# Pharmacy and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859 "2010-03-26T10:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/341 "2010-03-31T19:38:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So you’d be okay with a pharmacist denying a therapeutic prescription on the grounds that it would also work as a contraceptive? > [@begbert2](#): > > In which case we have a pharmacist putting his religious aversion to _potentially_ facilitating the contraception or early abortion of a fetus above the health and safety of those customers who might have have the prescription for serious non-contraceptive reasons, right? Wow, that’s almost enough to make me side with **Der Trihs** ’s suggestion to politely ask them to get into some other line of work, preferably one that doesn’t involve medicine, or weapons or heavy machinery either. > > Serious question: is it possibly for a person to beceome a pharmacist and not _know_ that these medicines have other uses? If they were unaware it would neatly sidestep the moral conflict. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know but that how the line would be drawn in theory and greater minds than mine would have to figure out how that worked but IIRC any therapeutic use is “off label” usage and is most commonly prescribed to younger girls (I think it might have something to do with puberty). Therapeutic use is not really very common from what I can tell. Honestly, I’m not clear on what the Catholic view of using oral contraceptives for therapeutic use is. Perhaps it is permissable because the contraceptive affect is unintended; that seems reasonable but I haven’t looked into it. It doesn’t matter though, since we all agree that the pharmacist doesn’t know the purpose for the prescription. And in any case, I’m arguing that the pharmacy would not carry contraceptives at all – so the reason you want it is irrelevent; they don’t have any to give you. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/342 "2010-03-31T19:39:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why don’t they just make birth control pills over the counter as well? I believe they are non-prescription in some countries and I have not heard that it has a marked negative effect. I would be interested in data if anyone has it. I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/343 "2010-03-31T19:40:44Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > They are literally life or death medicine. Not taking them, or not taking them properly (e.g. missing a pill by a day or even a few hours, depending on the kind) may mean an unintended pregnancy, which may lead to abortion. That is exactly what I would say to any religious nut that wouldn’t sell me birth control pills. “That’s OK, I’ll save up the copay and just get an abortion if I get pregnant” Then I’d go across the street or go online and just buy the pill there. In fact I might go back to the religious nut pharmacist and talk about how I have been saving money by getting abortions once a year instead of buying the pill every month. It should make their day and give them all sorts of stories to tell their friends. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/344 "2010-03-31T19:44:20Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > What point are you trying to make with this? If someone is old enough to remember segregated schools, or not being able to sign a lease without their husband’s presence, what are they supposed to take from this? Surely you can see how controlling reproduction – if and when they choose to have children – has been fundamental to the freedom of women all over the world. And if you can’t draw a connection, well, I’d say that’s more of a debate-ender than calling religion superstition. You’re switching the argument. You were acting like birth control pills have always been part of the landscape so pharmacists should be forced to dispense them without going to the merits of whether or not first amendment rights allow pharmacists to exercise that sort of discretion. Now you say that just because it hasn’t always been part of the landscape doesn’t mean anything. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/345 "2010-03-31T19:46:12Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I believe they are non-prescription in some countries and I have not heard that it has a marked negative effect. I would be interested in data if anyone has it. > > I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science. I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science. [/QUOTE] If oral contraceptives were available OTC in the US and a pharmacy refused to carry them (or condoms or any other birth control devices) would we still be having a debate? Or would that be ok? Just wondering. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That is exactly what I would say to any religious nut that wouldn’t sell me birth control pills. “That’s OK, I’ll save up the copay and just get an abortion if I get pregnant” Then I’d go across the street or go online and just buy the pill there. In fact I might go back to the religious nut pharmacist and talk about how I have been saving money by getting abortions once a year instead of buying the pill every month. It should make their day and give them all sorts of stories to tell their friends. The likely response would be a shoulder shrug. The pharmacist doesn’t care what _you_ do, he only is concerned with his own actions. Your actions are yours. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/346 "2010-03-31T19:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > You were acting like birth control pills have always been part of the landscape so pharmacists should be forced to dispense them without going to the merits of whether or not first amendment rights allow pharmacists to exercise that sort of discretion. They’ve been around as long as pretty much any currently licensed pharmacist; the first COCP was approved by the FDA in 1960, and was made universally available in 1972. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/347 "2010-03-31T19:54:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I think so. And yes, I realize states have that option and choose not to. I believe they are mistaken, however. I don’t think it is a federally based requirement that this happen. Well it doesn’t really matter what the states say, the question is whether it is possible to refuse to dispense contraception in the US and the answer seems to be yes. If a state decides to force the dispensation of contraception of all licensed pharmacists regaldless of religious views the question is whether or not that law would survive a lawsuit. I don’t think it would because there probably isn’t sufficient state interest in truncating the first amendment. If the state can’t force the dispensation of contraceptives, can the employer fire a pharmacist for refusing to do so. The answer here is less clear. Birth control pills are a pretty big part of what goes on at pharmacies and it is probably not a reasonable accomodation to allow a pharmacist (usually the only pharmacist in the pharmacy) to refuse to dispense what is probably the highest volume item. I think you can probably fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense AND not return the prescription. > [@](#): > > Different professions have different regulations. I was trying to argue by analogy. I think its easier and clearer to make the case for not forcing doctors to perform abortions (its something people have spent some time thinking about). But lets step back from that and ask if we could force doctors to prescribe birth control pills to anyone who didn’t have contraindications? If not then why would we allow doctors to refuse to prescribe but not the pharmacist? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/348 "2010-03-31T19:55:44Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science. If oral contraceptives were available OTC in the US and a pharmacy refused to carry them (or condoms or any other birth control devices) would we still be having a debate? Or would that be ok? Just wondering. [/quote] It would be okay with me. Right now, the barriers to getting BCP are high. The drugs are often expensive, they require doctor visits, plus a non-zero risk of dealing with creepy pharmacists who are obsessed with my uterus. If I could buy them like I buy Tylenol or KY, I’d be perfectly content to go to Kroger or the like. Once the barriers exist, anything that makes them still higher is unacceptable to me. > [@](#): > > The likely response would be a shoulder shrug. The pharmacist doesn’t care what _you_ do, he only is concerned with his own actions. Your actions are yours. That strikes me as really naive. Of course he cares. And he would use it as ammunition the next time anyone brought up BCP or abortion, as evidence that the pill’s users are whores. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/349 "2010-03-31T19:58:17Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I am not, and have never, called them “glorified cashiers.” So please stop the insulting implications that I have. I will stop when you stop saying that pharmacists should just fill any prescription that is handed to them. > [@](#): > > Once again, doctors and pharmacists are different, and this is no knock on pharmacists. Professions should not have the same regulations, as the situations they face differ. I explained earlier why I felt that the hypo you are putting about doctors was not relevant. Changing it hasn’t made it any more relevant. You don’t think that the issue of a doctor refusing to nprescribve birth control pills is relevant to the issue of a pharmacist refusing to fill that prescription? How are the two different other than the whole “well doctors are doctors and pharmacists are only pharmacists” ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/350 "2010-03-31T20:01:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me clarify. > > I was “on the fence” in the sense that I firmly supported one side, but did not extend any particular material support to the cause. So my “support” was limited to message board discussions and a general tendency to vote for people that would probably uphold the principle, but it certainly wasn’t on my radar as a litmus test, or even an issue I paid particular attention to. > > Now, thanks to this discussion, I intend to financially support an organizations that will further this cause, something I have not done before. If you’re serious, I do honestly commend you. It’s one thing to sit around all day railing on a message board; it’s quite another to put one’s money where one’s mouth is. Two points, neither meant to be snarky, but which may be taken as such: 1. One of the most likely candidates for your donations is probably the ACLU. 2. I really would like to know which pharmacies don’t dispense the meds under discussion–so I can avoid them. (Then again, I rarely take prescription meds, so I imagine my more conservative–and, probably, more medicated–friends will make up for my lack of patronage.) ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/351 "2010-03-31T20:03:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I have made both of these points already in this thread, and as far as I’m aware you are the only person using the phrase “glorified cashiers” or anything like it. 😕 The clear lack of respect for pharmacists on this thread is evident. The attitude seems to be, that if I have my prescription and my copay they should just shut up and give me my goddam drugs regardless of how they feel about it. As far as some people on this board are concerned, they might as well be vending machines. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/352 "2010-03-31T20:06:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Serious question: is it possibly for a person to beceome a pharmacist and not _know_ that these medicines have other uses? If they were unaware it would neatly sidestep the moral conflict. Nope, they all know. I can empathize with the “please get this prescription filled somewhere else or by somebody else” (its a bit batshit crazy for me but I can empathize with it) but I cannot empathize with the “i’m not selling it to you and I’m not giving you your prescription back either” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/353 "2010-03-31T20:10:04Z")
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] The clear lack of respect for pharmacists on this thread is evident. The attitude seems to be, that if I have my prescription and my copay they should just shut up and give me my goddam drugs regardless of how they feel about it. As far as some people on this board are concerned, they might as well be vending machines. [/QUOTE] Well, yes they should give you your goddamn drugs regardless of how they _feel_ about it. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I give a fuck about their professional opinions- I’m glad pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions from drug seekers, or because of potentially dangerous interactions- but their personal _religious_ beliefs are their own problem. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/354 "2010-03-31T20:16:59Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Our hypothetical Catholic pharmacist is morally opposed to selling any type of contraception to anyone. A pharmacy opposed to contraception to the point of not filling oral contrception scrips is unlikely to carry condoms either. It’s not the same effect, of course, since you can get condoms in a box of Cracker Jacks, but it has nothing to do with discrimination against women. Of course you are so irrationally embittered against any hint of religion that you’re not happy unless you can call them misogynistic racist anti-semites at every opportunity. I’m pretty confident that even your side in this debate sees how ridiculous your argument of discrimination is. Like I commented above, if you can show me an example of a pharmacist giving birth control to a man but not a women, then you have an argument. Garbage. The fact that it’s women, and not men being deprived is the whole point. Do you think that it’s a coincidence that it is harder for women to get birth control in the first place? > [@Skammer](#): > > Don’t bring blacks or Jews or gays into it; that’s an obviously irrelevent and insincere argument and you only do it to promote your religion-hating agenda, which is not the topic of this thread. No; it’s quite relevant. This is about the religiously motivated and excused persecution of a hated class. It’s no different than people claiming that God made blacks to serve whites. > [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > We call them ‘parents.’ > > Good god, you’d think if anyone would want to prevent women from having unwanted pregnancies and possible abortions, it’d be religious fundamentalists. Though I suppose that would require foresight, not their forte. That presumes that their goal is to prevent abortions; not to persecute women while using a supposed moral objection to abortion as an excuse. As I’ve said in the past, their behavior is consistent with the desire to persecute women, not with their alleged concern over “babies”. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah but some people are trying to anaolgize birth control pills to insulin and other life preserving medications. They are; pregnancy is dangerous. Not that it matters. Unless there is a medical - not “moral” reason not to do so a woman should be given birth control if she wants it. And if the pharmacist refuses without such a professionally valid reason, they should be forced to hand it over by whatever level of legal force is necessary. If that means fines, or threats of prison time, or fines big enough to destroy the parent company as an example to others, or surrounding the pharmacy with National Guard troops like schools being forcibly desegregated, then so be it. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If a pharmacy owner is morally opposed to artificial contraception of any kind (e.g. a conservative Catholic) he will not carry any of them, none, nada, zilch. No pill, no condoms, no implants, no IUDs, no spermicide or whataver devices, pills, injection or any kind that are contracpetive, whether they need prescription or not, if they can be legally purchased. > “Hatred of women”, you keep saying that, go on, it’s not like you might have some proof of that. Oh, please, this is ridiculous. First, he is not “morally opposed”; he is a bigot. He is about as moral as the Ku Klux Klan. You are trying to give their position a false respectability by making them look like people nobly making a moral stand, instead of hatemongers persecuting the same group that they’ve been persecuting for literally millennia. And second, your claim is ridiculous because it’s not the men who are being denied condoms, it’s women who are being denied contraception; you are in the position of someone trying to claim that segregation was equally racist towards whites, when in fact it was a system aimed at the persecution of non-whites. You can whine about how they’d supposedly deny condoms to men too all you like; the FACT is that it is women, not men who are being persecuted here. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > First, calling religion a superstition is not going to get you very far in a debate about religious freedom. The debate pretty much is over as soon as you state that you think religions are just superstitions. Nonsense. That is an important point; the excuse for pharmacists existing at all instead of replacing them with a medicine vending machine is that they are to use their professional judgment in the dispensation of medication. Their professional, scientifically based judgment. Not barbarian myths. Should they be allowed to decide what to dispense according to the flip of their lucky coin? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Making prostitution illegal is aimed at behaviour that is overwhelmingly engaged in by men. These laws are sexist, it targets male behaviour and is almost as discriminatory as refusing to dispense the pill (and if I hadn’t watched Deuce Bigalow, I probably wouldn’t have said almost). It might be worse because it is a state action that makes it illegal so you can’t legally get the services of a prostitute anywhere in the state. That is a real denial of service in a way that action by a private actor is not. Its anti-male bigotry. > > There is probably a better anaology out there somewhere but its ethe best I could do on short notice. If I actually thought prostitution should be illegal that argument might have some traction, but it doesn’t. Although I’ll point out that it tends to be enforced in an anti-woman, not anti-man fashion. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are basically saying that several of the world’s widespread religions are prima facie discriminatorily sexist. How does that square with the fact that the people practicing this sexism have frequently been female pharmacists? Is it self hatred or is it just possible that religious belief are about more than just persecuting women? No. You have women who have been brought up to hate women, to regard themselves as inferior and to persecute other women in religions that seethe with hatred for women. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This issue isn’t about persecuting women no matter how much you want it to be, just like being pro-choice isn’t about murdering babies. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: And it’s merely a coincidence that it is women who are being targeted by this, by groups that have a millennia long history of hostility towards women. It’s merely a coincidence that is female, not male birth control that has this kind of effort being made to forbid it. Just like it was merely a coincidence that under separate but equal, it was always the blacks who got inferior faculties and services. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The clear lack of respect for pharmacists on this thread is evident. The attitude seems to be, that if I have my prescription and my copay they should just shut up and give me my goddam drugs regardless of how they feel about it. As far as some people on this board are concerned, they might as well be vending machines. I have more respect for vending machines than for pharmacists who persecute women instead of doing their job properly. Your position is an argument for replacing them with such machines, since apparently they are are not required to actually do their job professionally. At least a machine isn’t going to be motivated by hatred. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/355 "2010-03-31T20:17:10Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > That strikes me as really naive. Of course he cares. And he would use it as ammunition the next time anyone brought up BCP or abortion, as evidence that the pill’s users are whores. Yeah, well, maybe. I’m probably projecting my own feelings in this scenario (assuming I were opposed to contraceptives in the first place, which I’m not). As far as using it as ammunition that the pill’s users are whores… ammunition for what? He might taunt you for being a whore? What power does he have other than not selling the pill? He might vote Republican? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/356 "2010-03-31T20:19:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Honest question, why DOES it take so long? Isn’t it just finding the right bottle on the shelf and printing out a label? I think a lot of the time gets taken up with insurance and in some pharmacies you have one pharmacist with a dozen pharmacy technicians and the pharmacist has to sign off on every prescription going through the pharmacy. > [@](#): > > In 1972. What year is it now? Its 2010. > [@](#): > > Cigarettes are plentiful everywhere else. If contraceptives were available over the counter at the supermarket, then you’d have a point. I never understood why birth control pills weren’t over the counter, is it the women’s lobby that want to have it covered by insurance or is it the religious lobby that is afraid that their daughters are all going to buy the pill and become sluts if they don’t make them get a prescription for it? > [@](#): > > Then he should have become a mechanic. So better a mechanic (which we seem to have enough of) than a doctor (which we don’t seem to have enough of) because he doesn’t want to write birth control prescriptions to anyone that asks for one? > [@](#): > > Generally I’m fine with that, yes. My problem is with the deception moreso than the discrimination, because I believe that there would be at least a viable alternative within reason for these women to purchase the drugs if they knew ahead of time not to waste their time at Jim Bob’s Bibles N’ Blow. If, however, it becomes clear that entire cities, counties, or states take up this policy, then I would be against the restriction If it becomes clear that entire regions take up this policy then we would be having a different discussion but right now people seem to be ready to shove their ideological government action down the throats of a few people with deeply held beliefs even though it doesn’t affect the availability of birth control pills. > [@](#): > > A while back a story appeared where a Muslim taxi driver would not let a person into their cab because that person had a dog and Muslims have a religious hatred of dogs. cite please. BTW I think NYC cabs are allowed to refuse all animals other than seeing eye dogs. Did these muslim guys refuse seeing eye dogs as well? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/357 "2010-03-31T20:20:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, when you said, “You do this a lot,” you were referring to twice in the ten years, four months, and 22,869 posts I have made here? > > Um… you have “a lot” of insight. Well, to be fair, you only asked for two examples. Next time ask for three examples. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/358 "2010-03-31T20:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > I never understood why birth control pills weren’t over the counter, is it the women’s lobby that want to have it covered by insurance or is it the religious lobby that is afraid that their daughters are all going to buy the pill and become sluts if they don’t make them get a prescription for it? I’m assuming because the drug interactions and the rigor of its administration are such that one should probably consult with a doctor before going on birth control pills. Same as every other prescription med. Is there anything comparable to BCP that is available over the counter? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/359 "2010-03-31T20:25:01Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > This is a surprise to you in some way? Well, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that people might feel that way and I think that there is in fact a lot of historical sexism built into the dogma of today’s religions but I just find it odd that the accusations of sexism directed at things being done by a female pharmacist in at least one of the cases in the OP. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/360 "2010-03-31T20:29:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Pharmacists who won’t fill birth control prescriptions aren’t very common either, and yet here we’ve got a 5 page thread about them. If its not common, then are we really seeing enough harm to restrict first amenement rights? > [@](#): > > Move the emphasis. “You can only get _refills_ by mail”, not “you can _only_ get refills by mail”. > > That is, a new prescription must be filled in an actual storefront pharmacy. OOOOHHHHHH!! I get it now. I guess I would be more bothered by it if there were actually an access issue but at this point it seems to be truncation of religious freedom without a sufficient state interest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=19)