Straight Up with Sherri

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

North Carolina Bill Would Protect Pro-Life Pharmacists on Drug Scripts

From Life News:

North Carolina Bill Would Protect Pro-Life Pharmacists on Drug Scripts

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 26, 2005

Charlotte, NC (LifeNews.com) -- Legislation in North Carolina would protect pro-life pharmacists who want to opt out of dispensing drugs that could cause abortions. The bill would allow pharmacists to join doctors and nurses in following their conscience on refusing to be involved in abortions.

Rep. Jeff Barnhart, a Republican in the lead sponsor of the legislation, which allows a pharmacist to decline to fill a prescription on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

Rep. Mitch Gillespie, another Republican who co-sponsored the bill, says it would help protect pharmacists from facing legal or employment concerns resulting from their actions.

John Rustin, director of government relations for the North Carolina Family Policy Council, says his group will support the measure while Paige Johnson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, says the abortion business will urge lawmakers to oppose it.

"I have to say this is really pure discrimination against women," Johnson said.

Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, applauded introduction of the bill and says it will help women make better decisions in pregnancy situations. She disagreed with Johnson's view of the bill.

"If she can go down the road [to get the prescription], there is no infringement on the woman," Brauer said.

Pro-life pharmacists across the nation are finding themselves under tremendous pressure to prescribe drugs such as the morning after pill.

A pharmacist in Wisconsin was recently disciplined for refusing to fill a script and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an order requiring all state pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. That order has been taken to court.

Meanwhile, pharmacists in Texas have been fired for their refusal to dispense such drugs.

5 Comments:

  • You have a riveting web log and undoubtedly
    must have atypical & quiescent potential for
    your intended readership. May I suggest that
    you do everything in your power to honor
    your Designer/Architect as well as your audience.
    Please remember to never restrict anyone's
    opportunities for ascertaining uninterrupted
    existence for their quintessence.

    Best wishes for continued ascendancy,
    Howdy
    Editor

    'Thought & Humor'
    Cyber-Humor & Cyber-Thought
    http://ilovehowdy.blogspot.com/
    Harvard Humor Club
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Harvard_Humor_Club/

    By Blogger 'Thought & Humor', at 9:53 PM  

  • As far as food for thought or controversy over this subject goes I actually like this article on Slate ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2117374/ ).
    He doesn't really advocate either way but does put things into a broader perspective.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 10:31 AM  

  • Vanessa,
    I disagree with you on one point. I believe that slate does advocate very strongly! He does not quite comprehend the objection - that the morning after pill is abortion! That is the moral contention of the pharmacists who object. Instead, slate looks at this as a tactical part of a highly regulated political strategy. He is just plain wrong in that assessment.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:11 AM  

  • You do realize he's against abortion?

    The way I read it is was that a widely public debate over the morning after pill favours pro-choice and not pro-life which would result in a step back and not forward as far as public opinion is concerned just because there is no consensus about how to classify it and because it inevitably leads to questions about regular contraception among other things.

    Given other articles I've read from him, I see his stance as simply stating that it's too murky of an issue to be defendable. The fact that it might be an advantage to pro-choice wasn't really anything I've either read elsewhere or considered previously.
    If I thought he was pro-choice I wouldn't have pasted the link here since it simply wouldn't be appropriate.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 12:59 PM  

  • Vanessa,
    I am not questioning Slate's personal position. It may well be pro-life. I am questioning his apparent view that the pro-life people have a prevaling "strategy" which they do not. The anti-life people certainly have several loosly coordinated, but highly developed strategies. The pro-life people have grassroots activism defined in very narrow terms. These can be extremely strong and effective in any situation, but there is no overall strategic directive that is supported by tactical deployment of efforts according to a strategic plan. This is what I contend that was missed. The article implies (or I infer) that because there is not more action across a wider spectrum of organizations, it must not be a significant part of the pro-life strategic plan. There is no pro-life strategic plan. Someday, there may be. Further, the fact that Slate continues to pursue this as an issue of contraception demonstrates that he is either unaware of what he is addressing or he is pro-choice, buying into that perspective.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 3:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home