Religion and concience are motivators for living your life, not anyone elses. If the precepts of your faith or philosophy are opposed to taking certain medicines or performing certain activities then I support your decision not to take them or do that yourself. It is when you attempt to push those ideals on others where it crosses the line. The job of a pharmacist is to dispense medication as perscribed by a doctor. Not to preach and attempt to alter the beliefs of their clients. I respect your right to your beliefs and if anyone tries to make you take the Plan B pill I will stand up for your right not to take it. I do not respect your "right" to make other peoples decisions for them using your religion to hold them hostage to your beliefs.

Plan B is not a "chemical equivalent of an abortion," this is incorrect. Plan B is a heavy dose of progesterone, the same effect can be achieved by mega-dosing on birth control pills. It prevents an egg from being fertilized, much like condoms and birth control pills. It is factually incorrect to say it's equivalent to an abortion, anyone that says this is either badly misinformed or purposely lying to distort the facts. Hopefully the author of the article was the former. Logically any pharmacist refusing to dispense Plan B for moral or ethical reasons is completely opposed to birth control and also be refusing to sell birth control pills and condoms. Otherwise they are hypocrites ignoring science and not exactly the kind of people we want dispensing medicine.

According to the "Plan B" website, Plan B can in fact kill a fertilized embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterus, thus being the chemical equivolent of an abortion. Yes, plan b can prevent a pregnancy by preventing the fertilization of an egg, but it can also prevent it by stopping that fertilized egg (a life if you believe that it begins at conception) from taking its due course, thus killing it. This an excerpt from the Plan B website,

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/...

“Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.”

"Although Plan B is not equivalent to an abortion"

Thank you, it's great to hear not all Pro-Lifers are confused by science.

"there are pharmacists who belong to faiths that believe interference with conception is a violation of their faith similar to the fact that there are physicians"

True, Catholics don't believe in using any type of contraception. Theoretically anyway, that's the party line from Rome. I was raised Catholic and know damn well most American Catholics use birth control. The most vocal critics of Plan B aren't Catholics however, but Born Again Christians, who don't have an ethical problem condoms. If a pharmacist is refusing to sell Plan B, but selling condoms, they are a complete hypocrite. And we as health care consumers should be vocal about our health care providers when we feel they have overstepped their role in our lives. I find "forcing someone to perform abortions" vastly different than dispensing birth control to someone, it's seems a bit ludicrous to compare the two as equal.

The question is "do pharmacists have the right to refuse to sell a drug (Emergency Contraception, in this case) for ethical reasons?"
The answer is simple: They are -hired and paid to perform a task-. If they do not want to perform that task, they should not agree to do it. They have to right to find someone who will pay them to do a task that doesn't conflict with their ethical standards. A vegetarian cashier doesn't have the right to keep their job even though they refuse to sell meat products. They have the right to find a job in a vegetarian market.
So the pharmicist is free to find an ethical job.
If a pharmacy does not wish to sell the pill, they have no obligation to do so. They are an independent business, free to sell what goods they like. Like the pharmicist, they have the right to sell items that agree with their ethics.
If a pharmicuticals manufacturer doesn't want to manufacture Emergency Contraception, then they have the right to find something else to manufacture.
This is Capitolism. The basis of our entire socieity, founded on the idea of the free market.

“How dare anyone think they can make a choice that interferes with women being able to have limitless unprotected sex and a red carpet leading to the nearest contraceptive provider.”

I’m sorry, but it takes two to fuck. I know abstinence only sex education gives abysmal misinformation, but if you think women are the only ones involved in procreative acts you need to withdraw from this university. If pregnancy is a concern then obviously the other person the woman is having “limitless unprotected sex” with is male. Where is the mention of the man’s role in this? Or do you think only whores say yes, and they alone must endure the consequences of the choice (assuming consent was given) made by two people?

Furthermore, it only takes one act of sex for fertilization of an egg to occur. Condoms break, oral contraceptive is not 100%. The implication that only “sluts” who do not take safety precautions use Plan B is incredibly offensive.

"But instead of try and discredit me by focusing on a typo"

I don't think it was a typo, you genuinely don't seem to understand the basic science behind what you are so opinionated on. But lets get to the logic in your argument. You are asking us to suspend the legal and medical definitions of Plan B and accept the fringe religious belief that it's "a chemical equivalent of an abortion" because it may very rarely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on a uterus wall. Right? By that logic anything that rarely has the same affect, from food to alcohol to stress to exercise should be attacked with equal religious fervor. But you don't, do you, you hypocritically only attack women's healthcare. Why?

Let's get down to what this issue is about, because it's not about your fringe religious beliefs. It's do pharmacists have a right to refuse to dispense medicine based on their own personal reasons? It actually has nothing to do with Plan B, it could just as easily be a pharmacist saying they refuse to sell medicine to black people based on their personal beliefs. Would this be OK to you?

I tend to be one for minimal government. Let the free market decide, let the American public go after every single one of these pharmacists and try to get them fired. If they are working for an HMO, hospital, public company, private chain, contract with insurance companies, etc. then we should not have to support their religious beliefs with our healthcare dollars. We have a moral and ethical obligation to contact our healthcare providers and say we are absolutely offended if they employ pharmacists that ignore legal and medical definitions in favor of fringe religious beliefs. We should kick these people out of the mainstream healthcare system and not support them with tax or healthcare dollars. Only then will people think twice about trying to force other to live by their religious beliefs. Prolifers don't just want women to use another pharmacist, ultimately they don't want women to even have the choice to use Plan B or have an abortion, they want to make all the choices for us. They want to force everyone to live under their fringe religious belief system. Don't give them an inch.

Pharmacists can set the moral code for their own lives, but not for someone else's. Furthermore, if a particular pharmacist objects to providing a medication prescribed by a doctor, then that pharmacist should find a place to work in which the objectionable medication is not carried. This is the analog to your gun reference, because it is not a particular sales clerk that doesn't sell guns, it's the store that doesn't carry them.
As a side note to your argumentative style, no matter the subject, I think you would find fewer people put off by your columns if you were to be less emotive in your writing. You may very well have strong opinions, and this may be an opinion column, but by making grandiose statements about God and whatnot, you are only taking away from any validity your argument may have.

This is a response to "dan10things"
Let me start by again asking to do something you seem unable to do. Please refrain from refering to an agument as a fringe religious belief? You may have this belief, but it is little more than fluff that really lowers your credibility as an adult who is interested in serious dialogue. Spend your time talking about the science of the matter which you seem to be so focused on but fail to actually address. But nevertheless lets start from the beginnining shall we.
“I don't think it was a typo, you genuinely don't seem to understand the basic science behind what you are so opinionated on.”

As far as the typo, I can’t believe I’m still arguing with you on this. Whatever, believe what you want. Since you seem to champion science so much, while at the same time despising pro-lifers, I’m sure you would be able to explain what – with advanced ultrasound technology – we are seeing growing inside of a woman. Oh, right, its just a lard mass until it hits the light of day or if it is a dialation and extraction procedure then that doesn’t even matter. But since we are talking specifically about plan b, not all birth control as you want to extend the conversation, but plan b, lets continue with that.

“You are asking us to suspend the legal and medical definitions of Plan B and accept the fringe religious belief that it's "a chemical equivalent of an abortion" because it may very rarely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on a uterus wall. Right?”

I’m not asking anyone to suspend the legal and medical definitions of plan b, I simply pointed out what the website itself stated – a fact which you now finally acknowledge but were less than truthfull about before – thankyou. Do we know it is very rare? Perhaps. We may be able to acertain that the odds are low especially considering when the pill is taken. But the fact remains, no one really knows. As this article points out we don’t have the means to determine that an ovum has been fertilized until implantation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

“By that logic anything that rarely has the same affect, from food to alcohol to stress to exercise should be attacked with equal religious fervor. But you don't, do you, you hypocritically only attack women's healthcare. Why?”

This argument is riduculous. As far as I am aware, things that tend to kill human life are generally highly regulated by the FDA and other government agencies. The reason these other things are not a fair comparison is simple. If one follows the recommended serving for alcohol, surgery or fatty foods, or adheres to their doctors recommendation for exercise, the percentage of deaths that can be directly related to these items is next to nill. By contrast, when you take the recommended dose of plan b, there is a reasonable chance that it will take the life of a human embryo, the manufacturer acknowledges such a fact.

“Let's get down to what this issue is about, because it's not about your fringe religious beliefs. It's do pharmacists have a right to refuse to dispense medicine based on their own personal reasons? It actually has nothing to do with Plan B, it could just as easily be a pharmacist saying they refuse to sell medicine to black people based on their personal beliefs. Would this be OK to you?”

Again I’m laughing. How does refusing to dispense a pill that could cause the loss of human life have anything to do with racism? You liberals sure do like to bring race into everything. This is a very specific argument - about a very specific pill - that I’m making. The slippery slope argument does not apply here because I am not saying that pharmicists should be able to deny just any pill for any reason.

“We have a moral and ethical obligation to contact our healthcare providers and say we are absolutely offended if they employ pharmacists that ignore legal and medical definitions in favor of fringe religious beliefs.”

Again, no one is ignoring legal and medical definitions in favor of a “fringe” religious belief. It is actuall the definition on the product websit.

“We should kick these people out of the mainstream healthcare about trying to force other to live by their religious beliefs. Prolifers don't just want women to use another pharmacist, ultimately they don't want women to even have the choice to use Plan B or have an abortion, they want to make all the choices for us. They want to force everyone to live under their fringe religious belief system. Don't give them an inch.”

Hmm. How about those that have no standard for the taking of human life are trying to force those that do to forfeit their ethics even though women that really need this pill have ample access to it. You could even have a database that shows which pharmacies had the pill and if they had pharmacists working there to distribute it.

As far as choice goes, you are right I don’t want anyone to have the choice of taking another human being. This is not women’s health care, it’s the killing of human life.