condoms?

@Lee-1515484

Backcountry-- if you really lived in the backcountry, you might realize that there could be only one pharmacy within an hour's drive...

Right, and people who choose to live there should be afforded every luxury available in the city by law. Or is it just the Plan B pill that you think those who live in remote areas should not expect to go without. People who live in the "backcountry" (I only visit) often drive much further for much less. I mean really?? That's your argument? No one should be forced to drive more than an hour for something they need? Please don't comment about people living in backcountry or more remote areas because you obviously have no clue what sort of lifestyle that is or the adversity you expect when you choose it.

And out of curiosity where exactly in Illinois do believe there is not more than one pharmacy within an 60 mile radius?

Doesn't the state license pharmacists in Illinois? Pass a law that to receive or retain a pharmacist's license, you agree to dispense prescriptions as written and not substitute your judgement for that of a doctor.

If you are a fireman, you put out the house fires regardless of your personal judgements of the people who live there. If you are a policemen, your respond to the call regardless of your judgements about the complainant, or residence, or neighborhood. Society works only when people in positions of public trust - like pharmacists - do their jobs without letting their personal feelings interfere.

This is NOT a freedom of religion issue. Pharmacists are not being told who to worship (or not), but it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfill the trust the public places in them by doing their jobs. If they find their religious beliefs don't allow them to do so, they should find another line of work.

@Pacific NW Mark

Doesn't the state license pharmacists in Illinois? Pass a law that to receive or retain a pharmacist's license, you agree to dispense prescriptions as written and not substitute your judgement for that of a doctor.

And how would that in any way apply to THIS situation which is about a NON PRESCRIPTION DRUG??

Aside from that your law is utterly ridiculous. Doctors make mistakes also. Sometimes people see different doctors. If one doctor prescribes a drug that could have a negative reaction with something the patient is already taking do you actually believe the pharmacist should be required by law to fill that script?

Society works only when people in positions of public trust - like pharmacists - do their jobs without letting their personal feelings interfere

Give me a break, firefighters and police officers are employed or funded by government. Citizens have a right to the services they pay for through their taxes. A pharmacy is a privately owned business. There is no comparison.

The Christian Taliban must be pleased.

Illinois can't force pharmacists to give 'morning after' pill

But they can offer you KY Jelly and some advice on the backdoor method of birth control!

If the pharmacist owns the drug store he/she should be to decide whether his business will or will not carry the product. If he is a employee and his boss decides they will carry and provide the product he/she should dispense it or get a new job. After all isn't that what the GOP wants business run the way their owner too run them?

What if the pharacist decides that an emergency anti-toxin for snake bite or bee stings is against her religion? Can she allow a person to die there in the store, 'cause she don't feel like dispensing a life saving drug that may be on their shelves?

What an idiotic remark. Pharmacist go to school to help people with a medical problem and not take a conceived life.

How very xtian of you to call another comment idiotic, just because it doesn't agree with yours. Pharmacists go to pharmacy school to learn about drugs and their interactions, not to force their religious views on others.

Cassandra asked a legitimate question about other drugs that a pharmacist may not like having to prescribe, and what their response would be. Some pharmacists already give the third degree to people coming in to fill a script for pain pills, even though their job is to fill the script or tell the patient to go somewhere else. It is NOT the pharmacists right to push their religious view, or their opiophobia onto others. Decline to fill the script if you want, but do not feel as though you are entitled to lecture to others on the evils that exist in your mind.

If you have a moral problem filling certain scripts, then maybe you would be happier working in a religious environment where faith is more important than science. Either way, fill the script or decline, but STFU and keep your religious views to yourself. The last thing a patient wants or needs to hear, is someone else judging them on their perceived views of morality.

This is NOT a freedom of religion issue.

That's the only issue at hand.

Roadhead, I fully agree with your assessment of not allowing the pharmacists religious views to interfere with the providing of legal drugs. However you seem to extend that to any questioning in which the pharmacist may engage.

It is part of a pharmacists training and responsibility to ask questions to ensure that the prescription does not conflict with other drugs the patient may be taking, or question if the drug is appropriate for all the symptoms that the patient may report.

Your comment to "fill the script or decline" is incorrectly dismissive of a pharmacist's integrity, and you make no allowance for the pharmacist to engage in professional consultation.

A pharmacist is not a clerk. He or she is a highly trained professional, skilled in the application of drugs to human conditions.

As you make clear, the religious views of the pharmacist have no place in the consultation or the dispensing of drugs.

Apparently Plan B is a non-prescription drug, but it is kept behind the pharmacy counter. Sounds like it should be kept on the merchandise floor where it is accessible. Another example of stupid half-measure laws that let people play control games with each other's beliefs and morality.

When a pharmacist decides to NOT fill a prescription "for personal reasons" or "will not assist a person in need of professional assistance" THEY SHOULD LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE PHARMACOLOGY. No exceptions. If they have such an overwhelming desire to fulfill their religious tenants ON OTHERS in the fulfillment of their daily duties then they should not be in a professional roll but in the priesthood. NO EXCEPTIONS, YOU LEAVE YOUR BELIEF'S AND DESIRES AT HOME!!!!!!!!

And what happens when the pharmacists decide that they are against antibiotics and antidepressants because they may be overused? The physician is supposed to make those decisions, that is the very basis of our medical system. Otherwise there is utter chaos.

Anyway, if the pharmacist refuses the Plan B treatment...then the purchaser should send him the abortion procedure bill.

Um, you go to one that does and buy it? I don't know about you, but that's what I would do. Just like any store, I would guess that it's the pharmacies right to carry or not carry any product they choose. If their selection is too poor people will go elsewhere.

Liberals are by far the funniest things going, y'all freak that how dare anyone tell a woman what to do with their bodies, then turn around and freak that someone else shouldn't have that same right not to do something against their will because you don't believe as they do.

This is the very reason conservatives don't hate liberals, they pity them, your minds are just plain twisted in knots, you in one breath scream "How dare you impose your beliefs on anyone else while demanding your beliefs be imposed on them. Just plain twisted.

Boggles the mind, just plain sad and funny at the same time.

NO EXCEPTIONS, YOU LEAVE YOUR BELIEF'S AND DESIRES AT HOME!!!!!!!!

That is advice that cuts both ways, a concept no liberal seems to understand.

Very well put RobBob...

I was just thinking about how silly this whole thing is, forcing pharmists to sell certain drugs. I've been to the pharmacy a time or two and had them tell me they don't carry something, go to such and such a pharmacy.

I've been to a car dealer and had them tell me they don't sell such and such a car...

This is just plain liberal nonsense. Quite sad actually, but liberalism does indeed seem to be some kind of mental disease.

Robbob-1667446 had this to say

Liberals are by far the funniest things going, y'all freak that how dare anyone tell a woman what to do with their bodies, then turn around and freak that someone else shouldn't have that same right not to do something against their will because you don't believe as they do.

This is the very reason conservatives don't hate liberals, they pity them, your minds are just plain twisted in knots, you in one breath scream "How dare you impose your beliefs on anyone else while demanding your beliefs be imposed on them. Just plain twisted.

Actually, it is conservatives who are really quite piteous. It was not that long ago that a Muslim taxi driver didn't want to carry people who were transporting alcohol. They lost that case in court, and all y'all applauded that "Sharia law wasn't coming to the US."

But, of course, if your religious beliefs are violated, OMG!

It's a little like the way the conservative fundamentalist evangelicals around here pressured the schools into not celebrating Halloween because witches and ghosts and jack'o lanterns imposed Satanic beliefs on their children. But, on the other hand, they insist on putting up Christmas and Easter decorations because not to do this would be a suppression of religious beliefs by the state. (By the by, you do know that Satanism is a religious belief protected by law, right?)

A woman who is told that she cannot have a perfectly acceptable medical procedure when an embryo is far from being considered "alive" by all medical standards (if they were, then you wouldn't be able to pull the plug on anyone at all and we'd have brain dead people on life support clogging up all our hospitals) is having her rights infringed upon. A person who doesn't want to dispense all sorts of medications can either work at a Catholic hospital or for a religious pharmacy, or can just not go into pharmacy.

There is a reason why the conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians in my neck of the woods are all going into OB/GYN and pharmacy--it's because they want to be the only ones providing those services locally and so that they can refuse to participate because of "religious objections." This is not a big problem in the Northeast or in an urban area--have fun if you live in one of the counties where the average population age is 55 (the young people flee because of the local atmosphere). While there isn't such a thing as a "gay agenda," I assure you that there is a CFEC "agenda."

You protect them when they refuse to dispense Plan B--they are also refusing to give out birth control pills and AIDS retrovirals. The things they refuse to dispense don't affect men (well, not straight men for the most part). Mostly, they are using this as a way of controlling women (for the time being).

Explain to me why the Muslim taxi drivers can't refuse to transport people who are carrying alcoholic beverages (and, yes, liberals told them that they had to), but these pharmacists can accept prescriptions for perfectly legal drugs, get the people to show up, and then elaborately refuse to dispense them? Given that the local legislators are also making it pretty well impossible for doctors to dispense medication from their offices, Planned Parenthood sure as Hades cannot do it, and are limiting people's ability to get drugs by mail--do you see the pattern yet?

If one woman wants to have an abortion--that affects the one woman. If the whole system winds up skewed due to a group of people's religious beliefs so that no woman can get birth control (especially not Plan B), it's a dramatically different issue. It's the difference between controlling one's own body and controlling other people.

I pity anyone who cannot tell the difference.

Bean@home

Actually, it is conservatives who are really quite piteous

ACTUALLY you're ALL the SAME! Conservatives and liberals pretending only the other side denies people their rights is beyond @!$%#ing laughable!!! Different issues, same reaction. You con yourselves into believing you're "defending" someone so you can feel justified in denying someone else the ability to make a choice for themselves. Equally pathetic.

can someone actually write down the hierarchy of who takes precidence over who else? you know.. like are blacks higher than women or is sexual orientation below religious freedom? because alot of these statements are made as if there is an actual list.

if it is against someone's religion to be a party to abortion... then you can not, as per the constitution, force them to be a party to it. If this limits the choices for a woman to get a morning after pill.. then other options that do not violate the pharmacists religious freedom ( after all they are NOT government employees) need to be found. Doctor's who prescribe the medication in areas where there is restricted access would be smart to maintain a supply and dispense it themselves along with education on preventative measures of birth control that can be used in advance of any sexual activity.

Although I am personally pro-choice and believe that Abortion is a womans choice, I also believe in Freedom in Religion. If it is a privately owned Pharmacy, than the owner has every right to not sell a product he feels violates his/her Faith. Sorry, but your needs do not dictate what I do with or in my store. You simply do not have the right to tell me what I have to sell.

The Pharmacy right down the street from my house does not sell any form of birth control. Nothing. Not even condoms. He's a staunch Catholic and, well, thats his Faith and his right.....

Cassandra, you must be quite young. You should be the one making health decisions when it comes to your own body, not your physician, not your pharmacist, not your life coach and definitely not the state. It is your personal choice to seek or take a prescribed medication, the sooner you learn that it is your ultimate responsibility the better.

Regardless of our personal views on abortion, as a society we agree that it is a woman's choice when it comes to pregnancy termination. Since women get all the choice, they bear the full brunt of responsibility, or at least they should. Give fathers a choice about becoming responsible for their offspring, then you can holler about how men should be held responsible for contraceptives, that would be real equality...talk about civil rights infringement, lets just jail all the fathers that probably didn't want to be fathers in the first place for nonpayment of support. How is that society sees this as a father's responsibility and yet an unwanted pregnancy is always the fault of another, (the father, socioeconomic status, society itself)? Women can't get pregnant of their own free will? Then what stops them from avoiding pregnancy through their own actions as well? It's your choice, live with it. This is only trying to force your beliefs onto others, not the other way around. Become personally responsible for your actions...

Send the bill to the pharmacy? lol Hey, if you can't keep from getting pregnant, then you are not doing something you should be doing. I have went 23 years and not got pregnant once. So there really is no need for this after thing when you can prevent it before. If you get pregnant because you are careless and irresponsible, you should pay any fees for it. Take some responsibility for your actions.

It is really about personal responsibility. Women are carelessly having unprotected sex and want to do something about it later, whether is it with a morning after pill or abortion.

It is just as simple to keep condoms in your purse or other methods of control if you have can't say no or if you are just totally irresponsible. There really should be no need for the morning after pill with the exception of rape or heath reasons(baby or female). Not because you are too lazy and irresponsible to take other precautions beforehand.

BWil: The most commonly sited reason for using a morning after pill is the condom broke. Also, Plan B is available without a prescription for women over 17 years old (no physician's appointment necessary).

Backcountry is right, both sides are equally silly. On one side Conservatives don't want abortion but also don't want WIC or food stamps... So you want the baby to starve to death, wow. Liberals are always worried about their freedoms being taken away. If your pharmacy doesn't sell it, go elsewhere, it is that simple. Neither side have a mind of their own, don't think for a moment that you do. If you did you wouldn't be scornfully shouting liberal or conservative. I've never let a group of people have that much power over my thoughts or what I say.

The majority of the posters in this story's comment section are prime examples of why I no longer enjoy my profession, and it has nothing to do with my personal/religious views on emergency contraception. It does, however, have everything to do with how ignorant, hateful, irresponsible, disrespectful, and hypocritical people are these days.

Pharmacists, unless they obtained their degree years ago before a doctorate was required, are in fact doctors. Some of you take that to mean we consider ourselves to be "physicians", and then go about demeaning all the years of school and training we have gone through (we have the loans to prove it) simply because there is a lack of understanding about what the different medical professions entail. We all (doctors/nurses/pharmacists/etc.) are licensed to do different tasks. It is set up like a check and balance system. If you have had a problem with a particular pharmacist, go take it up with them. Otherwise, BACK OFF the rest of us! We work hard to assist those who want and need our help. If you don't, then go find a doctor who prescribes AND dispenses from their office. I bet in a case like that, they would either be on the DEA's list of places to watch and potentially raid in the near future, and/or you will end up in the hospital at some point.

Those of you out there who think we are simply trained monkeys with no autonomy and an obligation to fill -without question- ANY and EVERY prescription presented to them, I challenge you to go apply to pharmacy school and see if you can get accepted, and if so, stick with it and graduate! There are many areas experiencing pharmacist shortages right now, have been for years, and will continue to do so for a long time to come, so go jump right in and fill the need if you are so confident that our job is easy and mindless.

I'd be interested to know what you would say to one of those pharmacists that started practicing long before the morning after pill was even developed. Would it be sound something like, "Sorry, Pops, but you should have seen this coming! Too bad you've spent DECADES ensuring people safely receive the prescribed medications they need, making recommendations for OTC preparations to help them feel better when they had that nasty bout with a cold/the flu/eczema/jock itch because they had no money to visit their doctor, and saving people from possible injury and/or death as a result of their beloved doctor writing for something their office assistant/nurse can't read to you because either the writing isn't legible and/or they lack the ability to even pronounce what they call in, but you gotta go find another profession if you don't feel comfortable dispensing a certain medication due to your religious beliefs...because I SAID so, that's why!" (arms crossed, feet stomping, bottom lip protruding out into a pout)

I'm sure you are some of the very same people who complain about someone imposing their beliefs on others as they go about attempting to do the very same thing in reverse.

The same people that would have no problem addressing your calculus professor as "Doctor" if they hold a PhD, but putting down people in the pharmacy profession is just fine.

The same people who think I'm not busy when there is no line in front of the pharmacy although I'm juggling at least 50 prescriptions at any given time behind the scenes because our wonderful technology these days allows doctors to fax, e-scribe, call in, and even leave on voicemail prescriptions for other people, too!

The same people that think I am responsible for making a 20 minute phone call to THEIR insurance company who won't pay for a drug because THEY failed to read the policy THEY bought and didn't bother questioning their doctor who just prescribed a brand name drug that just hit the market (that we in the pharmacy all know won't be covered) simply because the nice drug rep brought them and their office staff lunch one day and "detailed" them on it.

The same people who wait until they are out of their medication to call in for a refill and demand it be filled immediately as they walk from the parking lot where they are calling from on their cell phone into the pharmacy because "I NEED it! My doctor said I HAVE to have it!" (more pouting and stomping feet)

The same people who are fine with the bill Jerry Brown recently signed into law allowing RNs and midwives to PRESCRIBE and DISPENSE birth control without any further training. Wait a second! Isn't that what Nurse Practitioners go back to school for?!?

The same people who complain when I take a lunch (if I'm lucky) during a 10 hour shift, all of which was spent standing on my feet. (Note: these are also the same ones who would be the first to sue if I made a mistake.)

The same people who make the ever-shrinking number of kind, patient, polite, SICK people (who still offer a smile and kind words even after waiting longer that I estimated because they can see I'm being pulled in 9 different directions at once) that much more appreciated.

The same people who will reply, "Bitter much?" "Crazy much?" "Hateful much?" "Time to retire?" yet complain that it takes 20 minutes to fill a prescription. To those I say, "Yes, I realize you THINK you are the only person on the planet; however, my precious darling, there are other people who are ahead of you and some of them just came from having surgery at the hospital. Are you sure you can't wait 20 minutes while I get the sick people that were here first taken care of? After all, YOU'LL WAIT 30 MINUTES FOR A PIZZA, RIGHT?!?"

The same people I would throw truckloads of emergency contraception at like confetti if I could simply because I would really rather they not reproduce, at least until they grow up and act civilized.

On one side Conservatives don't want abortion but also don't want WIC or food stamps

BS. Conservatives aren't against Welfare like this. If there are any in your area then they are idiots and don't think the same as the rest of us. What we are against is abuse in those systems. Food stamps should be used for food. Not soft drinks, not candy, not potato chips, not liquor. We don't want people gaming the system by trading the food stamps for cash. We also want people to be self sufficient. We would like people to move off of food stamps and into jobs they can support themselves with.

I don't actually know a single soul who's against WIC. But the same thing applies.

We are not against welfare. We are against abusers, and I admit I again I would like to see people use it short term between jobs and not as a way of life.

As a pharmacist, I can't explain why that particular pharmacist wouldn't have wanted to do the whole prescription, but I can tell you that most pharmacist (at least new grads like myself) are in fact doctors. The world of pharmacy is changing to where pharmacists are going to have more medical responsibility than they did in the past. That being said, without knowing what potential valid reason that pharmacist had for not wanting it fill the whole prescription, they were in the wrong there.

As for the whole plan b debate, I personally will sell it to anyone of a legal age, but I don't think that it should forced on you to sell if you don't believe in it. People say that it imposes religious beliefs on women when a pharmacist won't sell it, but if you look at it the other way should you impose your beliefs on a person with certain religious beliefs that contradict it? That all being said, this discussion should really be moot since most pharmacies (at least chain pharmacies like I work in) have ways around this situation being that when asked a cashier from the front of the store will simply come back to the pharmacy and ring up the sale.

If you find yourself unable to do your job based on a moral dilemma, find another job. If you object to sexes mixing- don't work somewhere it happens. If you believe some people shouldn't receive medical care, don't work in a hospital. If you hate alcohol, don't work where it is. If you can't give people the LEGAL medications that they have legal rights too, don't work there. That is your LEGAL right. Not to use your religious values to choose who will get what. If you need to work in that kind of world, there are dozens of Islamic countries who need workers with degrees. Then you and some Imam can chuckle over how you know best.

If ya don't believe in eating meat, don't become a butcher.......

givemeabook

If you find yourself unable to do your job based on a moral dilemma, find another job.

I agree. However, a dilemma is a situation that requires a choice between equally undesireable alternatives. Every profession requires moral choices, but most of them are not dilemmas. For example, I am a carpenter. I find situations constantly where I can do sub-standard work and it won't be seen. As a moral person, I choose to do quality work. That, for me, is not a dilemma. It's character.

Jersey -

I would think there might well be some vegetarian butchers. Had a job when I was in college at a fast-food place - didn't eat that stuff for years!

homer - to say that pharmacists are essentially doctors is something disingenuous to say, and ANY established physician would call you on the carpet for that one. Oh brother.

Now, I know you aren't just pill counters like the techs, but COME ON, you are not qualified to diagnose or treat patients. Not to say after years of working in the biz that you'd be wrong in your dx, even the office ladies get a gist of what's happening in a patient's life after years working in an office (but they aren't practitioners either).

@Mike in B-more

When a state requires that pharmacists get a medical degree is when I will agree that pharmacists can make medical decisions. Until then, either they dispense the prescription, as written, or they should quit calling themselves pharmacists, and face charges of practicing medicine without a license.

That's an interesting story but what on Earth does it have to do with this???? A prescription is not required for the morning after pill.

@Jersey Bob

If ya don't believe in eating meat, don't become a butcher.......

So do you think Jewish butchers only slaughter half-cows?

Mike, I had the same thing happen to me a few years ago. I got really sick and went to a gastrointestinal doctor. He prescribed me omeprazole. Normally, you have to take it once a day, but I needed to take it twice, as one dose was not helping. He told me to start taking it twice a day after I complained of the vomiting and pain that I was getting after the last half of the day. He told me to come in after I was finished with the 30-day (which turned into 15 days) dose, write another prescription for 60 pills (which for me is a month-dose of pills), and that he would call it in to the pharmacy like last time. Take it for the month, see what happens if I needed for pills or not. I did so, went to the pharmacy...and was denied my pills. They denied to give me more pills because I finished the 30-day prescription in 15 days. I showed them my prescription and they kept saying they wouldn't give it to me. I demanded that they call my gastro-doctor because I need to take those pills twice a day. Like you, insurance wasn't the problem.

Now, before anyone brings up the brands of omeprazole that is sold over the counter: they weren't strong enough for my case. I would still be sick and throwing money away. Even though my gastro-problem is somewhat under control (unlike the first time), those pills are still not strong enough.

In the end, the pharamcist gave me a 30 day dose (15 days for me) and then another container filled with 80+ of the same pills. I don't know why they gave me over 95 pills when I needed 60. I ended up speaking to my gastro-doctor and he was pissed that he had to argue with them over the dosage. Still have no answer for the extra pills.

MPA & Backcountry: Vegetarian, fine. Kosher, fine. But did you refuse to provide your expected product to customers because of your positions? THAT'S the point. The comparison was meant to show that a pharmacist refusing to dispense a prescribed and very legal drug is akin to a butcher refusing to serve.... hamburger... But then you probably knew that anyway, eh........

Jersey Bob

MPA & Backcountry: Vegetarian, fine. Kosher, fine.

So things you agree with are fine. Gotcha

But did you refuse to provide your expected product to customers because of your positions?

You don't go into a Kosher butcher-shop expecting to buy a ham. Likewise, if your pharmacist is a religious zealot you should not expect him or her to sell what they consider to be an abortion pill. How is one any different than the other? Would you force the Kosher butcher to sell pork just because someone walked through the door and asked for it? Or would you expect that person to find a different butcher to place their order with?

The comparison was meant to show that a pharmacist refusing to dispense a prescribed and very legal drug

Wrong again, how many times do I have to say this. The Plan B pill is NOT a prescription drug. There was no doctor that prescribed it for a medical condition.

Homerman...You are NOT a doctor, pharmacist do have to study a certain degree of medicine so they can understand the science of their practice, but they are not by any sense of the word qualified physicians, you are pill pushers, an extension of a narrow minded field of professionals who only understand the chemical complexity of specific compounds and the effect they have on the human body and/or their reaction to other chemical compounds when used to treat specific conditions. You are not paid nor trained to make medical decisions or to countermand doctor prescriptions.

I believe that if a pharmacist can not fill a prescription due to their moral or religious beliefs, they need to find another profession.

Backward. Interesting that you support me. You're the one who brought up Kosher. No prob. Do ya want a complete list? It's not "things I agree with are fine." It's the application of law and common sense (as in... the Reasonable Man principle of law). I acknowledge the "not a prescription" assertion. But that supports what I say too.

If Walgreen's stocks Plan B, then one should be able to purchase it from any of the pharmacy's attendents. Can a McD server refuse to provide McNuggets because said server is into Santeria? The religious affiliation of that pharmacist has no bearing. Buy ham at a kosher meat market? Not a reasonable expectation - and the market does not carry pork products. Duh. Walgreen's, the corporation, can elect not to carry Plan B, I suppose. I don't like that, but that's a business decision. Once made, it's a matter of customer service.

@Jersey Bob

If Walgreen's stocks Plan B, then one should be able to purchase it from any of the pharmacy's attendents

If you are talking about Walgreen's then you are correct. Walgreen's gets to set the policy they choose and their employees can abide by that or, if they disagree, they can go work somewhere else. But many pharmacies are small businesses whose owners should be allowed to decide what they do or don't stock. My pharmacist OWNS his pharmacy.

Walgreen's, the corporation, can elect not to carry Plan B, I suppose

So you agree with the law. What was the point you were trying to make then?

Backcountry164--you keep making the point that Plan B is not a "prescription" drug. Do I take it that you are a male?

Plan B is sold both by prescription and over-the-counter. Some people get it by prescription because the insurer will pay for it, some because they are not yet 18.

Where I live Plan B is not set on the counter (but, then, neither is Sudafed). It is kept behind the counter--sort of like cigarettes. Where I live, one cannot buy cigarettes without having to ask for them and to be handed them by a cashier. Plan B is the same way. In my neck of the woods, the pharmacy can take the prescription, the customer shows up to pick it up quietly, and the pharmacist will make a big deal out of saying that s/he won't dispense it.

They have been known to hang onto prescriptions long enough to make the drug ineffective.

The given law might have applied to pharmacies--and pharmacies do sometimes decide not to carry specific drugs because of problems of theft and so forth. I suppose they can decide not to carry a particular drug. However, the law in Washington state does not really reflect the movement for pharmacists nation-wide.

The movement is for individual pharmacists to refuse to sell the drug, refuse to refer the patient, and to hang onto any prescription. It has to be "religious grounds" because then the corporation (Walgreens) cannot fire them or refuse to hire them on the basis that they won't dispense the drug because that would be "religious persecution." The corporation might be fine with selling it--but this decision (based on the pharmacy not carrying the drug) is not a representative law. The broader movement which most of us are aware of is the one that allows individual pharmacists (not the owner of the store) to refuse to dispense. They also refuse to dispense regular birth control pills.

Not every person lives in an enlightened place where Plan B is out on the shelves, bubba--and it is actually a drug that can be sold by prescription. If the pharmacist doesn't stock the item, the pharmacist shouldn't accept the script (many do), and some other means of getting it to the patient should be made possible (where I live, doctors cannot fill prescriptions in their clinics without meeting certain guidelines and drugs-by-mail are both curtailed and would be too slow for the purposes of Plan B). So, maybe you want to find out the facts before you start popping off?

Bean@home

The movement is for individual pharmacists to refuse to sell the drug,

The movement? Gee, and here I thought we were talking about the LAW which considers the rights of both the individual pharmacists AND the pharmacies themselves.

So, maybe you want to find out the facts before you start popping off?

Sorry for commenting on the actual story at hand instead of whatever you're yammering on about.

Grocery stores do not sell life and death emergency products. A pharmacist has no certified education nor any other legal authority to challenge the prescribing authority of a medical doctor. Their moral opinion about the use of a prescribed medicine is irrelevant to their job of filling prescriptions.

homerman9 seems to believe that pharmacists in fact, ARE 'physicians'....hmm....seems to me that pharmacy schools are teaching a bit beyond the book.

The reality is, pharmacists are simply licensed dispensers of the physician. I would wonder if a particular pharmacists would object to filling ALL prescriptions written by a particular physician...?

I'd bet that no pharmacist would object to DISPENSING (not PRESCRIBING) Cialis or Viagra. To take that further...I wonder if one could legally deny antifungal cream (because it 'kills' something that is alive) as well?

@culheath

Grocery stores do not sell life and death emergency products. A pharmacist has no certified education nor any other legal authority to challenge the prescribing authority of a medical doctor. Their moral opinion about the use of a prescribed medicine is irrelevant to their job of filling prescriptions.

And this has what exactly to do with the story at hand??? Also, do you realize you've just undermined your earlier statments? The morning after pill is NOT a prescription drug, so your definition of what pharmasists should be required to do would not even apply in this instance. Also, the OP has a valid point, pharmacies are NOT required to carry ANY OTHER MED nor should they be. Should every pharmacy be required to stock expensive cancer meds that they know will most likely expire on their shelves? Surely you wouldn't suggest that a woman who had an accident should be covered by every pharmacy but a kid with cancer need not be. Or would you?

@Backcountry164

So... because soda pop doesn't require a perscription, so someone would be free to not sell it to fat people because they feel that they need to diet and if they really want it, then they should go to another store? How about the klan member that doesn't want to sell to black people? Freedom of association is the same as freedom of religion. What if the pharmacist feels women are not the equals of men and requires a husband, son or other male to be with her when the perscription is filled out (more of an islamic slant, but judaism and christianity don't respect females either).

Plan B is not a prescription but it is kept behind the counter because it is very expensive......presumably there are some pharmacist's who dont even want to hand it to a woman..........kinda like the dark ages when any contact with women was evil.

Fujikoma

So... because soda pop doesn't require a perscription, so someone would be free to not sell it to fat people

They're free not to sell it to anyone for any reason except...

How about the klan member that doesn't want to sell to black people?

...due to race which is forbidden by Federal law.

For the record I disagree with that law on the grounds that it prevents me from making an informed choice as to who I do business with. Would you buy anything from a klan member? I sure as hell wouldn't want him to get one red cent of my money and I suspect most black people feel the same.

What if the pharmacist feels women are not the equals of men and requires a husband..

What if the moon falls from the sky? This would also violate Federal law. Aside from that, why would any woman in her right mind do business with someone like that and why would you suggest we keep that a-hole in business by not allowing his customers to know what a bigot he is? We don't even need a law to prevent this in our country because such a person would quickly go out of business

Backcountry164: I would like to point out that this case originally was between Walgreen's (the business owner) and pharmacists they fired. See, back in the mid-1990's Illinois passed a law saying a pharmacist could opt to not dispense medication that violated their beliefs. Then, a bit later, Gov. Blago signed an executive order that, essentially, undid this state law in regards to morning after pills. Walgreen's them implemented a policy saying that their pharmacists had to dispense the morning after pill, even if it violated their beliefs. Four pharmacists refused to follow the company policy, which was in line with the executive order. Walgreen's fired them, the pharmacists sued. The pharmacists sued saying that Gov. Blago couldn't write an executive order going against the original law. The ACLU got involved after the pharmacists won and the appeal upheld the lower courts decision - the ACLU's position is that Gov. Blago's executive order is correct. We shall see what happens in the long run.

Really, if the Governor has the right to sign this executive order, then Walgreen's has the right (and obligation) to require their pharmacists to dispense this medication. If this continues through the appeals process AND it's determined that the Governor couldn't issue this particular executive order, the the lower court and appealate court will be upheld.

It is my opinion (and I am NOT a law person, instead, I'm in medicine) - that health care professionals go into medicine with the understanding that they have to base patient care decisions on scientific evidence, not personal belief. Yes, we can have our personal beliefs, but we can't just opt out of providing scientifically and medically sound medications, treatments, therapies ,etc. just because we don't like them. Just an example (but not exactly the same) - I had to provide medical treatment in an ICU for 7 different drug abusers (heroin, meth and bath salts) that overdosed (one of them twice) in the last month. I dislike drug abusers - I think that they use a lot of resources that are better used on people that don't put themselves in this position and most drug abusers will do this to themselves again. While I was treating these patients, another one of my patients, who was on the floor, had CHF and ended up having flash pulmonary edema while in the hospital. She should've been transferred to the ICU - however, we couldn't transfer her to the ICU because the ICU was full (in part, because of the drug abusers I was taking care of). I can't just boot the drug abuser from the ICU and I can't opt to not treat them just because I believe they shouldn't receive the care (especially over the woman with flash pulmonary edema). Instead, I had to treat the woman with flash pulmonary edema in a suboptimal enviroment - luckily she lived and has since been released from the hospital.

The point is, we go into these professions knowing that there will be time that our personal ethics (or even religious beliefs) clash with the ethics or religious beliefs of our patients - yet, we still provide care for them because that's what we're suppose to do. We are suppose to put the health of our patients (and yes, the morning after pill does deal with the health of the woman) above our own personal beliefs, biases, etc., etc. We swallow it, take care of the patient, then complain (without violating HIPAA) about people doing things we don't agree with. As health care professionals, we knowingly put ourselves in this position - and if we can't handle being in this position, then we should've gone into another field or at least another specialty (and yes, even for pharmacists, there are ways they can still be a pharmacist and NOT be in this position - it all has to do with residency choices and the environment they seek employment after the fact) where the issues we feel strongly about are not part of our job.

Are pharmacies actually forced to stock drugs?

No.

Can you read? It states that Plan B can prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. Having a radical hysterectomy and removing ovaries of unfertilized is not the same.

Can't you read Karen? Plan B can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, but it can also stop an egg from being fertilized. No one can state the exact moment that an egg would be fertilized or not, nor can they state if a pregnancy is even going to occur. According to you it seems that it's perfectly okay for a pharmacist to refuse you antibiotics if they have the belief that only God heals or to refuse you pain meds if they believe that holistic healing would be better for you despite what you or your doctor believe.

It states that Plan B can prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted.

The article may say this. However, there is no scientific evidence that suggests that this actually happens - it could possibly happen. In fact because of the lack of the scientific evidence supporting this statement, it has been proposed that this statement be removed from the information about Plan B. The actual research on this product has only definitively shown that it prevents ovulation (if it hasn't occurred) and prevents fertilization.

More importantly, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs. A woman isn't pregnant until implantation occurs. Therefore, Plan B is preventing the pregnancy from occurring - without a pregnancy, there can be no embryo, fetus or eventual baby. You can't have an abortion of a non-existent pregnancy. So, it's really rather ridiculous for someone that is pro-life to be against contraception and Plan B - since they don't cause abortion.

Summer - I like your argument, but I'm not sure that it is entirely sound. The present GOP platform implies that person-hood begins at conception, which is also an assumption that life begins at conception. I've always had problems with those statements in that life is a continuous process and that a persona is something that takes much time to grow. Life always ends but it began on earth millions or even several billion years ago, possibly once. You may correctly say that a new "life cycle" begins at conception but I always squirm when the phrase "life begins" is used in the abortion argument. The distinction that you are trying to make is that all birth control methods try to prevent pregnancies, while abortive procedures end them. We can therefore divide birth control methods in to three sections, those that prevent conception, those that prevent pregnancy, and those that terminate pregnancy. That was not clear in my mind until now. So by that logic the pharmacist refusing to sell Plan B is taking sides in the struggle between a fertilized egg trying to find a place to grow and the woman who is still trying to avoid pregnancy. That he be allowed to enter into that decision is wrong.

The present GOP platform implies that person-hood begins at conception, which is also an assumption that life begins at conception.

You're right, this is the current argument. However, it's also not 100% scientifically accurate. The concept of when life begins is not settled on in science - there are at least 6 different hypotheses.

We can therefore divide birth control methods in to three sections, those that prevent conception, those that prevent pregnancy, and those that terminate pregnancy. That was not clear in my mind until now

Absolutely.

So by that logic the pharmacist refusing to sell Plan B is taking sides in the struggle between a fertilized egg trying to find a place to grow and the woman who is still trying to avoid pregnancy.

Agreed. Whether a woman becomes pregnant or not is up to the woman. The pharmacist doesn't have the right to make this decision for the woman.

Also, not directly related to your comment, but I've seen several people talk about this as if the pharmacists filling a prescription. In the case of Plan B, that's not entirely accurate. Plan B is over the counter for women over 17 (they have to request it from the pharmacist, because it is stored behind the counter to prevent those that need a prescription from obtaining it without the prescription).

Summer #5.5

You're right, this is the current argument. However, it's also not 100% scientifically accurate. The concept of when life begins is not settled on in science - there are at least 6 different hypotheses.

From a purely scientific basis it is no concept. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization, so from a purely scientific standpoint life begins at fertilization. Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien? The question of when life begins has long been settled except for those with an agenda or those who want to fool themselves that abortion or IVF doesn't involve the killing of human lives in the earliest stages of human development. Even the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade didn't deny that fact; they (Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell--where were the women) back in 1973 just said that human life in the womb didn't obtain the legal rights of personhood. At least they were being intellectually honest, unlike people who say human life doesn't begin at fertilization from a purely scientific basis.

Summer-1597193 post #5.3

So, it's really rather ridiculous for someone that is pro-life to be against contraception and Plan B - since they don't cause abortion.

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the morning after pill’s (Plan B in this case) “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, their 2007 study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

I have an alarming example for you it is not just about a pharmacist imposing their religious beliefs on people what if nursing staff and doctors did the same thing? Sorry miss jones but we can not take care of your mother because she is catholic. sorry miss jones we can not in good conscience prescribe your fathers pills because he is Jewish. Religion has no place in the medical field period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and yes a pharmacist is part of the medical profession so try to spin it however you like if you can not put your beliefs aside and do your job then maybe it is time for another profession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The point is not about one decision that pushes religion in people's faces. The point is this is a start a gateway if you will for more decisions of the same manner. Where does it stop or should someone Else's religious beliefs be allowed to control the lives of everyone else?

Keith Brackettvia Facebook

According to you it seems that it's perfectly okay for a pharmacist to refuse you antibiotics if they have the belief that only God heals or to refuse you pain meds if they believe that holistic healing would be better for you despite what you or your doctor believe

Congratulations, you've just made the stupidest comment on the entire page. If someone believed in holistic healing or that only God heals...Why the @!$%# would they become a pharmacist?? Durrrrr

nikki-3003278 post #5.8

So you think it is acceptable for the government or an employer to force an employee to be an accomplice to the legally killing of an innocent human life?

Summer-1597193 post #5.3

More importantly, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs.

Nonsense. Pregnancy begins at fertilization. A women is pregnant when she is nurturing a human life in her body. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization, so from a purely scientific standpoint life begins at fertilization. Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien? Therefore, the moment a child is conceived in woman's body she is pregnant. That moment always occurs before implantation in the mother's womb. To say it begins at implantation means you have an agenda. You want to fool yourself that discarded embryos in the IVF process don't involve the discarding of innocent human beings. You want to fool yourself that drugs that prevent the implantation of a human life to a mother's womb are not an abortafacient.

@Shalom2U

A zygote and a blastocyst are not human beings or 'children'. They are a collection of cells with the potential to become a human due to genetics. Do you even know when the nervous system develops during a pregancy, which would allow the fetus to start to feel pain or have some brain activity? I could almost understand an opinion at that stage of development, in spite of the fact that it's still the woman's decision to carry it to term or not. Embryos are not discarded innocent human beings. They are a collection of cells. NO brain, heart, liver, kidneys, or even a human body.

Fujikoma

A zygote and a blastocyst are not human beings or 'children'.

I asked in post #5.11 "Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien?"

You and Summer didn't answer. Why? It is a human being in the earliest stages of human development. That is a scientific fact.

"To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete."

Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

"Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien?"

I didn't answer because I didn't see your question. The DNA is undeniably homo sapien, however, the question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

A pregnancy is defined as beginning at implantation. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. If implantation hasn't occurred, then the woman isn't pregnant. You cannot abort a non-pregnancy. Thus, medications that prevent implantation are not causing an abortion - they are preventing a pregnancy. There are some medications that do terminate a pregnancy (such as RU-486) - these are different than Plan B or other Morning After Pills.

Our arguments are still tangled around "life begins at conception." It may be a quibble but how is it that there is a instant in time where a living egg and a living sperm magically or miraculously become a new life? A new "life cycle" I can buy, but a new life only has validity as short hand for the living process. To declare this potential creature a human being is equivalent to calling an acorn an oak tree. A lot of stuff has to happen between and women have been given that choice with IUD's, hormonal birth control, and morning after medication. Now a bunch of people who equate acorns with oaks or zygotes with babies or believe that human souls are implanted at the instant of fertilization seek to strong arm their beliefs into the American main stream. It is a bad idea equivalent to the prohibition movement a century ago.

Summer post #5.14:

I have repeated asked you, "Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien?

You responded with:

"The DNA is undeniably homo sapien, however, the question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand."

Are you denying that a human zygote or human blastocyst is not a living organism? If you don't deny, please respond if this living organism is classified as a homosapien? Are you not also classified as a homosapien? Please answer. It is totally relevant despite your asinine assertion that it is irrelevant. It is completely relevant because if a human zygote and a human blastocyst is not a homosapien--then no human life is intentionally killed by abortafacients. But if a human zygote and a human blastocyst is a homosapien then a human life is killed by any drug that prevents implantation of human being to a mother's uterus. Intentionally killing an innocent human life gravely immoral. The American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists and any organization whose members profit from IVF and the proscribing of abortions and the performing of abortions don't want to admit that they are killing humans. But the fact is living organisms classified as homosapiens are intentionally killed when a woman takes a drug whose mechanism intentionally prevents a human being from being implanted in the mother's womb. The American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists definition of pregnancy doesn't change that fact.

Shalom2U: I answered your question. You may not like the answer but it was answered.

Yes, a blastocyst is classified as a blastocyst of a homo sapien. However, I feel that until the pregnancy has reached viability, whether to continue the pregnancy or not is entirely up to the pregnant woman. Prior to viability, the fetus cannot maintain basic biochemical and physiological functions necessary to maintain life without a direct connection to the mother. After viability, if born alive, the fetus has developed to the point that they can maintain these basic cellular functions - yes, they may need a lot of medical assistance. So, at viability, things change.

My assertion is not asinine - and you don't need to be rude, especially if you wish to continue having a conversation with me. I can chose whom I respond to and I do not respond to people that are rude. My assertion is this - until implantation has occurred, the pregnancy has not been established. Abortion has a specific definition - to abort a pregnancy. So, anything that prevents implantation is NOT causing an abortion - by definition. So, regardless of your opinion on abortion, saying Plan B, other morning after pills, or other forms of birth control cause abortions is factually incorrect. Furthermore, mass amounts of data on Plan B, Ella, and many other birth controls (though not all) have shown that fertilization does not actually happen when they are used properly.

So again - you can be polite, and still disagree, and I will continue to conversate with you. Or you can chose to be rude, and I will not respond to you.

Discussion was continued in comments to post #10.

Way to go, J...you probably just gave someone that very idea...

:)

Actually, in Mexico (where abortion is illegal in most places), women who miscarry sometimes don't go to the hospital for help because they are afraid of being accused of trying to miscarry. How terrible is that? I feel for these poor women, losing a baby, and afraid to seek medical care because they may be investigated for "murder." Sick situation.

Lee,

Even scarier to think that there's a group out there, pushing for that standard of care in U.S.

That actually was my point J-birdman... how far are we gonna go? Thank you for understanding.

A little clarity here. If the "prescription" is doctor ordered. Then the pharmacy is duty bound to give it. BUT if the medicine is OTC.. He does not have to sell it. Example: Alcoholic wants "cough syrup" and the Pharmacist smells alcohol There is NO LAW that makes him have to sell it. You cant "force" him to sell something that A. Believes is harmful. B. Is being used outside of prescribed use. Another good example is CASHIERS refusing to sell 10 boxes of pseudophedrin to a "meth head".

I hope that the vine understands something about religious tolerance. Christians do NOT seek to impose beliefs on others.. But if I believe Why should "non belief" be imposed on me?... If I don't like killing animals... I should not be made to work at a veterinarian that euthanize. The same can't "force" a hunter to stop hunting BUT don't have to let ANYONE hunt on their privately own property.

Sometimes on the vine (it seems) that religious tolerance is only when religion tolerates imposition on beliefs instead of what it really means... I can practice my belief without fear (with in the framework of law) of retribution.

Flame, I hope you don't mind if your kid is gravely ill and needs a blood transfusion and the only hospital within driving distance for you is staffed by people who believe that offering a blood transfusion violates their religious beliefs.

Yes, I don't want your non-beliefs imposed on me. The door swings both ways.

@Lee-1515484

Flame, I hope you don't mind if your kid is gravely ill and needs a blood transfusion and the only hospital within driving distance for you is staffed by people who believe that offering a blood transfusion violates their religious beliefs.

Seriously?? You believe there actually may be hospitals that are staffed by people who don't believe in, well, hospitals?? Spent a whole lot of time coming up with that argument didn't you?

Backcountry,

Actually, it's perfectly on point, so answer the question.

Well I guess it depends, Does the person who needs the transfusion have three days in which to recieve it? Seems to me that with a good two days to spare the hospital would be able to find someone to do it.

Now was there some relevant question I was supposed to answer?

I do find it a bit odd that the ALCU is taking the side against the pharmacy considering how vehemently they've fought for religious freedom in other cases. I guess they're only in favor of civil liberties on a selective basis--much like just about everyone else in America. It just matters which civil liberties we favor and under what circumstances.

IMO, since this seems to be an OTC issue, there is no argument that forces pharmacies to carry certain drugs. It would be one thing if the pharmacy refused to fill a prescription--then took the prescription so it couldn't be filled elsewhere. But here it seems to be a direct interference with businesses' right to sell (or not sell) whatever they want. If you don't like it, then take your business elsewhere.

It means that a hospital can't refuse a black person because a white person's 'freedom of association' would be violated by admitting them. It means that bigots have to allow mixed couples to rent from them if they are financially able even though their beliefs are violated. It means that job opportunities have to be open to women even though someone's 'religious' beliefs that women are inferior to men and shouldn't be in the presence of men is violated. The medicine in question is behind the counter and not on the floor for anyone to purchase. As a professional in a public position, there is NO violation of religious freedom by requiring legally prescribed medicine to be sold. If the person is so mentally backwards to believe an imaginary person has a problem with LEGAL & MEDICALLY prescribed medicine, then THEY should seek the help of a mental health professional to get over their irrational belief. It is not against the law to purchase said medicine and the pharmacy carries the medicine then it has a public OBLIGATION to sell to anyone with a valid right to purchase said medicine. This is not the same as some bartender who is legally obligated to cut off a drunk customer.

I agree with your perspective, especially since there is no demonstrable harm to the person denying the service, but there is potentially unnecessary harm to the customer because of the timing involved.

This is a blow to religious freedom. It allows a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on their customers. No one is telling the pharmacist to use this medicine.

How is it a blow to religious freedom when the law allows the pharmacists to live his or her life according to conscience that is developed by religious beliefs? All laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker. When a law is codified or made by common law that lawmaker(s)' morality is FORCED upon all the citizens of that governmental jurisdiction. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that the morning after pill Ella kills the human life in a mother's womb. Therefore, by dispensing a drug that kills an innocent human life the pharmacist is being an accomplice to the legal killing of an innocent human life. Why does the government have the right to FORCE a pharmacist to be an accomplice to a legal killing of an innocent human life? You think the government has that right because you think it is a morally acceptable act. Why do YOU have the right to FORCE YOUR moral values down my throat (and the pharmacist in this case), but I don't have the moral right to force my moral values down your throat?

culheath post #9.1

I agree with your perspective, especially since there is no demonstrable harm to the person denying the service, but there is potentially unnecessary harm to the customer because of the timing involved.

The purpose for taking the drug is to legally kill the human life in a mother's womb. So there could be harm to the innocent life in a mother's womb by taking this drug. The pharmacist is harmed because by dispensing this drug he is an accomplice to the legal killing of the innocent human life in a mother's womb. Why should the government or his or her employer have the right to FORCE the pharmacist to gravely violate his or her conscience?

If the govt were mandating the pharmacist take the drug, then you would be correct. If the pharmacist cannot in good conscience sell a legal drug to a customer, then they are in the wrong field. Medical issues are not for the pharmacist to decide for someone else. They can choose that about their own medical care.

Scientologists think that anti-depressants should not be available, so should they be able to decide that a customer can't have them? I don't want people who are employees of a store to make medical decisions for me. Time may be of the essence and there may not be many other pharmacies in a particular area or there may be an area where religion has intimidated pharmacy owners or employees from selling particular products. Religion should not factor into dispensing medical care. You may view it as a moral issue but I may not. Religious freedom also means freedom from religion.

Janet-2539159

Rather the pharmicist should not be able to interfere with the right of the customer to use that medicine.

Your pharmacist doesn't allow you to go to other pharmacies?? You're right, that should be and probably already is illegal. /sarcasm

@Shalom2U

The pharmacist is not 'forced' to sell the drug. They applied for a job at a pharmacy that sells drugs. They knew that the pharmacy may sell drugs they disagree with. They accepted the job position knowing that they were required to sell drugs that the pharmacy stocks to people with a legal right to purchase those medicines. THEY are violating the rights of someone else by forcing THEIR imaginary sky daddy's religious beliefs on other people. The pharmacist is in the wrong job if they can't do their job.

THEY are violating the rights of someone else by forcing THEIR imaginary sky daddy's religious beliefs on other people.

False. They are not violating the rights of any other person (no such thing as a 'right' to purchase whatever you want wherever you want), and their religion isn't forced on anyone else. The pharmacists aren't telling anyone that they cannot have it, only that they won't be the ones to sell it to them.

Fujikoma

So that is your reason why you think the government should force the pharmacist to be an accomplice to the intentional kiling of an innocent human life?

Not to start a religious debate, which I'm not. Having your beliefs is one thing, providing a business service (job) is another. If the pharmacy itself offers a product to the public, as an employee they should be required to sell it if it's requested, or they are not doing their job.

They can believe what they believe all they want, more power to them. When it comes to doing your job, check it at the door. If they won't do their job, then hire someone that will. Heaven forbid (pun intended) then they get sued for violation of religious beliefs.

Otherwise, the pharmacy as a whole shouldn't sell it. But provide a courtesy with a note saying "No Plan-B here" or something to that effect. Just sayin'.

BINGO. I guess the public schools did not teach logic. All these whiners, lol. I guess I should complain if I go to Burger King and they refuse to sell me a taco. Where's my lawyer?

Posts #10.1 and #10.2

All laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker. When a law is codified or made by common law that lawmaker(s)' morality is FORCED upon all the citizens of that governmental jurisdiction. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that the morning after pill Ella kills the human life in a mother's womb. Therefore, by dispensing a drug that kills an innocent human life the pharmacist is being an accomplice to the legal killing of an innocent human life. Why does the government have the right to FORCE a pharmacist to be an accomplice to a legal killing of an innocent human life? You think the government has that right because you think it is a morally acceptable act. Why do YOU have the right to FORCE YOUR moral values down my throat (and the pharmacist in this case), but I don't have the moral right to force my moral values down your throat?

Shalom - It is not an undisputed fact that morning after pills work as abortifacients. The mechanism of these drugs is still very much being debated by scientists.

Lee-1515484 post #10.4

No controversy about Ella, by any scientific measure that is an abortafacient. As for Plan B, I believe people who believe in the legal right for a mother to kill the innocent human life in her womb are trying to hijack the issue. No study has conclusively shown that woman taking this drug don't ovulate at all.

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the morning after pill’s (Plan B in this case) “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.
Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, their 2007 study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

Ella, by any scientific measure that is an abortafacient.

No, it's not. Abortafacients terminate a pregnancy. Ella, like Plan B, cannot terminate an established pregnancy.

The mechanism of action of Ella is to prevent follicular rupture (in other words, prevent ovulation).

Furthermore, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation has occurred. So, even if the morning after pills prevent implantation (which has never actually been established - it's been hypothesized that it could, but studies have failed to support this hypothesis) - they don't cause abortion. Abortion means to terminate a pregnancy. No ovulation, no fertilization; no fertilization, no implantation; no implantation, no pregnancy. You cannot abort a pregnancy that was not begun. Fertilization, itself, is NOT the beginning of the pregnancy.

The mechanism of these drugs is still very much being debated by scientists.

Actually, Lee, that's not 100% accurate either. There are two very well mechanisms known by scientists for these pills. The primary mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation - they all do this by various hormonal effects on the follicle (in the end, they prevent rupture of the follicle). The secondary mechanism is to create an environment that is hostile to sperm (preventing fertilization). There is a hypothesis that the secondary mechanism also creates an environment in which a fertilized egg cannot implant in the uterine wall. This makes sense on the surface because these conditions (preventing fertilization and preventing implantation) appear to be the same; however, scientific studies have NOT supported the hypothesis that they prevent implantation. Newer studies that have been published in the last year (and there are a lot of them - I'd have to be at school where I could sign into the servers to get the full articles, as they don't have free articles about this on the resources I can access at home) have caused a call to remove the language of "possibly preventing implantation" from the package and prescribing information.

Summer-1597193

See post #5.14.

I have repeated asked you, "Is not a human zygote or human blastocyst not classified by scientists as a homosapien? You responded with:

"The DNA is undeniably homo sapien, however, the question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand."

Are you denying that a human zygote or human blastocyst is not a living organism? If you don't deny, please respond if this living organism is classified as a homosapien? Are you not also classified as a homosapien? Please answer. It is totally relevant despite your asinine assertion that it is irrelevant. It is completely relevant because if a human zygote and a human blastocyst is not a homosapien--then no human life is intentionally killed by abortafacients. But if a human zygote and a human blastocyst is a homosapien then a human life is killed by any drug that prevents implantation of human being to a mother's uterus. Intentionally killing an innocent human life gravely immoral. The American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists and any organization whose members profit from IVF and the proscribing of abortions and the performing of abortions don't want to admit that they are killing humans. But the fact is living organisms classified as homosapiens are intentionally killed when a woman takes a drug whose mechanism intentionally prevents a human being from being implanted in the mother's womb. The American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists definition of pregnancy doesn't change that fact.

Newer studies that have been published in the last year (and there are a lot of them - I'd have to be at school where I could sign into the servers to get the full articles, as they don't have free articles about this on the resources I can access at home) have caused a call to remove the language of "possibly preventing implantation" from the package and prescribing information.

Please let me know the name of the studies and where they are published. I would be willing to bet there are many credible scientists who would dispute the conclusion that they don't prevent implantation. Look at the European study:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001027/WC500023673.pdf

Note from the report: "Ulipristal acetate prevents progesterone from occupying its receptor, thus the gene transcription normally turned on by progesterone is blocked, and the proteins necessary to begin and maintain pregnancy are not synthesized....Since progesterone is critical for implantation, it was thought that ulipristal acetate may have promise as a contraceptive [should be abortafacient because in this context of the discussion it was how Ella prevents implantation of the embryo...The applicant proposes several different mechanisms of action of the compound in humans: ability to delay maturation of the endometrium likely resulting in prevention of implantation” Do you really believe a drug that only prevents ovulation can effectively prevent a pregnancy when taken 5 days after intercourse? A 2011 study by the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Chile found that 62 of 87 women who took LNG-EC [active ingredient in Plan B] before ovulation still ovulated, but none of them became pregnant. This suggests a possible if not likely post-ovulation effect. Ella active drug Ulipristal has more profound effect on progesterone than LNG-EC.

[should be abortafacient because in this context of the discussion it was how Ella prevents implantation of the embryo

It cannot be considered an abortafacient, because, again, pregnancy begins once implantation is complete. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Therefore, if something prevents implantation, it is not, by definition, an abortafacient.

Look - you are entitled to your own opinions. You however, are NOT entitled to your own facts.

Do you really believe a drug that only prevents ovulation can effectively prevent a pregnancy when taken 5 days after intercourse?

You evidently don't realize that implantation can be complete anywhere from 5 - 18 days, with the average being 14 days. In other words, even Ella would not cause an abortion - using the correct definition of abortion with the understanding of when pregnancy begins.

Again, you can have your own opinions. Clearly, you feel preventing implantation is wrong - that's fine, you can feel that way. However, you cannot claim this is causing an abortion because of the definition of abortion and when pregnancy begins.

As far as the first part of your post - that was already replied to in the appropriate place.

Summer-1597193

It cannot be considered an abortafacient, because, again, pregnancy begins once implantation is complete. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Therefore, if something prevents implantation, it is not, by definition, an abortafacient.

Nonsense. Just because that is how you want to define pregnancy does not mean the majority of human beings agree with that definition. Again, you can have your own opinions. Clearly, you feel preventing implantation is not an abortion - that's fine, you can feel that way. However, you cannot claim this is not causing an abortion because the definition of abortion is a procedure where the mother intentionally kills the human life in her body. When the mother intentionally takes a drug so the human life (a/k/a homosapien (see post 5.17)) inside her body cannot be implanted into her uterus she intentionally kills that homosapien. That is an abortion by any reasonable person's definition.

However, you cannot claim this is not causing an abortion because the definition of abortion is a procedure where the mother intentionally kills the human life in her body

I can say it's not abortion because abortion means to terminate a pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs. Those are the definitions of each. You may not agree with the definitions, but you simply can't make up your own definitions. You can say you disagree with the definitions, you can state why you disagree with the definition.

That is an abortion by any reasonable person's definition.

No, that is the definition of abortion by those that don't know the definition of abortion and don't know when pregnancy is defined to start.

Summer-1597193

You may not agree with the definitions, but you simply can't make up your own definitions.

You are being disingenuous. You know darn well that there are many credible, if not a majority of, scientists and biologists that don't agree with your definitions of pregnancy and abortion. So for you to make statements that give the impression that everyone agrees with your definitions and not my definitions (many, if not a majority of credible scientists, would have no problem with my definitions of the same words) of the same words is pathetic. Why can you make up or change the definitions of abortion and pregnancy? Who gave you that authority?

No, that is the definition of abortion by those that don't know the definition of abortion and don't know when pregnancy is defined to start.

see above.

It does appear from our conversation that we can agree that when a mother uses a drug that prevents a human embryo from implantation in the mother's uterus a homo sapien (a/k/a) may be killed because the mother ingested the drug.

You know darn well that there are many credible, if not a majority of, scientists and biologists that don't agree with your definitions of pregnancy and abortion

Actually, that's not true. There have been studies on this - they have found that most scientists agree that pregnancy begins at implantation, and since abortion terminates a pregnancy things that prevent implantation cannot, by definition, cause an abortion. They also found that those that think pregnancy begins at fertilization think this due to religious reasons, not based on science.

So for you to make statements that give the impression that everyone agrees with your definitions and not my definitions (many, if not a majority of credible scientists, would have no problem with my definitions of the same words) of the same words is pathetic

This is the last time I will tolerate you being rude. I have stated I disagree with you and why I disagree with you without being rude to you, why are you finding it difficult to be polite in your disagreement? I've not once called your position asinine or pathetic - both of which you've done to me. That is inexcusable - and I will not be responding to you after this post. I do NOT have to tolerate rudeness from someone, and I will not do it. I have no problem discussing something with someone whom I disagree with as long as a mutual respect can be maintained - you have been disrespectful, which tells me you have no interest in actually having a discussion.

Why can you make up or change the definitions of abortion and pregnancy?

I didn't - those are the established definition.

It does appear from our conversation that we can agree that when a mother uses a drug that prevents a human embryo from implantation in the mother's uterus a homo sapien (a/k/a) may be killed because the mother ingested the drug.

I never claimed that a fertilized human egg wasn't a homo sapien fertilized egg. Not sure why you think this is such a big deal. Someone can indeed agree with this and still think understand that preventing implantation is not an abortion, and it also does not mean that someone can't be pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

Actually, that's not true.

Oh yes it is true. Show me the studies to prove me wrong and I'll bet dollars to donuts many scientists would find your study "biased" if the study supports your view.

they have found that most scientists agree that pregnancy begins at implantation,

Show me the study. I will be willing to bet many scientists don't and that there are many studies where many scientists agree that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. You're pathetic if you won't acknowledge that many scientists believe that definition. The only reason scientists want to use the "implantation" definition is because they profit from IVF or they prescribe abortafacients and they don't want to acknowledge they are killing homosapiens when they do so.

They also found that those that think pregnancy begins at fertilization think this due to religious reasons, not based on science.

Another asinine, disingenuous comment. You know that many scientists believe that life begins at fertilization for purely scientific reasons. You also know that many scientists for only scientific reasons acknowledge when a woman is carrying a fertilized ovum in her body she is pregnant with a human being--that makes her pregnant regardless of where the human embryo is in her body. That is all based purely on science and no religion.

This is the last time I will tolerate you being rude...and I will not be responding to you after this post.

Your choice. If you think I am rude, read some other posts. You make comments that are disingenuous like the "only for religious reasons" above, I will continue to "call you on it." I am not going let those kind of comments go unanswered. If you want to respond to my comments is up to you.

I didn't - those are the established definition.

By no means "established" all scientists...only the ones that perform IVF and prescribe abortafacients.

I never claimed that a fertilized human egg wasn't a homo sapien fertilized egg. Not sure why you think this is such a big deal.

You had a hard time admitting that a fertilized human egg was classified as a human being (not just a homo sapien fertizlied egg), but you did in post 5.17. Whether or not an embryo is a human being is the whole crux of the matter. No innocent life should be intentionally killed. That is what happens with abortafacients like Ella and Plan B. That is why this is such a big deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin-idUSTRE7AG24B20111117

(Reuters Health) - Though most doctors will give you a definition of when
pregnancy begins, it's not always the same one, according to a new
survey.

Most of the polled obstetrician-gynecologists believe pregnancy begins when
the sperm fertilizes the egg. But a minority say it doesn't begin until a week
later when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus -- the definition given by
the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).

"People say that the medical profession has settled on this," said Dr. Farr
Curlin, the senior author of the study and a professor at the University of
Chicago. "And what our data show rather clearly is that it is not at all settled
among the medical profession."

I would say there is a lot of disagreement going on.

Gneisenau post #10.15

Though most doctors will give you a definition of when pregnancy begins, it's not always the same one, according to a new survey.

I would like to see the results of a survey of doctors definition of when human life begins. The definition of pregnancy is immaterial from the perspective that I am against any medical procedure or drug that intentionally kills an innocent human life for the advancement of science or the desires of another human life. It doesn't matter where in the body or outside the body this innocent human life is located.

Scientists can disagree on definitions, but what they can’t disagree is how and when a human being is created. These facts are undisputed from a scientific basis. When human male sperm fertilizes a human female ovum a new living organism is IMMEDIATELY created that scientists classify as a homosapien (a/k/a human being). That living organism is as much a homosapien from a scientific basis as any person reading this post—just at an earlier stage of human development. Whether this human being is intentionally killed before or after implantation the result is the same: a human being is intentionally killed. The definitions of abortion or pregnancy that Summer and her ilk are claiming don’t change that fact. It is this scientific fact, that a human being is intentionally killed, that is why so many scientists are against drugs that have as their mechanism the inability of the uterus to accept implantation of the embryonic human being. It is also the reason why so many scientists are also against embryonic stem cell research, the creation of unused human embryos in the IVF process and human cloning: no innocent human being should be intentionally killed for the advancement of science or for the desires of another human being. It is a moral reason. Morals are formed by religious faith (or the lack of it). It is for that reason and scientific knowledge of the medical procedure that scientists are against these procedures. I want a law that would make these procedures illegal. Summer and her ilk want laws that make them perfectly legal because her value system is that humans in the embryonic stage of development have no value to society. Either way, one of us is forcing their morals down the other’s throat. That is what happens when laws are codified or created by common law like Roe v. Wade. Even the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade didn't deny the scientific fact human life begins at fertilziation; they (Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell--where were the women) back in 1973 just said that human life in the womb didn't obtain the legal rights of personhood. At least they were being intellectually honest, unlike people who say human life doesn't begin at fertilization from a purely scientific basis like Summer and her ilk.

By your logic, if I own a restaurant and decide that I don't want to serve pork on religious grounds for example and you want a BLT and I am the only restaurant in town then I am a dictator with religious overtones?

We ALL make decisions based upon our beliefs EVERY day regardless of our profession. At some point, freedom to make those decisions should be above scrutiny. I believe that this is the case although I don't agree with the argument 100%.

It actually takes 24 to 48 hours to actually become pregnant after sex. So I don't agree with the argument but I respect their right to decide whether or not to sell Plan B. Besides, Plan B is sold over the counter without a prescription.

Your argument above concerning one pharmacy in small communities is a stretch also. That might affect less than 1% of the population, probably far less than 1%. I live in a town of 12,000 and there is a CVS, Walgreen's, Walmart pharmacy and an independent pharmacy within the city limits. The next town over has two pharmacies and is so small it has one red light, Kroger and an independent. The town in the other direction is slightly smaller than my town and it has three pharmacies, Kroger and two independents.

The whole county is only 38,000 people and there are that many pharmacies in two directions and more that I could count in even smaller communities nearby.

Now if every pharmacy in your area refuses to sell plan B, every last one, you can still go to Planned Parenthood and get it, cheaper. And do you think that big chain stores like Walmart, Kroger, CVS and Walgreens aren't going to sell it? You are talking about a small portion of pharmacies that are a portion of the independent owners.

If the transportation argument is really all that important, which it isn't, if someone has the ability to get to a pharmacy that doesn't sell it, then they probably can get to a pharmacy that does.

As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue. If it is anything, it is just another attack on someone's religious beliefs under the guise of fairness.

And I don't even agree with their argument.

Ah, but restaurants are allowed to serve what they want. To fill a prescription, the LAW requires you to use a LICENSED PHARMACY. Where once upon a time, just about everywhere, any Jack or Jill could set up an apothecary shop, now your required by LAW to have trained and certified and licensed workers to dispense drugs of certain potency. (Yes, during our great-grandparents day you could by your marijuana, cocaine and opium at shops on the corner!) Your BLT comment doesn't work. If my doctor tells me to eat more bacon, the law doesn't say I can only buy bacon in one place. But id does limit where I can fill a prescription. I live in a small town, but there are 10 pharmacies (at least). There are towns where there is only ONE pharmacy in town and the next town may be three to four hours away by road. If "I don't have to sell...." pharmacist wants this right (not to sell a legal prescription), said person should have to prove 2 things- 1: some one else within 10 miles WILL sell the prescription or 2: that they will provide transportation and fuel money to get you to and from a place that will.

John-1283964

By your logic, if I own a restaurant and decide that I don't want to serve pork on religious grounds for example and you want a BLT and I am the only restaurant in town then I am a dictator with religious overtones?

Pretty much, yeah...of course you would have more latitude than someone dispensing required time-based medication.

We ALL make decisions based upon our beliefs EVERY day regardless of our profession.

Not ALL of us. Some of us have the capacity to put religious beliefs in a separate container from the secular. Those who won't (or can't) do that can cause problems, as this discussion indicates. Why should the religious freedom of the pharmacist override those of the customer?

Plan B is sold over the counter without a prescription.

Then how does the pharmacist enter into the equation at all? If a pharmacist is required to dispense the drug then it cannot be considered OTC.

Your argument above concerning one pharmacy in small communities is a stretch also. That might affect less than 1% of the population, probably far less than 1%.

What difference does the percentage affected have to do with anything? I don't care if it's 1 person out of 1 million, the principle is exactly the same.

Now if every pharmacy in your area refuses to sell plan B, every last one, you can still go to Planned Parenthood and get it, cheaper

Sure...because there is a Planned Parenthood in every small town across the country. Not to mention that these same people who would refuse the Plan B drug availability are the same people who want to shut down Planned Parenthood. I see this whole thing as interference by moralizing people to force their morality on others.

If the transportation argument is really all that important, which it isn't, if someone has the ability to get to a pharmacy that doesn't sell it, then they probably can get to a pharmacy that does.

That is not logical or even reasonable at all.

As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue.

Of course not, you are a male and if you consider it a non-issue then you should simply butt out and leave it to those who consider it an issue.

If it is anything, it is just another attack on someone's religious beliefs under the guise of fairness.

What it is is a matter of allowing the belief of one individual who has control over availability of a legal and needed medical product over the belief of another who needs that product. How is that even remotely fair? That is not the business of the pharmacist that is his religion which is not at all what i8s required by the customer/patient.

Givemeabook -

So you would set policy based on a ten mile radius?

Givemeabreak!

Telling a lawyer what cases they have to try is dictatorial. Quit trying to make people engage in your immoral behavior. If you want these pills you can have them. Not just in a legal sense but in a literal sense. You guys know that the average woman has access to these pills. Your prejudice is showing. If they would not dispense these pills due to low sales then you would not be nearly as upset. But the audacity of someone having religious beliefs irks you. They are not telling you what to do so don't tell them what to sell. This is still America is it not.

Culheath post #11.3

What it is is a matter of allowing the belief of one individual who has control over availability of a legal and needed medical product over the belief of another who needs that product. How is that even remotely fair?

Because if YOU FORCE the pharmacist to dispense the drug YOU FORCE the pharmacist to be an accomplice to the legally killing of an innocent human life in a mother's womb. That is morally unacceptable.

It also makes it easy for a church that is dominant in an area push its doctrine on the business owner or pharmacist (employee) to not sell the drug. If the law states they need to make it available then that gives the owner and employee/pharmacist the right to sell it without having to answer to the local minister/priest/shaman.

If someone is in Utah for example (just as an example), and needs the plan b drug, what if all the area pharmacists refuse to sell it to her. This is the US and it should not be the pharmacist's decision to deny a legal choice to a citizen. Keep your "morality" in your home and church, but keep it out of my medical care. I won't impose it on you to take it, and you should not deny it to someone who needs it. It is only a "moral" issue to some. I have no moral issue with it at all. It is a medical decision that each woman should be able to make for herself. Or do women need the pharmacist/employee to decide what is best for her?

It is funny but most anti-choice followers are devout GOP followers and claim they want a smaller govt and want more "rights" but then want to give the local pharmacist the decision making ability about medical health care for someone else! You better hope that when there are more people from a different religion in your town or if you travel, you may still be able to buy alcohol, or gas, if you are a woman. Some religious folk think women should not be driving..... The pharmacist has every right not to dispense legal treatments by changing their job. To me, a pharmacist's job is dispensing medicine and not to act as moral judge and jury. If you don't like it, don't participate in the process.

To fill a prescription, the LAW requires you to use a LICENSED PHARMACY.

IT IS OVER THE COUNTER, NO PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!!!

Simple solution, make it available in markets and groceries just like any other OTC DRUG!!! The reason this is an issue isn't the handful of places you can't buy it but because of a regulation of a drug just like any other over the counter medication that is available EVERYWHERE. It is is legal and over the counter then WHY IS IT REGULATED TO BE SOLD ONLY BY A PHARMACIST?

Not ALL of us. Some of us have the capacity to put religious beliefs in a separate container from the secular. Those who won't (or can't) do that can cause problems, as this discussion indicates. Why should the religious freedom of the pharmacist override those of the customer?

What you are saying is that our personnel beliefs have no bearing upon secular matters and how we decide to act. BS!!! Note I didn't say religious beliefs, just beliefs in general. If you suggest that we act according to secular society and its beliefs only, be very careful about the road that takes you down. I'd love arguing that one.

Now for the most obvious ignorance in this statement. The pharmacist is the owner of the business. Being such, they have the right to decide what service they will provide or not provide, not the customer. The customer reserves the right to make a choice about where they will seek a service. If the provider of that service is unacceptable, then within a free market, the customer will find a provider of that service. Should there be enough customers not seeking the service of that provider, they will lose their business to a new provider of that service will benefit. That is the law of free markets.

Then how does the pharmacist enter into the equation at all? If a pharmacist is required to dispense the drug then it cannot be considered OTC.

Well that's one you need to ask the FDA. It makes no sense at all to demand an OTC drug be only dispensed by a pharmacist. But that is how the Feds have decided it should be done.

What difference does the percentage affected have to do with anything? I don't care if it's 1 person out of 1 million, the principle is exactly the same.

Actually it does. In general, not all circumstances can be accounted for...ever. There will always be an exception to the rule, a true out of the norm situation that will not be accounted for within the law or society. You think that a single po-dunk druggist in a 200 person town in the middle of some corner of the country that is 100 miles from no where should give up their personnel beliefs for 1 person when it does not forfeit life nor limb of the other person. And deciding to abort or prevent a pregnancy is a choice regardless of how it happened.

Again, I don't agree with the reasoning behind not providing Plan B, I just support the right of a business owner to make that choice.

Here's the other argument. If having the choice to take a pill that may or may not be available at the choice of the sole person able to provide it, then don't they have the choice to live somewhere it is available?

Now let's play a game, here is the website where Plan B tells you where it is available.

http://planbonestep.com/plan-b-locations.aspx

Just put in a zip code! PLEASE FIND ONE! Salt Lake City? Every Target in town!!! How about a tiny town I used to go through on the way to my grandparents. There's hardly enough businesses there to even notice it, Brushcreek, TN. OMG there's two within 12 miles.

Starting to get picture?

Sure...because there is a Planned Parenthood in every small town across the country. Not to mention that these same people who would refuse the Plan B drug availability are the same people who want to shut down Planned Parenthood. I see this whole thing as interference by moralizing people to force their morality on others.

Six of one and a 1/2 dozen of the other. There's plenty of places to get the drug so can it. It's easy to talk about forcing morals on others when you are doing exactly the same thing from the other direction, hypocrite. You and I both know that planned Parenthood isn't EVER going away and that Roe V Wade will NEVER get overturned.

That is not logical or even reasonable at all.

Dismissing it by calling it illogical makes no sense. Explain the illogical aspect so I can pick that apart.

Of course not, you are a male and if you consider it a non-issue then you should simply butt out and leave it to those who consider it an issue.

LOL! 1/2 the pharmacists are male and it is an issue to them apparently! Talk about a illogical statement! Let's not forget that most married women are anti-abortion and they might have an opinion also! Or should we ban all pharmacy ownership to single women so this is a non-issue? LOL

What it is is a matter of allowing the belief of one individual who has control over availability of a legal and needed medical product over the belief of another who needs that product. How is that even remotely fair? That is not the business of the pharmacist that is his religion which is not at all what i8s required by the customer/patient

First of all, it is not a need. It is a want in 99.999999% of the times it is taken. It is a choice. It's actually a choice I agree with. The only need is the very rare instances when the woman taking the drug is actually in a position when pregnancy could jeopardize their health such as endometriosis. It isn't as effective as birth control but a back up plan. And I agree with the woman's right to use birth control if you must know!

What you fail to understand is that you don't have the right to force any person to sell a product. In a free market and society if the product is so important to society as a whole, those that choice not to sell it will fail. It is that simple.

The pharmacist has every right not to dispense legal treatments by changing their job. To me, a pharmacist's job is dispensing medicine and not to act as moral judge and jury. If you don't like it, don't participate in the process.

And you have the right of not participating in the process of giving that pharmacist your business.

It is is legal and over the counter then WHY IS IT REGULATED TO BE SOLD ONLY BY A PHARMACIST

Because it's OTC for women over 17, any teen under 17 must have a prescription for it. Also, it's not cheap. At least, that's my guess.

My problem with allowing pharmacists to not dispense Plan B is quite simply this:when you go into medicine (whether it be as a pharmacist, physician, dentist, nurse, tech., etc., etc.), you agree to base patient care decisions on scientific evidence (yes, there is an art to medicine - however, all decisions should be based on evidence and then modified to the individual patient), not your personal beliefs.

, I just support the right of a business owner to make that choice.

I would like to point out the owner chose to sell Plan B (Walgreen's), when their hired employees (the Pharmacist) refused to sell Plan B, they fired the employee that wasn't doing the job they were hired to do. The pharmacists sued Walgreen's over this - the pharmacists won, the business owner lost. There was an older law in Illinois that allowed the pharmacists to not dispense Plan B (at the time this law went into effect, Plan B was only available via prescription), and a more recent executive order (from Gov. Blago) that required them to dispense Plan B.

It is not however and individuals choice to have their birth control fail. And yes, a pharmacist is a "hireling" in that most are employed by chain pharmacies and the job they have trained for is to dispense legal medications to the purchasing public. It is the individual's choice to become a pharmacist and the public that person depends on for their livelihood is entitled to know that if they require a medication, they can obtain it.

People should determine which pharmacists refuse to dispense "Plan B" and boycott those pharmacies. If someone will not arbitrarily sell a legal medication than consumers should not purchase anything from them.

Makes sense, that seems to be the problem. Freedom of religion is one of the tenets of our Constitution, period.

No - This decision is a great victory for religious oppression.

Exactly.

your both wrong....this is all about dont look at my record........ look at the pertty pony..............:)

This is a victory. As long as you can have the pills, the oppression argument is invalid. To each is own. You cannot force someone to do something that they object to. Puhleeze. It may be inconvenient to you but this is America. Read the Constitution.

True Bongoman, it shouldn't be made impossilble to get within a locality because "people here don't believe" in such a product. This is a dumb ruling; if you don't want to do the job of pharmacist - don't get a job as a fargin' pharmacist - Duh.

Interesting approach there, Bongoman. Wlagreens has been sued by 4 pharmacists they fired in Illinois - looks like the fired pharmacists just won their case. Pretty sure Walgreens is going to be shelling out some big bucks, and you would have been also.

G-dog, people in business make all types of decisions everyday based on a multitude of reasons. If you do not like that a particular pharmacy's policies, don't shop there. We are adults, quit whining because you don't get your way. Funny how you liberal talk about freedom of choice. I guess you meant freedom of liberals to talk against the rich while being millionaires(Obama, Johnathan Edwards), talk against oil exploration in the US while giving money to another country to do so(Obama), or talk against voter oppression with the voter ID law but let the Black Panthers intimidate voters(Obama and Administration). Not amused. Use to be a Democrat until I realized you all have issues.

Again, this is really a non-issue. The pharmacist just decides not to stock the drug. And you have a very degrading view of the standing of an individual. If you hire someone to do some work for them, you don't own them. If you don't like how they do it, you hire someone else. My father would have been opposed to dispensing this drug and in our small town there were no doctors who would have prescribed it anyway. A person's beliefs defines him/her. I'm sure you have beliefs which you will not change to convenience me. Communist and socialistic governments can dictate to a person. Our beliefs are protected by the constitution. Therefore, posting back and forth to one another in this case is not going to do anything but fuel disdain for each other's beliefs. So, I prefer to just leave it at that.

oneof9 - "Communist and socialistic governments can dictate to a person."

Yeah? So can a theocracy. I am hoping the US doesn't become Saudia Arabia. Many patriotic Americans consider the concept of separation of church and state a sacred one. Remember, we will have no freedom of religion (or conscience) without it.

If the Catholic Church can own a hospital that performs tubal ligations in separate buildings on the hospital grounds, then surely a pharmacist who prefers not to be involved in the sale of Plan B can have someone else in the store ring up the sale.

Not really, they are not telling you what to buy. A lot of guys up here. Of course you love the Morning After Pill, very cheaper than an abortion. Pharmacy's do not sell every drug so get over yourselves. Just because the decision my be based all or in part due to a religious objection should not matter. Its the religious objection part that really riles you guys. People allowed to make business decisions everyday. A business may decide to sell cigarettes or liquor since they are legal products or they may not. Where is the outrage there? Exactly. But you put freedom of religion and Morning After Pills in the same sentence and you have people going bezerk.

I agree with Anita at #14 above, this is oppression by religion.

All laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker. When a law is codified or made by common law that lawmaker(s)' morality is FORCED upon all the citizens of that governmental jurisdiction. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that the morning after pill Ella kills the human life in a mother's womb. Therefore, by dispensing a drug that kills an innocent human life the pharmacist is being an accomplice to the legal killing of an innocent human life. Why does the government have the right to FORCE a pharmacist to be an accomplice to a legal killing of an innocent human life? You think the government has that right because you think it is a morally acceptable act. Why do YOU have the right to FORCE YOUR moral values down my throat (and the pharmacist in this case), but I don't have the moral right to force my moral values down your throat?

The killing of innocent life is whacky. You better hope there is not a Judgement Day. And yes it is a celebration from the tyranny of those who would try to make us go against our beliefs. If you do not like a pharmacy, you can shop elsewhere. Simple as that.

All laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker. When a law is codified or made by common law that lawmaker(s)' morality is FORCED upon all the citizens of that governmental jurisdiction. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that the morning after pill Ella kills the human life in a mother's womb. Therefore, by dispensing a drug that kills an innocent human life the pharmacist is being an accomplice to the legal killing of an innocent human life. Why does the government have the right to FORCE a pharmacist to be an accomplice to a legal killing of an innocent human life? You think the government has that right because you think it is a morally acceptable act. Why do YOU have the right to FORCE YOUR moral values down my throat (and the pharmacist in this case), but I don't have the moral right to force my moral values down your throat?

luscha, I am a Christian and I believe in my God-given ability to apply logic to reality. I believe that science is man's way of understanding God through logic. Your kind make it SO hard for the rest of us Christians. You only scream our religion is being attacked when you see someone else doing something.

luscha and Shalom: I don't think you care about the unborn or anyone else. This is just a cheap excuse to make yourself feel like a hero by making women villains.

The church does not belong in the medical field because they are always looking for martyrs.

Sheri-78

luscha and Shalom: I don't think you care about the unborn or anyone else. This is just a cheap excuse to make yourself feel like a hero by making women villains.

I don't want innocent human lives in mother's womb killed because I care about them. Please provide your logic how you concluded that I don't care about the unborn or anyone else. I think the innocent life in a mother's womb should have the rights as a mother. Please explain how this makes a woman a "villain"?

Shalom - Once again, the mechanism of morning-after pills is not a scientific fact. There are scientists who don't think the pills work to cause abortion but to prevent ovulation or fertilization. But I doubt that if even these scientists established this conclusively that you would believe it anyway. In addition, because statistically speaking, most acts of unprotected sex do not result in conception, most people who take Plan B are doing nothing at all.

Sheri post #18.3

The church does not belong in the medical field because they are always looking for martyrs.

The Church's mission is to get as many souls into heaven as possible. It is to have as humans experience the goodness of God as possible. God is all-powerful and all-knowing. He loves us beyond all human understanding. Visit a Project Rachel if you are suffering from the effects of an abortion. No sin is greater than God's mercy. He can intervene in the trials and tribulations of this life to make your life more enjoyable, but you also may have to suffer and even die out of love for Him. He wants you to trust Him and put your Hope in heaven and not this earthly life.

God wants us to know what human actions are morally acceptable to him and what human actions are immoral to him. Read MT 16: 13 - 20. If God is good, wouldn’t He make sure that humans can be confident that they can know what human actions He says are morally right and what human actions He says are morally wrong? Jesus founded the Catholic Church by appointing Peter as Her head. Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to protect Her from teaching error. Jesus told Peter whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you hold loose on earth shall be held loose in heaven. When the Church exercises her Magisterial Teaching Authority through official Church documents on Faith and Morals humans can be confident that these are God’s pronouncements about what human actions are morally right and what human actions are morally wrong. If you disagree, where does your moral authority come from? Also, as proof, it was also predicted about 2,000 years ago that the Catholic Church would survive until Jesus Second Coming. What other hierarchal human institution has survived that long—and predicted it would be so? Given these two facts, what are the odds that the Catholic Church surviving as it has is just a “coincidence” or the reason it survived is because one set of humans is more successful at “pulling the wool” over the rest of humanity?
The Bible came from the Catholic Church. It really becomes a question of authority. Catholics believe that the Church is the authority on Faith and Morals. (Read 1 Timothy 3:15.)

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Catholic church, and not the Bible is the foundation of Truth.

When the medical field is doing something that God believes is immoral, the Church has the right to tell human beings.

Lee-1515484

Once again, the mechanism of morning-after pills is not a scientific fact. There are scientists who don't think the pills work to cause abortion but to prevent ovulation or fertilization.

No controversy about Ella, by any scientific measure that is an abortafacient. As for Plan B, I believe people who believe in the legal right for a mother to kill the innocent human life in her womb are trying to hijack the issue. No study has conclusively shown that woman taking this drug don't ovulate at all.

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the morning after pill’s (Plan B in this case) “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation. Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, their 2007 study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

But I doubt that if even these scientists established this conclusively that you would believe it anyway.

Rest assured, if they could conclusively prove it I would believe it. By any person's measure they have failed to do so far.

In addition, because statistically speaking, most acts of unprotected sex do not result in conception, most people who take Plan B are doing nothing at all.

Agree, but that isn't why I am against it. I am against this drug because most people would reasonably conclude that in rare instances the mechanism of Plan B works by preventing the implantation of an innocent human life to a mother's womb. This mechanism is also one reason why women buy and take this drug--to legally kill the innocent human life in their body should they have conceived a child through sexual intercourse with a male. I think all humans who are conceived should have the legal right to be born.

Based on ???

The pharmacy has the right to ask if someone will fulfill their duties. They don't need to know why someone would not want to, because it is a matter of not wanting to, no matter what the reason. If I am a boss and conducting a job interview, it is fair to ask if you will carry out your duties. If you say "no" then the business owner can thank you for your interest and hire someone else. You can believe in what ever you want, but if your beliefs conflict with a job, then you should apply for another kind of job. Being free to be religious should not mean a boss has to hire you. I am for conscientious objectors, but then they don't need to do the job that requires something they object to. They are free to get into another field.

Really?, what about the baby who gets partially delivered, then has its brains suctioned out. Based on your "theories" this is not life. Life is life. Our skin is alive, then becomes dead. You are right, life does not begin at conception, it begins before. The egg is alive every month, then dies if contraception does not take place. They say that even before a person wants to get pregnant they should eat healthy because the health of their eggs result from their diet.

At conception, is when the reproductive material will go on to be fertilized egg and on the course to live for years as a person. If not, they die much earlier as incomplete reproductive material. I have seen men's reproductive material on tv and it looks alive to me. But will die if it does not find the egg. If it does, and is not killed by abortion or some other occurrence, it will continue its life as a human. It goes from reproductive material to conception which means it is now a person, with rights. It does not just become alive after implantation. It might make you feel better to believe that but it is not true.

So luscha, by your logic, every woman and girl that has a period but doesn't get pregnant is committing murder. I hope you are trolling. I am so SICK of so-called Christians like you claiming to represent the rest of us.

Are you confused or what???? There is a very basic difference between a cell (sperm, egg, hair, skin etc...) which is a living organism, and a fertilized embryo. If ALL living cells had "rights", then your heart cells would be able to sue your head cells for stupidity.

Be careful what you wish for. If an embryo has rights at conception: how much do we owe it for unemployment after 9 months? Does it have the right to vote? Can it sue for wrongful imprisonment if it's mother is jailed? Can it sue it's mother for poisoning it with smoke and/or alcohol? Can the state take custody of the mother, if in the opinion of a court, the mother is neglecting her unborn child by taking drugs, not eating properly, abusing alcohol, and/or not taking care to make healthy decisions for the unborn child. Remember, you are the one who said the child had "RIGHTS" since conception.

Sheri-78 post #21.2 and Luscha

every woman and girl that has a period but doesn't get pregnant is committing murder.

Agree with Sheri on this one. Human life DOES NOT begin before conception, but at conception. A fertilized egg is classified by scientists as a homsapien; an unfertilized egg or sperm cannot reproduce or live on its own. They are not a complete human being, but part of a human being or come from a human being.

utamegi25

The excuse that life begins at contreception is complete bull because the point of Plan B is to stop the egg from being fertilized so there is no life to begin with.

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the morning after pill’s (Plan B in this case) “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, their 2007 study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

Shalom - Do you have any idea how often nature "aborts" a fertilized egg? Should most women run around thinking of themselves as the mother of multiple dead children just because a fertilized egg didn't implant? There's a huge difference between the abortion of a fetus at a few weeks old and an egg that doesn't implant--for whatever reason.

Lee-1515484

Do you have any idea how often nature "aborts" a fertilized egg?

My wife and I suffered a miscarriage. Miscarriages happen all the time. What is your point?

Should most women run around thinking of themselves as the mother of multiple dead children just because a fertilized egg didn't implant?

When that happens they shouldn't feel guilty because she didn't intentionally kill the child or did anything to cause the death, but the scientific fact remains that once a child is conceived it is a child.

There's a huge difference between the abortion of a fetus at a few weeks old and an egg that doesn't implant--for whatever reason.

Agree and disagree. If the egg doesn't implant naturally I would agree there is a huge difference. If the woman had an abortion at a few weeks old or INTENTIONALLY, by taking a drug, caused a fertilized egg (a/k/a a human being) to fail to implant on the mother's womb they both are actions that are morally unacceptable because the mother intentionally killed the innocent human life in her womb.

There is debate even among the medical field as to whether or not the drug actually kills a fertilized egg or prevents if from being fertilized. It appears that both are true.

So then since PlanB only stops a fertilized egg from implantation or it stops the process of fertilization what's the difference in the end result?

Should husbands be aloud to purchase planB, Ella, or whatever, and sneak the medication to their wife in order to prevent pregnancy? Doesn't that seem wrong on several levels? How would we view such cases, what would the possible charges include? Isn't the husband just practicing his civil right to not become a parent against his wishes? I mean after all, eggs and sperm aren't living human beings and a zygote isn't either so how could this be wrong in any way?

Now what difference does it make who takes the pill, so it's not abortion, really, what is the difference?

uderwritersdf: Plan B actually prevents ovulation and prevents fertilization. There is a hypothesis that it can prevent implantation. This hypothesis makes sense on the surface since many of the same mechanisms that prevent fertilization also prevent implantation. However, that hypothesis has never been supported scientifically - in fact, most recent studies show that it doesn't prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

No, a husband or boyfriend should not be able to sneak the medication to their wife or girlfriend as that violates a person's medical autonomy. That would be like someone thinking you needed an antidepressant and slipping it to you without your knowledge or permission. However, they should be able to purchase it and if their wife or girlfriend agrees to take it it - fine. As far as the man practicing his civil right to not become a parent - taking contraception and morning after pills are about more than just the right to not be a parent, it's about health also.

It's not an abortion because of the definition of abortion and when pregnancy begins.

Summer-1597193

There is a hypothesis that it can prevent implantation. This hypothesis makes sense on the surface since many of the same mechanisms that prevent fertilization also prevent implantation. However, that hypothesis has never been supported scientifically - in fact, most recent studies show that it doesn't prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Show me the "most recent studies". I think the hypotheses is supported scientifically.

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the morning after pill’s (Plan B in this case) “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, their 2007 study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

Look at the European study:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001027/WC500023673.pdf

Note from the report: "Ulipristal acetate prevents progesterone from occupying its receptor, thus the gene transcription normally turned on by progesterone is blocked, and the proteins necessary to begin and maintain pregnancy are not synthesized....Since progesterone is critical for implantation, it was thought that ulipristal acetate may have promise as a contraceptive [should be abortafacient because in this context of the discussion it was how Ella prevents implantation of the embryo...The applicant proposes several different mechanisms of action of the compound in humans: ability to delay maturation of the endometrium likely resulting in prevention of implantation” Do you really believe a drug that only prevents ovulation can effectively prevent a pregnancy when taken 5 days after intercourse? A 2011 study by the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Chile found that 62 of 87 women who took LNG-EC [active ingredient in Plan B] before ovulation still ovulated, but none of them became pregnant. This suggests a possible if not likely post-ovulation effect. Ella active drug Ulipristal has more profound effect on progesterone than LNG-EC.

Great ... and you don't get to choose to make me do something against my conscience, any more than I get to inflict that on you.

If you don't find what you want in one drug store, what do you do?? You go to the next one.

What if this pill were in the store, but it was priced at $1000? Would you have a right to pay only the amount charged by the drug store down the street?

Of course not. We all have choice ... the choice whether to sell, and the choice whether to buy.

And if you were on the other side of the equation, wouldn't you insist on that right, too?

Barry, when you work for someone, you support the goals and views of the company, not your own.

You have a right to express yourself through religion, just so long as it does not interfere with your ability to perform your job.

Years ago, I arrived at my place of employment and discovered religious paraphernalia(flyers with biblical quotes) posted in the employee lunch room for all to see. I promptly removed the items in question from the wall and brought them to my boss. I mentioned to him that this is unfair to those who don't have or want religion. You cannot force religion on other people in any way, shape or form. My boss agreed with me and the flyers were disposed of.

The associate who put them in there got angry with me, and I told this employee that it was wrong of them to put these items in the lunch room or anywhere in the workplace because it forces religion on people and insults people of other faiths who may not be followers of that ideology. Indeed, we had people of Islamic and Jewish faiths working for us. I did what I did partly out of respect for those individuals, who should not have to view items from another religion that they are not part of.

I'm guessing you are a Christian, and far more likely a Catholic. How would you feel if someone who practices Islam put quotes from the Quran on your lunch table? You, being the good little Christian, would more than likely be insulted and want the items removed immediately. Why should their experience be any different?

Years ago, I arrived at my place of employment and discovered religious paraphernalia(flyers with biblical quotes) posted in the employee lunch room for all to see. I promptly removed the items in question from the wall and brought them to my boss. I mentioned to him that this is unfair to those who don't have or want religion. You cannot force religion on other people in any way, shape or form. My boss agreed with me and the flyers were disposed of.

What, you couldn't just NOT read them? Wow, I bet you were the hit of your company.

And that license means that the store operator has to sell *all* drugs that someone might want to buy??

Why doesn't the store operator get to choose?

"operate a drug store ... you sell drugs" is no where close to being in the Constitution.

Hint: the store operator *does* get to choose. Period.

What people seem to be missing is that the higher court backed up the lower court's injunction because former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich mandated that all pharmacists and pharmacies had to sell Plan B regardless of religious objectives. The law was not clearly not neutral and aimed equally at all pharmacists and pharmacies. You can't create a law that targets only religious people practicing their rights. Which are protected under the Constitution no less. That is discrimination. If it were targeted towards the gay community you can bet there would be a huge cry of rage across this nation. But since it is about religion, it is fair game. Because in the past decade, an ever more militant intolerance towards all religions around the world has grown. Even though more than 90% of all people are religious,

People can debate whether they think religion is nonsense, an opinion or any other point concerning a woman's ability to have access to Plan B for health reasons. But our founding Fathers were wise when they established our Constitution and nation. Realizing, as they did so, that it was important to protect the minority, from the majority which often would trumpt the former. As Thomas Jefferson states, among" these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That includes ones "right" to practice their belief system. Including a religion. That is not forcing it onto someone else if it isn't taking away their same rights in the process. And certainly trying to get a prescription filled isn't a "right" protected under the Constitution.Someone may not like the fact another person is free to exercise their right not to fill it because of religious beliefs. We are not obligated to change our behaviors to make everyone happy and things convenient for them if it goes against our principals. Getting everything we want or even need isn't usually the way life works. As science advances, it is bound to cause conflicts with moral issues in religion. which will impact those of differing views.As Benjamin Franklin stated, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Geez this is all twisted. "That is not forcing it onto someone else if it isn't taking away their same rights in the process". That is what you wrote. Well let me tell you, common sense tells me this is Gov't forcing a religious belief on the population. It is saying "I am catholic and I can determine if you should avoid an act against MY belief". That is not what the constitution states. In fact this is the exact situation it deemed to avoid.

Well said.

joenogop post #24.2

That is not forcing it onto someone else if it isn't taking away their same rights in the process". That is what you wrote. Well let me tell you, common sense tells me this is Gov't forcing a religious belief on the population. It is saying "I am catholic and I can determine if you should avoid an act against MY belief".

And if the Government ruled the opposite it would be the government forcing their moral beliefs that the killing of an innocent human life in a mother's womb is morally acceptable, therefore if you are a pharmacist you are FORCED to be an accomplice to the legally killing of an innocent human life.

All laws reflect the morality of the lawmaker. When a law is codified or made by common law that lawmaker(s)' morality is FORCED upon all the citizens of that governmental jurisdiction. It is an undisputed scientific fact that all human life can trace his or her origin back to fertilization. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that the morning after pill Ella kills the human life in a mother's womb. Therefore, by dispensing a drug that kills an innocent human life the pharmacist is being an accomplice to the legal killing of an innocent human life. Why does the government have the right to FORCE a pharmacist to be an accomplice to a legal killing of an innocent human life? You think the government has that right because you think it is a morally acceptable act. Why do YOU have the right to FORCE YOUR moral values down my throat (and the pharmacist in this case), but I don't have the moral right to force my moral values down your throat?