No

by Ronald Louis Peterson

Created on: July 11, 2009

To a pharmacist who believes that human life begins at conception, the morning after pill is a deadly weapon. Forcing him or her to sell this pill is akin to asking them to sell a gun to a known assassin. On the other hand, the person who buys the morning after pill sees it as a good, practical solution for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Reconciling these two very different views doesn't seem possible. They are black and white, aren't they?

Our society has wrestled for many years with related issues, and how we have dealt with them may help us understand both sides. What is the official time when human life begins? When does someone's moral code take precedence over existing law? What should we consider a human right? What do we do when one person's freedoms and rights infringe on another's? These are really trick questions because their answers have changed over the years, depending on the prevailing powers that be.

For an answer to the first question, an answer not based on political expediency and personal bias, we turn to science. Maureen Condic is a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. She has studied human life extensively and says she knows when human life begins, "The events of the first 24 hours following sperm-egg fusion are clearly unique, but they are also clearly acts of a human organism, not acts of a mere human cell. A new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion." Condic goes on to say, "The central question of 'when does human life begin' can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?" 1

Clearly pharmacists who refuse to dispense the morning after pill agree with Condic's findings, and Condic understands the far reaching implications of her research. "While people are free to formulate their opinion on when human life begins in any manner they choose (including belief and politics), not all opinions are equally consistent with factual reality. Those who choose to ignore the facts cannot expect their opinions to garner as much respect or to be given as much credibility as those who base their opinions in sound scientific observation and analysis." 1

Believe it or not, the U.S. Supreme Court did not even consider it important to determine when human life begins when it legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. It said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of Man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." 2

By doing so, wasn't the Supreme Court really saying human life could begin at conception? But, if that were the case, it was letting mothers kill the lives in their bodies anyway because the court and society didn't know for sure. Borrowing a line from the women's movement, "We've (science) come a long way, baby!" Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court should reconsider its position since at this point in the development of Man's knowledge; we are now in a position to say when human life begins. One would also think that such a determination should prompt the justices to reconsider the court's decision that lets mothers abort their pregnancies for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable."

Science isn't the only thing that has changed since 1973. In May of 2009, a Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans, 60%, believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances, compared to 57% in May 2008. So, the ever shifting political landscape even seems to be moving toward where the life-embracing pharmacists are now.

Despite the evolution in thought with regard to human life that I've mentioned, abortion is legal and so is the "morning after pill." So, aren't pharmacists required to dispense all legal drugs when the purchasers have prescriptions? After all, don't the freedoms and rights of those who want to use the morning after pillhave to be honored? Aren't pharmacists who refuse to sell them the pill denying them their privileges and breaking the law?

We have a long and rich history in America with regard to people who have refused to obey laws because they could not in good conscience abide by them, and we are now the better for it as a society.

In response to those who would not fight in wars based on their personal convictions, the U.S. adopted the following policy: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest." 3 Isn't it ironic that "politics, expediency and self interest" are the driving forces of the pro-choice proponents and "religious, moral and ethical beliefs" are the driving forces of the pro-life proponents?

Slavery ended in Europe and the United States by 1888 because people with strong religious and moral convictions believed it was wrong to keep people in servitude against their will. 4 These abolitionists had to break laws to accomplish their goal. What once was widely accepted is now unimaginable in the civilized world.

We've also made great strides in human and civil rights with regard to women, minorities, and other disenfranchised people - but not without civil disobedience. For example, Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat in 1955 to a white man in Alabama.5 She was arrested and her act of defiance sparked a 381-day bus boycott and the beginning of the civil rights movement in America. And, we are all the better for it.

Fast forward to today and we find the pharmacist - morning after pill debate raging in state legislatures around the country. Some are considering bills that would explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception on moral grounds. Others are considering bills that require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control. 6

Is it possible that the pharmacists who refuse to dispense the morning after pill will one day be considered heroes who helped steer America and the world to a truly higher standard of living? I think so and that is why I say they should not be forced to dispense the "morning after pill." But if they must suffer for acting on their beliefs now, like other crusaders before them, they seem prepared for the consequences and I applaud their sacrifices. This issue is still black and white for many, but a hint of gray is seeping in.

1 http://www.zenit.org/article-24184?l=english

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

4 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570452/abolitionist_movement.html

5 http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/people-timelines/29-rosa-parks-timeline.htm

6 http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=14380

Learn more about this author, Ronald Louis Peterson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.