Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

March 02, 2005

The rules of choice

From LifeNews:

A judge ruled Monday that a pro-life pharmacist in Wisconsin should be reprimanded for refusing to fill a customer's prescription because he believed the drug causes abortions and violates his moral beliefs.

Administrative Law Judge Colleen Baird suggested that pharmacist Neil Noesen have his license restricted for two years for the July 2002 incident, in which he refused to fill the birth control prescription of a University of Wisconsin-Stout student.

Noesen also would not transfer Amanda Phiede's prescription to another pharmacy.

Judge Baird said Wisconsin law prohibits pharmacists from actions that pose a "danger to the health, welfare or safety of a patient or public.''

Let me see if I understand this logic. Government schools can't allow songs about Santa Claus because it might offend an Atheist, even though Santa Claus is not even a religious figure. Employees may not post Bible verses in their work areas lest they offend Atheist employees. People can't even sing Christmas carols in some public parks because some idiot judge somewhere will rule it violates the imaginary Constitutional Amendment against Church and State. But a Pharmacist who has religious objections to birth-control is forced to dispense it regardless of his sincerely held religious beliefs?

Nope, still don't get it -- but then Orwellian bigotry was always hard for me to grasp.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Wisconsin is one of 47 states with a law that allows health care providers to refuse treatment on moral grounds, but pharmacists aren't included in those protections here, according to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Wisconsin was, however, among 19 states that considered measures last year to allow health care entities or providers to refuse on religious grounds to provide contraception or other pharmaceuticals.

NARAL is very insistent that Pharmacists should not have a choice in the matter.

In case you missed that bit of irony, let me repeat it.

NARAL is very insistent that Pharmacists should not have a choice in the matter.

Posted by Jack Lewis at March 2, 2005 10:06 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.