# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/61 "2011-05-14T20:39:30Z")
Dunno. I have started refering to it as the “Ninny State.” Eg, all of those up in arms about the so-called “Nanny State” are perfectly happy to be hypocites and be a buncha whining ninnies making intrusive laws that violate common sense at a minimum. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/62 "2011-05-14T21:28:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It would mean that they aren’t “progressive,” as you claimed. It also mean they support takinmg at least one important right away from women, which is not exactly PRO-woman. If I believed to the best of my ability that abortion is murder, I would not particularly care if it was Woman whose rights were being impinged on to prevent murder. I would see no difference between preventing abortion and preventing a mother from killing a baby after it was born. It’s anti-women by effect, but not by cause. Again, I personally think it’s nonsense, but there are people who are not evil or anti-women who feel that way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/63 "2011-05-14T22:05:51Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > If I believed to the best of my ability that abortion is murder, I would not particularly care if it was Woman whose rights were being impinged on to prevent murder. I would see no difference between preventing abortion and preventing a mother from killing a baby after it was born. It’s anti-women by effect, but not by cause. Again, I personally think it’s nonsense, but there are people who are not evil or anti-women who feel that way. That’s a religious belief. It doesn’t matter how strongly they believe it. If they want to legislate it, then they are trying to force women to adhere to their own personal religious beliefs. That’s theocratic and regressive, not progressive. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/64 "2011-05-14T23:00:34Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > You can’t possibly say that anyone who is anti-abortion from the belief that human life begins at conception are really against it because they want to persecute women. Whether they want to persecute women or grow the world population or appease the Tyscotsalb, the vengeful arm-budded and legless embryo god of their religion isn’t of much consequence. What matters is the end result of their advocacy for their beliefs. > [@needscoffee](#): > > I agree that the effect is to persecute women. And that some people are quite happy to have that effect. But that’s not what’s motivating a lot of the people who believe that human life begins at conception. If I’m trying to give you a hug and I step on your foot in my steel-toed stompy workboots, does it hurt less because I was trying to do something nice for you? Motivation isn’t all that relevant. When something bad happens, it isn’t made any less bad or any less real because there’s an alleged good intention behind it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/65 "2011-05-14T23:18:07Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > If I’m trying to give you a hug and I step on your foot in my steel-toed stompy workboots, does it hurt less because I was trying to do something nice for you? And it becomes less and less plausible that you _really_ mean to do “something nice” when you leave person after person behind you with broken footbones. Actions speak louder than words, and for all that the anti-abortionists _claim_ benevolent motives, their _actions_ cause nothing but suffering and death. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/66 "2011-05-14T23:32:16Z")
I don’t get all of this “pro-life=anti-woman” comparisons. Look at an anti-abortion rally. Most of the people there are women. Do they hate themselves? And what is this complete non-sequiter about providing for children after they are born? Why is that a necessary condition to be against abortion if you think it is murder? In other words, I would be opposed to the legal murder of my neighbor. That doesn’t mean I’m going to make his mortgage payment this month. Why does it follow that being against abortion means that you should take the financial burden of raising someone else’s child? I don’t see anything inconsistent with the idea of “Look, you got pregnant. Now it is time to take responsibility for the child that you have created. Give it up for adoption or raise it right.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/67 "2011-05-15T02:40:29Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t get all of this “pro-life=anti-woman” comparisons. Look at an anti-abortion rally. Most of the people there are women. Do they hate themselves? yes, pretty much. the most vicious expressions of religious misogyny are usually perpetuated by women more than men. > [@](#): > > And what is this complete non-sequiter about providing for children after they are born? Why is that a necessary condition to be against abortion if you think it is murder? If they don’t give a fuck about these babies after they’re born, then they’re lying when they say they give a fuck before they’re born. Those two attitudes don’t add up. If they’re all for letting born babies starve to death, then they have zero credibility when they wail and bawl about the fate of a clump of insentient tissue or an egg with some jizz on it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/68 "2011-05-15T03:05:56Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Some people around here seem to think that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to dispense legally prescribed drugs because of their morals. They don’t think the law should be able to force a medical professional to do something that goes against their beliefs. > > So I’m sure all these same people will agree with me that doctors should be allowed to ignore the new Indiana law that states that abortion doctors have to tell their patients demonstrably false information, like that life begins at fertilization and that a fetus can feel pain. After all, if informing a patient of these things violates a doctor’s beliefs, the doctor should be free to decline to give out that information, just like the pharmacist is free to decline to fill prescriptions, right? Well, I can’t speak for everyone but I used to think that a pharmacist should be able to follow their conscience and refrain from an action but others on the other side convinced me that the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS) seems to permit the states to determine whether pharmacists should follow their conscience and I suppose the same goes for doctors. However, absent that SCOTUS precedent, I would say pharmacists should not be forced to carry and sell drugs they don’t want to sell. However the state always has a right to regulate how services that are being provided will be provided. This clearly includes a consultation requirement before abortion. I don’t think you can force a doctor to disseminate false information or even force them to subscribe to a dogma such as when life begins but fetuses start feeling pain some time during their second trimester and I think you can force doctors who are about to provide abortions to people in their second or third trimester of that fact. I think you can force doctors to provide information about adoption. But absent Constitutional defect, states can regulate. I even remember telling the pro-choice crowd that they were being penny wise and pound foolish because their support for the notion that states can do this sort of thing will work against them one day and it appears that day has come. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/69 "2011-05-15T03:08:46Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I disagree , but if he does not want to sell some prescriptions he should be mandated to put a large sign of his front window stating which drugs he will decide you can have. > Why should you go to the pharmacist hand him prescriptions and he will leaf through them and say’ I will fill this one, not this one and no not this one either." Well, a state can certainly pass that law and it would be just as valid a regulation of how services are provided as telling doctors that every abortion must be preceded by a consultation. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/70 "2011-05-15T03:19:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Emegency contraception is not an abortifacient. These phrmacists are just retards who don’t know what the drug does. The person you are responding to mentions abortifacients and then you say that “this thing that is not an abortifacient is in fact not an abortifcient, stupid pharmacists” I’m pretty sure the pharmacists know better than you do. The pharmacists that object to this aren’t your garden variety, “abortion is evil” type of pro-lifer. They think life begins when a sperm touches an egg, so preventing a zygote from implanting is killing that zygote. For these folks, if you harvest 15 eggs and pick three of the fertilized eggs for implantation and destroy the rest, you have committed 12 murders. Its fucking weird but they seem to be sincere in their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/71 "2011-05-15T03:23:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m one of those people who thinks the pharmacist should be legally free to refuse to provide abortifacients. It’s been a while since I’ve taken a biology class, but is it demonstrably false that life begins at conception? … Yes, it is demonstrably false. Both the sperm and the egg are alive before conception. No new life begins at that moment. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/72 "2011-05-15T03:23:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course it is. Life began billions of years ago. Sperm and eggs are just as alive as a fertilized egg. a sperm and an egg are gametes and are not capable of ever being anything other than a sperm or egg. The fertilized egg is alive in ways that a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg is not alive. > [@](#): > > So basically he has no choice but to violate his professional ethics either way. Either lie to her, or abandon her to her fate. I don’t think they can force him to lie but they can force him to disseminate info. Perhaps a link to the law would clear up how much the state is requiring him to lie. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/73 "2011-05-15T03:27:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s a religious belief. It doesn’t matter how strongly they believe it. If they want to legislate it, then they are trying to force women to adhere to their own personal religious beliefs. That’s theocratic and regressive, not progressive. While some religions believe that human life begins at conception, plenty of people who believe that do so all by themselves, not because it’s a religious belief. It’s not a far-fetched belief. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/74 "2011-05-15T03:32:01Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > There’s a stunning hypocrisy in people suggesting that pharmacists should be able to make a personal decision, informed by their _morals_, about what drugs a customer should be able to take, which is what the root of those “conscience” refusals is, I think its about what drugs they should be forced to dispense. Their refusal to dispense the drug does not equal someone’s inability to take the drug. > [@](#): > > but doctors cannot make a personal decision, informed by their _medical knowledge_, about how to properly brief a patient and receive a truly informed consent before a procedure. What constitutes informed consent is not a subject of “medical knowledge” Can someone link to the law. Does the law literally say that the doctor must repeat the words “life begins at fertilization”? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/75 "2011-05-15T03:33:16Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy he or she is working at I could see the legal (though not the ethical reason) the law should allow him or her to decide not to fill abortion related persciptions. A business owner should have a reasonable expectation of being able to make whatever decisions they want to make about their business. However, if the pharmist is an employee the situation changes. At that point the pharmacy owner is the one that should be making the decision of whether or not they want to keep the anti-abortion pharmacist on their payrole. Yes, you can fire that zealot but you can’t force the zealot to dispense drugs they find morally repugnant. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/76 "2011-05-15T03:34:21Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I think you’re framing it the wrong way. I base my opposition to the “pharmacy conscience” laws on the fact that “becoming a licensed pharmacist” is the choice that matters, and by making that choice one accepts the professional duties that come along with it. You don’t sign away your conscience when you adopt a profession. > [@](#): > > Certainly the pharmacist can choose to not continue his career (or even acquire his pharmacy degree and license in the first place) at any time. However, it’s been clear for some time that the government and society have an interest in regulating the behavior of people who aspire to certain professional titles. I think its been established that this is up to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/77 "2011-05-15T03:35:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > a sperm and an egg are gametes and are not capable of ever being anything other than a sperm or egg. The fertilized egg is alive in ways that a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg is not alive. By that logic, I’m not alive now since most of the cells of my body are also incapable of being anything but what they are. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think they can force him to lie but they can force him to disseminate info. :rolleyes: When the “info” in question is a lie, then that is forcing them to lie. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/78 "2011-05-15T03:36:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > ‘Pharmacist’ is a privileged profession. You can’t hang up a shingle and start selling pharmaceuticals. Nobody is forced to be a pharmacist. But people who need medications are forced to obtain them from a pharmacist. If the pharmacists moral values come in to play, he could refuse to fill a prescription based on anything. What if he believes arthritis is punishment from God for immoral behavior? Should he refuse to fill a prescription on that basis? Yes and he can suffer the commercial consequences of having that belief. > [@](#): > > There was another thread on this subject, and there are two important points to repeat from there: > > Most pharmacists work for someone else. Why should the government dictate the terms of an employee’s responsibility in this case? If you work for someone else, try going to work and refusing to do your job on moral grounds, then come back and tell us how it worked out. > > How is the government supposed to decide what moral grounds are? If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, the government is your recourse, and then the government must mandate morality in order to resolve the matter. > > My conclusion: If you don’t want to fill prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist. I think most people agreed that you should be able to fire someone for refusing to do their job based on religious beliefs or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/79 "2011-05-15T03:36:33Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > While some religions believe that human life begins at conception, plenty of people who believe that do so all by themselves, not because it’s a religious belief. It’s not a far-fetched belief. If it is not a religious belief, what kind of belief is it? It is not backed up by any verifiable scientific knowledge. Shall we call it non-religious superstition? Do you have a preferred term? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/80 "2011-05-15T03:40:04Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Okay. When I was a security guard, I was asked if I had a problem working a gig at an abortion clinic; I did not. Another gig was holding striking workers back from buses of scabs. No one asked if I had a problem helping defeat the purpose of a labour union, but I said I wouldn’t do it and why, and no problems arose from that either. > > I think both of the laws under discussion in this thread are atrocious and they make me glad I’m not subject to them or my tax money is not going toward supporting them. > > Works for me. Both matters concern a patient and her doctor and are no one else’s business. At all. So you think its OK that you can tell your boss, no I won’t protect scabs but a pharmacist cannot stand on her beliefs? And they’re regulations not programs. No money goes towards them at all except perhaps in the form of enforcement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=5)