Straight Up with Sherri

Friday, April 15, 2005

No Way! Abortion on Demand..and Now Forcing People to AID in it?

SUWS posted on this story yesterday. The story mentions Representative Stephens, who is also a Pharmacist is refusing to buckle to Illinois Governor's heavy handed abuse of his office.

Illinois Gov. Sued Over Discrimination Against Pro-Life Pharmacists

Springfield, IL ( -- Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich now faces a lawsuit over his executive order requiring pharmacists in the state to fill all legal prescriptions for any drugs -- including birth control or morning after pills that some pharmacists believe cause abortions.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life law firm, filed suit in state court on behalf of two pharmacists who say dispensing such drugs violates their moral beliefs. They contend they should not be required to participate in the abortions the drugs may cause or to contribute to a customer's sexual activity....

Stephens appeared on Scarborough Country last night, You can read the transcript

What's next? Are we going to force ALL doctors to perform abortions, regardless of their expertise or beliefs? Are we going to force ALL restaraunts to serve alcohol? Or provide lap dances? THIS IS WRONG! FLAT OUT WRONG!

Please visit Representative Stephens' web site at:

I have taken appropriate measures to assure that the following contact information is helpful to our cause and does not put undue burden on the parties being contacted.

Action Items: (be sure to include your name and your zip code- and spread this to ANYONE you know in Illinois!)

Email Representative Stephens to express your support for him to fight this injustice to Pharmacists:

Governor Rod Blagojevich can be contacted at
or by using a web form at:

This is vital for those of you that live in Illinois!
You can go HERE to contact your state legislators.


  • Washington lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday making it illegal for pharmacies to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. The move adds to a growing controversy over the right of pharmacists to withhold oral contraceptives from patients with valid doctor's orders.

    Hey Sherri sent you email
    it's not just going to be Illiones

    oh yea and one of the the lawmakers is right for terri to die wasserman /fla

    By Blogger keeka, at 7:09 PM  

  • The ACLJ, reports that legislators in 22 states have introduced “refusal laws.” Three states have already passed this type law and GA has adopted a regulation allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill scripts. Four states have introduced legislation that would require pharmacists to fill scripts for contraceptives.

    Contraceptives are to prevent fertilization, the beginning of life. The morning-after pill, or to use the new euphemism – ECP (emergency contraception pill), may not be inducing an abortion as RU-486 does, but it is used to prevent implantation of an egg that has already been fertilized. RU-486, ECP or Plan B; abortion by any other name is still abortion.

    By Anonymous Dee, at 10:06 PM  

  • Keeka

    Thanks for the email!

    got that story up!

    You all keep me VERY BUSY and ON MY TOES!


    YAY! I live in GA! Yippee!

    I will have to dig up my old lists of Reps for us to swamp them!

    But not tonight-- ya'll have worn me out! I am very tired!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:31 PM  

  • A pharmacist who believes the "morning-after pill" (emergency contraception) causes abortion shouldn't be dispensing any medication. If a pharmacist isn't willing to put religious-motivated agendas aside and learn about the actual chemistry of a particular medication, he has no right to be licensed. Emergency contraception becomes less effective with every hour that passes; women who have been raped, whose primary contraception has failed, or who just daggummit made a mistake (feel free to cast the first stone, any of you) should not be forced to drive around looking for a ethical (and law-abiding) pharmacist, knowing that with every minute their chances of an unwanted pregnancy increase.

    Here's a news flash: people have sex, most of the time because it feels good, not because they want a baby. And unless you, personally, are willing to shoulder the social costs (financial and otherwise) of a country where contraception is outlawed, keep your nose in your own bedroom.

    By Anonymous Critical Dissent, at 3:37 PM  

  • Critical Dissent,

    I don’t recall anyone having anything negative to say about sex. And I didn’t read anywhere that the pharmacist had heartburn about filling prescriptions for contraceptives. Trying to lump ECPs in the same category as other contraceptives, sugar-coating and trying to hide the fact that ECPs are kissing cousins to abortion is a big problem. There are numerous ways to do the deed without involving others who object.

    Simple fix to your concern of the time delay and to the whole controversy, instead of the doctor writing a prescription – just give her the poison.

    Hey, who would argue against one-stop shopping?!?! /sarcasm

    By Anonymous Dee, at 5:58 PM  

  • LOL!!


    You need to do some homework, child.

    There is a difference between a CONTRACEPTIVE and an INTRACEPTIVE...

    But thanks for sharing your ignorence...

    I needed a laugh today!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:01 PM  

  • Speaking of ignorance, Sherri--you should learn how to spell the word before you use the label--"ignorence". Now I am LOL. Also you should do some reasearch into the matter. There are a number of cases (in other states) where pharmacists have indeed refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills--a contraceptive. In one case the pharmacist refused to give back the prescription for birth control pills and lectured the woman at length. There was no other nearby pharmacy. In the case of rape your lack of compassion for the victim and total support for the pharmacist is, well, --disgusting.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:56 PM  

  • P.S. BTW, the medical term is INTERCEPTIVE not INTRACEPTIVE as you have stated. Makes me wonder if you truly have any knowledge of the biology of the pill or "morning after" pill.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:43 PM  

  • OH, man,,,don’t get Sherri to start spell-checking everything, she’ll lose some of that charm RWNJ and others of us love.

    BTW Anonymous,

    Only so many fires can be fought at one time, and SUWS has several going on right now. The pharmacist issue being looked at right now happens to be the one in Illinois. Now since this is Sherri’s “home,” she has the right to pick and chose which issues to focus on.

    I think all here would have heartfelt compassion for a victim of rape and would want to reach out and assist her in whichever way we were able. But here again, the dilemma could be solved most efficiently by getting the fix from either the emergency room during the examination or from her doctor. That’s not for the lack of compassion; remember, time is of the essence. There is NO need to involve someone who is opposed to abortion.

    Now, since you seem to know about and I’m sure have researched the information, having links to various sites and contact sources, on the injustice of the numerous cases involving other pharmacist, why don’t you start to work on those. If you don’t have the where-with-all to start your own blog, I’m sure there’s one out there in the heat of battle that would love your support.

    By Anonymous Dee, at 1:14 AM  

  • I'm not sure why you're jumping down my throat for mentioning contraceptives, since the article you're citing clearly states that the issue is about "birth control or morning after pills." If some pharmacists weren't balking at filling prescriptions for birth control, there would be no reason to mention it in the article. Further, much of Illinois is rural, with many towns having just one pharmacist and no hospital. Considering that relatively few rapes are "violent" (in the sense of causing injury to the woman that's not sexual) and that most are committed by someone the victim knows and therefore the police are never brought in, it's likely that many women never go to an emergency room (particularly women without health insurance). And I don't know about you, but my doctor doesn't keep medicine on hand except for samples given by pharmaceutical companies. That's you know, what pharmacists are for! Their role is not to judge (and, according to Romans, neither is yours) but to fill prescriptions. Would you support a pharmacist whose religious beliefs objected to psychiatry who refused to fill scripts for antidepressants? Whose ethical beliefs objected to corporate control of medicine as an institution who wouldn't fill scripts being paid by an HMO?

    Topic two. Your claim that emergency contraception is akin to abortion is ludicrous. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy; EC prevents pregnancy from occurring. Not exactly the same thing.

    Finally, I have to wonder: since when is a governor insisting that the law be followed to the benefit of half the population of the state "abuse of office"? It was my understanding that when a governor is sworn into office he or she pledges to uphold the state constitution and all state laws. I submit that being swayed by religious extremists into looking the other way as laws are broken and women's basic human rights are trampled upon would be a real abuse of office.

    By Anonymous Critical Dissent, at 10:28 AM  

  • Oh wah, wah, wah – jumping down your throat? Pa-leese. Don’t whine if you want to debate.

    The law suit was brought by two pharmacists, Pace and Menges, because (unless I’m badly mistaken) of the morning-after-pill, not over birth-control pills and all other contraceptives. There is a difference and the pharmacists are aware of this difference. The Governor is trying to equate them as one and the same. Maybe it’s the Governor that needs to learn about the actual chemistry of a particular medication.”

    The every day, run of the mill, birth-control pill: One function of an oral contraceptive is to thicken the mucus plug at the opening of the cervix. This acts as a barrier mechanism to prevent sperm entrance. The main function of the pill is to prevent ovulation. If there is no egg, there can be no fertilization. No fertilization, there is no new little life to kill.

    The morning-after pill, emergency contraceptive pill or Plan B: This medication has an antinidatory effect on the endometrium (that is, a hardening of the lining of the uterus), which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (the tiny new human being at the blastocyst stage). If, for example – to tie this into your argument, a rape victim had ovulated just before the assault and fertilization had occurred, then the use of such medication after the event would clearly be abortive.

    The Governor isn’t insisting the law, as already written, be followed; he’s trying to circumvent the law. He issued an emergency rule that’s in effect for 150 days while he tries to make a law.

    By Anonymous Dee, at 3:19 PM  

  • Dee,
    As much as you would like to believe that the "morning after" pill is an abortifacient it is not. Abortion is the interruption of pregnancy--and one is not pregnant until the successful implantation of the blastocyst. That is why my dear friend who has undergone in vitro fertiliztion cannot have the joy of announcing she is pregnant--none of the embryos (read fertilized eggs!) implanted. The "morning after" pill will prevent pregnancy by either suppressing ovulation or implantation depending on the time of her cycle. It is generally anyone's guess which.

    But , for the sake of argument, let us assume that the AMA, the Society for Obstetrics and Gynocology etc., are all wrong and you, my dear woman are right. Well. let the gnashing of teeth begin. Many, many pharmacists in the protesting group are against "regular" birth control pills for the very same reason you are against the "morning after" pill. Early birth control pills contained high estrogen doses which prevented ovulation very well but had serious side effects. For the past ten years or so low dose estrogen (less side effects) has been used which according to these pharmacists allows for ovulation to sometimes occur and fertilization to take place. Implantation still cannot occur. So---take regular birth control pills with the slight chance the egg will be fertilized or the "morning after" pill with a much greater chance the egg is fertilized. According to the very pharmacists who the sanctimonious are screaming for--any woman who has taken the pill in the past ten years has engaged in possibly "interceptive" or in your words "abortive" activity. How does one reconcile that? Oh, yes. Simple. Rationalization.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:03 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    You are factually accurate in saying one is not pregnant until implantation of the fertilized egg(s). I don’t think though the definition of pregnancy has been at issue. The issue is if a pharmacist has/does not have the right to refuse to play a part in the termination or ending of a life.

    And you are clinically correct in that both type pills make it less likely for the uterus to accept implantation. Even some anti-inflammatory medications have this same characteristic.

    Since regular birth control pills are used by many for medical reasons not related to preventing pregnancy and the pharmacist has no way of knowing the reason for the prescription, most are not protesting that form of contraceptive. But for what other purpose would the morning-after pill be used? I feel the majority of those opposed to the morning-after pill is their belief that human life begins at the moment of conception; that fertilized egg is a human life and the death of that new life, regardless of its implantation status, is morally wrong. I support Pace and Menges and others with the same conviction their right to refuse to participate - to not fill a prescription having the sole purpose of taking a life.

    Those that are refusing to fill any form of contraceptive are, in my opinion, going to the extreme since they do not know the exact purpose of its use. Those refusing to refer another source or refusing to give the prescription back to the individual are being confrontational and will alienate all support. I can only hope the morning-after group does not align with the others.

    I sincerely wish the best for your friend.

    By Anonymous Dee, at 9:06 AM  

  • Great post. I wrote to the IL Governor and Representative Stevens.

    Thank you!

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:01 PM  

  • Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

    I have a Free site Free Article Search. It pretty much covers car accident article related stuff.

    Come and check it out if you get time :-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:53 AM  

  • Your blog is excellent - keep it up! Don't miss visiting this site about health insurance program texas
    . It pretty much covers health insurance program texas
    related stuff.

    By Blogger Tom Naka, at 8:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home