So much for "choice" in Illinois
KSDK reported last night that Walgreens suspended four IL pharmacists without pay November 28 for refusing to dispense the morning after pill. Walgreens said it was forced to take this "drastic action" due to "a new law relating to this type of emergency contraceptive."
Not remarkably, the mainstream media obfuscated what really happened: Earlier this year, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, during a fit of legislative fiatitis, issued an executive order mandating that IL pharmacists dole out these sometimes abortion-causing pills whether or not they had moral or religious misgivings.
Those advocating abortion "choice" want it one way. They want mothers to have the "choice" to abort their babies but don't want health care providers to have the "choice" not to participate.
Aside from social politics, fiscal politics are also impacted here. The Associated Press reported recently on the national shortage of pharmacists. In a state already known for its chilly business climate, IL stands to repel not only pharmacists but small-town pharmacies by this law. Walgreens' action yesterday is merely a forecast of the fall-out.
Go to www.jillstanek.com for more information on the morning after pill, which is also untested and potentially dangerous, btw.
31 comments:
What hooey! The Governor did something right for a change and now he gets criticism. What next, can pharmacists refuse to give pain pills if they feel the patient is not in pain? Can they refuse alka-seltzer to people who drink? Maybe they should stop selling candy bars to fat folks! If a doctor prescribes medication then the druggist should dispense it and keep out of other folks business.
I agree with the first poster. Abortion is a contentious issue but one that should only extend to an individual. If you do not want to have an 'abortion' then don't but if someone else does and it is your job to dispense a legal medicine then I do not believe you should have any right to deny them based on your personal beliefs. I know others will not agree.
pek, how would stores choosing not to stock an OTC pill be any different from a pharmacist choosing not to dispense it? In both cases, the ability of the woman to obtain the drug is hindered….why does it make a difference whether it is the store owner or the pharmacist who makes the decision?
The drug would be OTC if the FDA wasn't taking orders from religious crazies. I personally believe that abortion should only be legal for rapes and cases where the life of the mother in danger, but I am also 100% behind access to Plan B, because it frankly is not an abortion as it does not destroy a fertilized egg (preventing implantation is not destruction, something like stem cell research is, which is why I oppose it).
Nothing makes me sicker than pro-Life people who are anti-liberty when it comes to contraception. I have no problem whatsoever with consenting adults ahving as much sex as they want, and I think that contraception should be easily available to all of them. In fact, supporting contraception is a part of my pro-Life mindset as using contraception prevents the need for abortions.
You are wrong. The research so far shows that this pill works as a contraceptive only. Seems to me you should be up on your reading before spouting off here.
Anon 10:44, perhaps you could help Jill get up on her reading by actually citing the research you are talking about?
Anon 10:40, I too have no problem whatsoever with consenting adults ahving as much sex as they want, and I think that contraception should be easily available to all of them. And it is: Condoms are available in every drug/grocery/super store, as well as most bar and airport restrooms. And birth control pills are covered by insurance in IL.
pek, the FDA issued a Not Approvable letter regarding the advisory committee's recommendation because "the supplemental application did not meet the criteria for approval in that it did not demonstrate that Plan B could be used safely by young adolescent women for emergency contraception without the professional supervision of a licensed practitioner." Now, you can believe that this was the influence of "religious crazies" if you want, but consider that even during the Clinton administration, the FDA never approved regular birth control pills for OTC use.....and since Plan B is an even more powerful drug, I don't think it's hard to believe that the FDA is opposing OTC availablity on medical, not moral, grounds.
A pharmacist shortage? Stanek has hit a new low with that one. When you have no real argument, you toss out something like that. Great, four Illinois pharmacists are going to move to Utah. I think we can handle that loss. Further, she is worried because the drug might stop implantation? Next thing, Stanek is going to come up with A Reasonable Plan to Stop Masturbation, since every little sperm MIGHT become a baby. You have to draw a line somewhere, and Plan B looks pretty reasonable to me.
I frankly don't see how making implantation less likely is an abortion when something like 40% of all fertilized eggs don't implant properly or at all naturally (which raises the interesting question of whether close to a majority of souls in heaven are from non-implanted eggs. Hmmm...)
The state mandates a pharmancy to have on hand a supply of MAP, who pays for the pills after their shelf life is expired. that is assuming all the MAP are not sold before expiration? this is just another unfundated mandate that is pushed on the business community.
You people are missing the point. Stop for a minute and ask yourself how many pharmacies are located within a 15-minute drive of you right now. Unless you're in one of the more-agrarian locales, the answer is greater than one. And, most pharmacies have more than one pharmacist. SO, if an occasional pharmacist feels it's against their moral standard of conduct to dispense a product, regardless of what it does, then they should be free to do that. Where's the tolerance for diversity here? Why do we need to drive off perfectly good pharmacists just because of their religious beliefs? I really dislike the hypocrisy from the morally-bankrupt lefties. You guys need to reset your compass.
skeeter, why don't you read the AP article that Jill linked to. I don't agree with everything that Jill says or believes, but I find it interesting that while she has cited actual studies and articles, you and the other posters have referenced unverified "facts" and unspecified "research", and/or ridiculed her. If her facts are wrong, prove it. If her ideas are illogical, argue against them. But let’s not draw conclusions about the “next thing” you think she’ll say, or dismiss her points (which she actually backs up with links to AP stories) as a “new low.”
It didn’t seem to take many of you long to forget the point of this new blog. Argue the facts, or go home
GOP, how about using logic? Even if you accept a national shortage of pharmacists, how many do you really believe are going to leave because of the law? If you are going to talk about "facts" then argue facts.
Regarding the "next thing": Yes, that is the next thing under her logic. Anything that may potentially become life must be protected, she argued. She claimed that preventing implantation is the same as an abortion. That is her argument, not mine. If she really does believe that, then I am shocked she had not already addressed the issue I presented. Every sperm may potentially become life. Let's protect and preserve all life, right Jill and right GOP? That is reasonable, right?
This almost isn't even worth commenting on because Stanek's so completely misguided. For the life of me, I will never understand why people who say they want to stop abortions seem to work so hard to fight a drug that does just that. Emergency contraception reduces the number of abortions by reducing the possibility of pregnancy.No one consciously says "gee, I think I'll get pregnant and have an abortion." Emergency contraception prevents women from having to even consider making that agonizing choice.
Abortions are at an all time low and it's not because people are refraining from sex--take a look at the clothes teenagers wear and you'll know they're not exactly just playing chess.
Pharmacists dispense medications. They can personally disagree with a woman's right to choose abortion, but they can't refuse to give someone a prescription. What's next?? Refusing to give AIDS patients their drugs bcuz they may be homosexual? Refusing to give diabetics needles because they should learn to control their diets?
That's hypocritical, anon 3:27. You don't get it: the issue is not about keeping someone from getting a pill, it's about forcing someone to do something they feel is wrong.
It's about discipling professionals for exercising their personal freedom of religion. Freedom of religion IS in the Constituion. Freedom to not have to drive an extra 10 minutes is NOT.
You rant about the choices these women have, yet take away the choice these pharmacists want. Why is one more powerful than the other?
Skeeter, are you really using the slippery slope argument? I mean, really? You need to sit in the corner for a while, because you just used the same sort of extremist “logic” that leads some to claim that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest, and bestiality.
Now, if you want to get hyper-technical about logic, let’s see what’s actually going on here. Jill is saying that anything that prevents a 5-9 day old embryo, that otherwise would have attached to the wall of the uterus, from doing so, is an abortion. I don’t know if I completely agree with that 100%, but I can see why she does. Andy reasonable person can see that is a pretty far cry from the conclusion that you claim to be the next step in her logic.
So please, can the slippery slope, because it’s a dumb argument. It’s dumb when conservatives use it, and its dumb when you use it.
Now, would you care to debate the real issues and facts, or would you like to expound upon the criminalizing of wet dreams, the next step in your ridiculous interpretation of Jill’s logic?
Anon 3:38 makes a reasonable point. This is a conflict of freedoms, just as the entire abortion debate is.
In the abortion debate, the pro-life side is not out to reduce the freedom’s of women, they are out to promote to freedom (to live) of unborn children. You can take sides if you want and must, but it is disingenuous to claim that the pro-lifers are anti-freedom.
Similarly, the rights of professionals to make moral choices may or may not be as important to you as the rights of women to access a particular drug. This is the great, but often overlooked conflict of American democracy: what do we do when the rights of one person are in conflict with the rights of another?
Anon 3:38, you are missing the point...pharmacists CHOSE their professions. And in choosing to be pharacists, they have the duty to do their job which is dispensing drugs prescribed by doctors, not to judge customers and refuse to dispense legal prescriptions. Their personal beliefs and opinions belong outside the pharmacy. If they do not agree with the job description, then they should find another job.
GOP: I am not using a slipperly slope argument at all. I am simply looking at what Stanek is proposing, the basis for that proposal, and the reasonable implications. If the outcome is extreme, blame Stanek. Don't blame me.
Stanek is claiming that to prevent implantation is the equivalent of an abortion.
Is that correct? Is that her argument?
If you accept that argument, then you must realize that not all fertilized eggs implant. That is just a fact.
As a result, what she is trying to protect is not life itself, but the potential for life. After all, there was no guarantee that there would be an implantation, and further, no guarantee that even if there was an implantation, that you would have a life birth.
Potential is what she wants to protect.
As a result, her real plan, and the plan that I supposed she had, are remarkably similar. In both, it is the potential for life that is being protected.
Both, of course, are equally
outrageous as I have made clear.
Anon 4:10, I think you're mistaken. Nowhere in the Phamacists Code of Ethics (search www.aphanet.org) does it say anything about a duty to dispense.
You're right that pharmacists chose their profession. They also chose their system of beliefs.
The state is forcing them to choose between their established careers and their religion.
In a state where there are so many choices, taking away this choice is wrong. We expect these professionals to act with moral obligations and responsibility with regard to privacy, quality, and competence. How can we force them to choose to ignore their personal morality, yet maintain this professional morality?
Why discard such principled professionals, when we have a shortage already?
This regulation by the governor is nothing more than a weak attempt to gain political capital at the expense of these individuals. How sad is that?
Skeeter, yes you are using the slippery slope argument, but let’s put that aside for now.
You are right, Jill is saying that to prevent implantation is the equivalent of an abortion, IF it is done intentionally. And yes, I realize that not all fertilized eggs implant. But not all pregnancies are carried to birth – some end in miscarriage. There is, however, an undeniable ethical difference between an egg not implanting on its own and someone injesting a drug to specifically make that happen, just as there is an ethical difference between a mother having a miscarriage and a doctor performing an abortion.
But, to a certain extent, you are right: what she is trying to protect is not life itself, but the potential for life. But the sperm that results from masturbation has NO potential for life, and thus destroying that is not destroying the potential for life……so, no, Jill’s plan and your assumed plan are NOT remarkably similar. The difference is in the fact that the former concerns a situation in which a pregnancy is a REAL possibility, and the later does not. This is a significant difference, that, if you weren’t simply trying to be glib and insulting to Jill, you might understand.
GOP: So now the question is intentionally taking potential for life and preventing it?
Your statement: "You are right, Jill is saying that to prevent implantation is the equivalent of an abortion, IF it is done intentionally" sure seems to suggest that new test.
Is that really your new standard or am I mistaken as to your position?
Are you claiming that intentional action to prevent pregnancy is the same as abortion?
I am unclear as to how sperm has no potential for life. As in your scenario, under proper circumstances it may become life. It does have that potential, just as an egg that has not been implanted is merely potential. Both are just a step along the way.
Your new statement is about as extreme as any I've seen. Intentionally preventing implantation is the test? Condoms do that pretty effectively, don't they? Are you going to ban them?
If you want to take an extreme position, you should embrace it. Tell everybody about your great plans to end all birth control. If you are going to make extreme statements, embrace the natural consequence.
I'm a simple man, but it seems to me that if you are a "pharmacist" your job is to fill a doctor's perscriptions. If you can't or won't do that job, you are not a "pharmacist", and you shouldn't be occupying the position that could be filled by an actual "pharmacist".
To continue employing such a person would be like hiring a fellow to do pest-control who's "sincerely held religious beliefs" forbid him from harming insects and vermin. That's the job and if you won't do that -- you're fired.
Skeeter:
To amend the statement of mine you quoted back, it should say implantation of the embryo.... which is not created when a condom is used or during masturbation - and thus would not be considered abortion under that logic.
But, that is beside the point, because I don't completely agree with Jill, as I have made clear. I have no plan nor desire to end all or any birth control, so I'll kindly ask you to retract the last sentence of your last post.... I’d prefer not to be attacked for a position that I do not hold
I have simply been trying to expose your argument as a ridiculous and glib slippery slope and prove that - even if it was to be taken seriously - your hypothetical conclusions are NOT the logical extensions of Jill's. It’s obvious now that continuing to do so would be a waste of time, because you have no interest in anything other than making more distortions and false presumptions.
In conclusion, argue the points that Jill (or whoever) is making, not what you want to frighten people into think their points are. Otherwise, you are rhetorically no better than the extremists that you detest.
GOP: If you want to support a statement, then you must support the full implications of a statment. That is not glib. That is reality. Jill's position has an extreme reality. I suspect that she would admit that she wants to ban all forms of birth control. It is consistent with every position she has taken.
If you accept her premise on Plan B [the protection of potential life], then you must accept the full implications.
If you are going to defend potential life, then defend it. Otherwise do the smart thing and abandon your position.
cosgrove
You are out in left field as usual.
People have been starving on this earth for centuries. Long before we began killing the 46 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade. Not a wise comparison
Besides, we have created one government program after another in this country to ward off poverty and what do we have to show for it... more poverty!
Killing a baby is exactly what it is...killing a baby. Don't try and make it into something its not. Bet you thank God everyday that your mom was pro-life.
Anon 11:02: Are you really claiming that preventing implantation is the same as killing a child?
There's a problem in my opinion with comparing natural non-implantation and Plan B to miscarriages and abortions. People actively try to do things to prevent miscarriages and doing things that increase the chance of miscarriage (ie drinking or drug use during pregnancy) are seen as morally wrong. However, there is no moral problem with letting an egg not implant, because if there was, then the moral thing to do would be to use all the technology available to us to ensure that naturally fertilized eggs naturally implant. Of course this would be unreasonable, and there is a clear difference between preventing implantation (not morally wrong) and abortion (morally wrong unless the mother's life is in danger, in which case it is self-defense).
Read what pro-life columnist Steve Chapman had to say:
>>The best scientific evidence we have indicates that the morning-after pill serves to block fertilization, while having no effect on implantation. That makes it contraception, not abortion.
>>As a longtime pro-lifer, I think anti-abortion groups had solid grounds to oppose the morning-after pill when its function was unclear--as I did. But given what we now know, it's a grave mistake to keep opposing it. In fact, there are grounds for celebration: A drug once believed to produce abortion is found to prevent abortion.>>
This is nothing but a strawman argument. IF the pharmacists were people of conscience, then they would not be in a job that tested their faith. People of conscience do not work as strippers, for example, and Christianity has a long tradition of avoiding jobs that test people's faith. The moment that the law or company required them to do something contrary to their faith, they should have resigned.
The FACT is that these pharmacists are clearly NOT people of faith! Maybe they are "prosperity Christians" who believe they deserve to be rich without temptation. But they certainly are not people of faith!
When pharmacists went thru 6 years of grueling studies so that they can be a benefit to society, they weren't taught that, "Hey, in 5,10, or 20 years you will be asked to do something immoral or against your religious beliefs, because some new drug we don't know of yet will surely be invented." Instead, we are taught that we have a duty to the health and well being of our patients. The little child that the mother chooses to kill is our patient as well. As a pharmacist I have a DUTY to refuse to fill any prescription that I feel may be of harm to my patients. If you only knew how many times we pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions by doctors who blatantly make the worst kind of errors (wrong dose, wrong drug, drug interactions, etc.) and how many lives we save by refusing to fill them. In addition, by law we HAVE to refuse legitimate prescriptions written for pain meds to known abusers, or WE are found liable! Up until this year the pharmacist always had a right to our conscience where if we didn't feel comfortable filling a presciption, we didn't have to. Walgreens is right across the street, so by not filling a Plan B rx I am not prohibiting anyone from getting what they want. It would be different if I tore up the rx and then the patient had no choice. But if I just refer the patient elsewhere, what is wrong with this?
And, as far as the mechanism of action of the drug, the package insert of the drug itself from the manufacturer states that if fertilization has occurred, then the embryo would be prevented from implantation. If you hold the belief that life begins at conception, then an abortion has occurred. This is why Plan B is such a hot topic. I also think it very ignorant for someone to say, hey if the law has changed and you don't like it...get another job. If someone went thru an intense education to do a certain job and is supporting a family you expect them to just get another job? What sort of job would you suggest as an alternative??
Post a Comment