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.
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.
posted by Straight Up with Sherri at
9:20 PM
2 Comments:
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, at 10:31 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, at 12:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home