That’s perfect. Would it work?
Daggone it, posted too soon.
Most libertarians of my acquaintance have an easier solution: Make the med OTC.
As someone who wanted to become a LEO, and who also views some statutes as painfully stupid, I had a choice to make-either leave my personal judgements at home, or pursue another line of work. As it happened, I never achieved my goal, but IMHO the same principle as expressed by the OP applies: do your job or find another career.
A lot of pharmacists who deny the pill to patrons do so because they believe it is murder (i.e. contraception is abortion, abortion is murder) without giving thought to the moral implications (sex outside of marriage, etc). Thusly they believe Viagra is “o.k.”
The only problem with that tack Poly is that one would also need to sue the manufacturers of the libations consumed by the lass causing her to reduce her inhibitions, the manufacturers of the clothing she wore which caused her to be deemed “hot” by the male contributor to the issue, owner(s) of establishment(s) which were visited by defendant and plaintiff prior to “the act” for being contributory in regard to “putting them in the mood”, and anyone else interested in joining the litigation bandwagon. 
Certainly they are contributing factors, accessories to the tort if you will, as of course was the male who “bestowed his seed upon her,” to use the Biblical euphemism. But none of them except the “sower of seed” performed direct acts that led to her becoming pregnant. The pharmacist who impounds her morning-after pill prescription did, like him, perform a direct act that led to her becoming pregnant. Hence my logic.
Check your local and state laws. Just a few minutes ago, a psychologist friend and I were talking about this and she said that (at least here in California) these pharmacists are breaking the law if they do this.
Sure. What on earth makes you think they wouldn’t?]
Define “messing with”. Define “artificial”. Define “natural”.
That seems like a good move, though frankly there are too many potential health problems with the pill that make doctors an important part of using it.
The only people who get to decide what your job is are your employers. If there are employers who are willing to support such a career, then that seems like the end of the story. If having access to birth control is a right, then it should fall upon those that think so to provide it, not this or that pharmacy.
Which part of libertarian philosophy justifies the government protecting me from myself?
Gee, do we really not have a pharmacist here who could check in on this subject?
Pharmacists are licensed by the state, and as such are subject to having complaints made against their licenses, as are many professionals. Even by the general public. There’s a procedure.
Now, what if it wasn’t birth control? My brother is a pharmacist. He’s agin’ the use of Ritalin for kids. Thinks it’s a bad idea, can do permanent harm both physical and psychological, and is (or at least was at one time) overprescribed. BUT . . . in some cases it does help. So, even though he thought it was more likely than not a Bad Idea, he never refused to fill a prescription. On penalty of loss of his license, and because each individual case could be a case where the drug actually helped.
Your prescription could be called in to Walgreens, who will ship it anywhere in the country for you. All you need is a credit card.
Lefty blogger extraordinaire Atrios has asked people to send him the name of pharmacists or pharmacies who refuse to give out birth control due to moral objections so he can create the Wall of Wankers.
I would do everything I could to steer my patients away from these pharmacists.
Someone said that the Catholic Church says that sex is immoral unless there is a possibility of procreation. So… suppose someone is completely sterile, with absolutely no chance or ever conceiving (they were born without ovaries or something like that.) So the Catholic Church would say it was immoral for this person to EVER have sex, even with their spouse?
No part. I’m not a die-hard, everything-must-be libertarian. I don’t really have a feeling on the principle whether or not the pill should be over-the-counter, but I do think it’s pretty stupid to use any powerful and potentially dangerous medication without getting a workup from a doctor first.
If they made all medications over the counter, I wouldn’t have any real principled objection to it. But I definately would call stupid anyone who didn’t consult a doctor before taking something that could potentially cause a stroke.
I think that if you’re going to refuse to fill out certain prescriptions, you should notify your local medical practitioners, who can send patients to a pharmacy that will fill out their prescriptions.
It’s not really an issue if an employee who works with others refuses to fill out a prescription, as someone else in the shop will. It IS an issue if the boss refuses to stock certain medications, or it’s a one-man shop in a one pharmacy town. In that case, I’d like a big red “We don’t sell X, Y, Z” sign and I’d vote with my feet.
Doctors BTW don’t have to provide prescriptions for medications, nor do they have to perform procedures that they find ethically questionable. However, they have to give a referral to someone who will or face serious consequences.
I know several devout Catholic GPs in Ireland who have almost no female patients under 70 on their patients lists. Word gets out and people choose a different doctor.
I would imagine they’d start choosing different pharmacists too.
Birth control pills are NOT something I’d want to make OTC. Emergency Contraception (it’s got a window of 72 hours, so Morning After Pill is a misnomer) on the other hand should be available OTC. Possibly, with the caveat that 3 or more emergency contraceptive uses in a year requires a referral to a free reproductive health clinic, to discuss how best to avoid a 4th.
It’s not just pharmacists:
It’s gynecologists.
These are all pro-life wingnuts who keep redefining life further and further back. Soon it’ll be unfertilized eggs and sperm.
Bottom line is, if they’re not doing the job, they need to be sued out of existance for promising to do a job they’re not doing. None of these guys is hanging out big banners that say, “Attention, sluts! Go get your baby-killing poison elsewhere!”
Given the Biblical examples of Sarah and Elizabeth, the Church considers natural sterility to be no impediment to the possibility of conception if God so wills it. The actual official position is not that each act of sexual intercourse must allow the possibility of procreation, but that each act must be OPEN to conception. This allows, for example, oral sex as foreplay, but not the end of the act. Basically, a vaginal ejaculation must occur (coitus interruptus has never been an ACCEPTED method of Catholic birth control), and that vaginal ejaculation is acceptable as being “open to conception”.
And on re-reading my post above, I have to admit that I have no idea what the Church’s position on sex acts with women who’ve had hysterectomies (and therefore are not open to conception) is.
MinniePurl said:
No, no, no, and no. The Church does not say that ‘natural’ infertility (like after menopause, after hysterectomy for cancer, due to genetic condition, etc.) means that a person should not have sex. The policy of the Church is that Catholics should not actively try to prevent conception as a result of intercourse. This encompasses surgical sterilization, condoms, IUDs, hormonal manipulation, and other methods. “Natural family planning”, which is endorsed by the Church, involves avoiding intercourse during those times that a woman is most likely to become pregnant.
The Church does not say that sex is ‘only’ for procreation, but it does feel that the reproductive aspect of sex should not be separated from the ‘recreational’ aspect. The use of contraceptives is seen as a minor act of defiance against the will of God, as it were. Sexual intercourse does not require fertility, but should not include actions to thwart fertility.
Now, back to the pharmacists - I saw Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International on CNN this AM. She tried to make the case that OCPs are risky drugs given to women that are not sick and that it is the pharmacist’s moral and legal obligation to step in to preserve the life and health of their patients. And oh, yeah, they prevent conception. At any rate, the website is interesting, in a bizarro-world kind of way. The ‘Model Pharmacist’s Conscience Clause’ is interesting in that it proposes that
So, not only should it be okay to refuse to dispense OCPs, they can refuse to fill any prescription for anyone for any reason with no repercussions! No more filling those AZT scrips for the filthy homos! No more Viagara for the non-Whites! Glory hallelujah! And you should still have to hire me even though I’m a racist homophobe, cause I’m sincere in my beliefs!