by Dorothy Jo Bourbeau

Created on: June 03, 2008

According to the Mayo Clinic the morning after pill and the abortion pill are two different pills. The morning after pill is designed to keep a woman from getting pregnant and will not work if she is already pregnant. Therefore there should be no dilemma for the pharmacist to face. He is not helping the woman end a pregnancy by giving her the morning after pill. There is no question as to whether the fetus is mature enough to be considered a living person because there is no fetus.

A pharmacist does not have all the facts concerning why a patient is asking for the morning after pill. He does not know if she was simply careless or the victim of rape. He does not know if getting pregnant would endanger her life. By refusing to allow a patient to purchase medication, any medication, he is putting himself on a level that no one other than God has a right to be on.

If a pharmacist is allowed to refuse to sell the morning after pill, will he also be allowed to refuse to sell any product that he feels violates his religious beliefs? Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to sell condoms or birth control pills because his religion does not condone birth control?

There are cases in which birth control pills have been prescribed for reasons other than birth control. Many women suffer unbearable cramps every month, birth control pills have been used to treat these cramps. Should these women have to suffer every month because the pharmacist does not believe in dispensing birth control pills?

Where should we draw the line? At what point do we allow personal beliefs to supersede medical treatment? When do the beliefs of the pharmacist take precedence over the beliefs of the patient? What makes his beliefs more valid than hers?

I am not suggesting that the federal or even state government get involved, but I do feel that a pharmacist should be held to disciplinary actions for refusing to sell this or any other product. He must not be allowed to force his religious beliefs on others.

This country was built on the concept of religious freedom. People came here to escape having the beliefs of others forced on them. Though not specifically stated in the Constitution, the founding fathers did make it clear that there was to be a separation between Church and State. They did this so no ones religious beliefs would interfere with the rights of others. Are we now going to regress to a state where the beliefs of a few dictate what can and can not be done? If so we need to prepare for war on the home front because the next step is another revolution.

Learn more about this author, Dorothy Jo Bourbeau.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.