Politics, News & Issues >
Politics, News & Issues (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould pharmacists be forced to violate religious beliefs by selling the morning after pill?
Results so far:
| No | 41% | 408 votes | Total: 988 votes | |
| Yes | 59% | 580 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesNo.
Why not?
Because, (quote): "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Repeat quote: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"!
(Repeating United States Constitution, Amendment 1, free exercise clause).
In fact if you actually read The United States Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment with reference to religion, specifically where it says "the free exercise thereof" (instead of excluding "the free exercise thereof" as is the practice of both the misleading and the misled who follow them), you will see a number of things which will now be pointed out.
First of all, if you actually read the 1st Amendment then you will notice that "Free exercise thereof" (of religion) is stated without exception; it is therefore likewise every bit as much of a Constitutional right as any other without exception, and thus it is also obviously every bit as Constitutionally guaranteed and protected without exception as are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, etc, against violation or "abridging" (depriving, reducing in scope, diminishing). To wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Thus, if you actually read the 1st Amendment, then you should see it is obvious that any law/regulation to force pharmacists to violate religious beliefs by selling "the morning after pill" is in blatant, direct, and obvious violation of 1st Amendment "free exercise thereof (of religion)".
Of course you may also notice that the misleading and the misled insist as if (quote) "separation of church and state" is specifically stated in the 1st Amendment, but the fact is that (quote) "separation of church and state" is not so stated in the 1st Amendment, as is now shown by both this article and the 1st Amendment shared in this article.
Yes, the phrase "separation of church and state" is a phrase used by one of our Founding Fathers, but no, it is not in the 1st Amendment. The fact is (quote) "separation of church and state" was a personal expression of general observation shared by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter he wrote, and which I will now share here insofar as it relates with the 1st Amendment guarantee and protection of "the free exercise thereof (of religion). (Quote): "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state".
Thus, as shown by that excerpt from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and the 1st Amendment, "separation of church and state" is not anywhere in the 1st Amendment but is instead in a personal letter addressed to a religious group by Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed let's take another look at the 1st Amendment insofar as it applies to the question at hand. (Quote): Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In "modern" terms that translates to: "Congress shall make no law to establish any one particular religion as The State/National Religion', or act in any way against any citizen's religion and their exercise thereof".
The fact is that the 1st Amendment is a reaction against a number of things, such as the following: "The Old World" practice of such as declaring any one religion as "The State/National Religion"; the "Old World" practice of making the King (or Queen) "The head of the State/National church (or religion)", and the Old World practice of national "Rulers" and/or governments ruling or passing laws in favor of any citizen or groups against any other citizen or groups wanting to freely exercise their religion, and/or against any expression of any spiritual sentiment, including the use of any religious symbols.
So the 1st Amendment, including the "free exercise (of religion)" clause, is our Constitutional guarantee and protection against all attitudes and actions which would seek to abridge (deprive, reduce in scope, diminish) the 1st Amendment rights of any citizen to freely exercise their religion (religious beliefs), either for or against any citizen or group as opposed to any other. So now guess what that means? As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, it means that any effort, law/regulation to force any pharmacist to violate his or her religious beliefs by selling "the morning after pill" is a blatant, direct, and obvious violation of 1st Amendment "free exercise thereof (of religion)", and is therefore quite obviously Unconstitutional.
Of course now comes the question (quote): "But if we (any individual or group as opposed to any other) don't seek any laws/regulations to force any pharmacist to violate his or her religious beliefs by selling the morning after pill', (in direct violation of their Constitutional 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion), then how is anybody in the U.S. ever going to get the morning after pill'?"
First, do you realize how divorced from reality that question is, as if all, or even most pharmacists all have all the same religious beliefs which they would all violate if they all sold "the morning after pill", and as if they would all therefore refuse to sell it?
Do you realize how divorced from reality that question is as if nearly all pharmacists don't already sell "birth control" (which includes "the morning after pill") anyway, because it is, after all, "birth control")? Let's hope your answer is "Yes, (you) realize that"!
Next, do you realize that it is, at the very least, extremely probable that virtually all the pharmacists would indeed sell "the morning after pill" anyway, even regardless of religion, either because they would simply consider selling it as integral to somehow preventing "undo hardship or suffering", and/or because (just like members of Congress and Presidents who are expected to act regardless of religion, and do so) they would simply consider selling it is a part of their job? Again, let's hope you're answer is "Yes"!
So now do you realize yet that we must neither seek nor allow any such law/regulation as would violate anybody's Constitutional 1st Amendment rights, including the (quote) "free exercise thereof (religion)", lest we thereby also make it "ok" to violate any or all of any U.S. citizen's Constitutional rights? Again, let's hope you're answer is "Yes"!
So the answer to this question is no, pharmacists should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs by selling "the morning after pill", since any such law/regulation to force them to do so would be in blatant, direct, and obvious violation of 1st Amendment "free exercise thereof (of religion)", and the principle of "separation of church and state" as stated by Thomas Jefferson.
Learn more about this author, Thomas Edison Jefferson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Pharmacists, religious beliefs, and the raging debate over the morning after pill.
This is clearly an issue that has become quite controversial recently as some people have been shocked to encounter pharmacists who for 'religious' beliefs or 'personal' beliefs refuse to dispense such medication. I have even heard of a few that outright attack the customer for asking for the medication.
I think a lot of these pharmacists are exploiting a little known, but relevant law that exists to protect the pharmacist legally and the pharmacy as well. Working part time as a pharmacy technician I have on occasion worked with pharmacists who have refused to fill or sell certain prescriptions but most of these cases involve a clearly fake prescription for a controlled drug. Obviously in this case as one pharmacist put it to me, denying to fill a controlled prescription that may be fake or for whom may go to a drug addicted individual not only protects the pharmacist, staff, and doctor legally if something should go wrong but also protects a possible drug addict from themselves. Also the DEA expects pharmacists to be on the look out for fake prescriptions and to deny them. Some pharmacists tell the patients outright that it is fake, others destroy it, and most just tell them to go elsewhere.
Now that legal protection makes sense, but in the case of the morning after pill and also of birth control this legal protection is exploited by those refusing to sell these two medications. The pharmacist will argue that since legally they are able to refuse to dispense any drug or fill any medication based on valid reasons, that they can also do the same if filling the drug violates their own beliefs. Clearly denying someone else medication because you belief it is wrong to be using is not covered under this law and can even come back and hit the pharmacist with a denial of care situation.
So it is not 'forcing' a pharmacist to violate beliefs, it is teaching these individuals that when they step behind the counter they have a legal and job based responsibility to provide service and care to all of their customers regardless of how they may personally feel. A pharmacist like any professional in a job serving the public and society needs to accept that when working for a company for a salary, their beliefs do not come into play in the daily operations of that company. If a pharmacist feels their beliefs are being compromised they are more then welcome to claim a conflict of interest and find another job.
There is also a concern of if a private pharmacy (non-corporate) should be allowed to deny access to this medication. This is a tricky thing to determine as most private community pharmacies are owned and operated by a pharmacist who can make decisions for this pharmacy on their own and have the right to do so. In their case I'd say if they felt strongly about not selling this medication they'd do best to simply not carry it although in the name of patient care they have a responsibility to refer the individual to a pharmacy that may carry the medication.
This pretty much sums it up from a pharmacy and legal perspective. If a pharmacist works at a chain or corporate owned pharmacy they must check their beliefs at the door and dispense medications as per the law and their employer's wishes. A pharmacist who owns their own pharmacy can choose to not carry a product or service but denial of care based on religion doesn't fly here either and they have a professional responsibility to tell the patient where they can secure the needed medication. Simply put if the pharmacist has the medication available and the patient has the needed prescription (or meets the age requirement to purchase) then it is their professional and in their job description to make the medication available regardless of personal, religious, or any other beliefs that do not apply in the workplace.
Learn more about this author, Maxwell Payne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics, News & Issues (Other)
- Do the rich pay their fair share in taxes?
- Can democracy survive in a politically correct world?
- Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?
- Should children under 13 have a separate seating in airplanes to prevent them from seeing violent movie images?
- Should mines be subject to stricter safety standards and more rigorous inspections?
- Sponsors have dropped him. The governing body of his sport has disciplined him. Is Michael Phelps being treated fairly in the wake of his marijuana photo scandal?
