Recently there have been cases and reports of pharmacists refusing to fill women’s prescriptions for contraceptive medication, and discussion over so called “pharmacists’ rights.” The anti-choice groups–who can now be seen as anti-contraceptive as well–have been backing pharmacists who refuse to grant women access to contraceptives, especially the anti-choice and anti-contraceptive group ‘Pharmacists for Life.’ The debate supposedly centers around when pregnancy begins; when the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall, or when sperm meets egg? Or perhaps the moment when the naughty woman dares think about having sex for purposes other than procreation? Well some see that there is no rational or reasonable debate over the morning-after pill, regular contraception, or backing anti-choice pharmacists’ rights. For the “pro-lifers” agenda anyway, as this article from Slate details….
“Moral battle rages in pharmacies,” cries the front page of Sunday’s Dallas Morning News. It must be true: Just a week ago, the front page of the New York Times warned, “Pharmacies Balk on After-Sex Pill and Widen Fight in Many States.” A couple of weeks before that, the front page of the Washington Post declared, “Pharmacists’ Rights at Front of New Debate.” Supposedly, armies of pro-lifers are coming over the hills to fight for the right of pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills.
Don’t count on it. This is a lousy issue for pro-lifers. That’s why pro-choicers and the media are pumping it up and most pro-lifers are sitting it out….[…]
Who’s fighting hardest for pro-life pharmacists? Pharmacists for Life. Now, there’s a shocker. According to the Post, the group “claims 1,600 members on six continents.” Come on. That’s less than 300 members per continent. Pharmacists for Life may be doing the Lord’s work, but its Web site is politically insane…constantly referring to the Serbian-American governor of Illinois, for example, as “Slobodan” Blagojevich. The two other leading advocates for pro-life pharmacists are the Christian Legal Society and the American Center for Law and Justice. That’s another sign of a losing issue: The legal purists are out front, while the political groups lie low.
Go to the Web sites of the major pro-life players, and run a search for anything related to pharmacists. I got three hits from the National Right to Life Committee, none since 2001. I got eight hits from Concerned Women for America, none on pharmacists’ rights since 2002. Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, characterized in some reports as a big campaigner for pharmacists’ rights, hasn’t touched the subject in four months. The Senate and House majority leaders haven’t mentioned it. It’s been raised at the White House just once…by a reporter…and the president’s spokesman ducked it.
Why the silence? Because from a strategic standpoint, it’s a stinker of an issue for pro-lifers. In recent years, they’ve gained the upper hand by focusing relentlessly on late-term fetuses that look like babies. Notice what’s featured on NRLC’s home page today: a Bush administration directive to protect “infants who had been born alive after unsuccessful abortions.” A fight over morning-after pills would push the abortion debate backward, not just to the beginning of pregnancy, but beyond it, to the stage between conception and implantation. Pro-lifers can’t even agree among themselves that a pre-implantation embryo is sacred…most such embryos spontaneously miscarry…and they’d have a hell of a time persuading people that this microscopic entity, which looks nothing like a baby, should be treated like one.
This is why the small groups willing to fight for pro-life pharmacists argue for choice, not life. They say pharmacists should be free to refuse prescriptions for pills they deem lethal to human life. It’s a noble argument, and a doomed one. In this case, time is crucial. To work, the pill must be taken soon after sex. In a town with a single drug store, one pharmacist’s refusal can effectively block a woman’s choice. Furthermore, the pharmacist isn’t defying just the woman; he’s defying the doctor who prescribed the pill. This is why some state medical societies have come out against giving pharmacists the same freedom of conscience doctors demand. A couple of weeks ago, Arizona’s governor vetoed a pharmacists’-rights bill, saying pharmacists “have no right to interfere with the lawful personal medical decisions made by patients and their doctors.” Historically, doctors have sometimes supported abortion laws and sometimes opposed them. The only constant is that the doctors always win…[…]
If pro-choicers and the media draw the public into this fight, pro-lifers will be in deep trouble. The most universally compelling petitioners for abortion rights are rape victims. Even by conservative standards, you can’t say they deserve pregnancy as a “consequence for sex”…as a New Hampshire politician did three weeks ago during a fight over the morning-after pill…since they didn’t choose sex in the first place. Such politicians look insensitive to crime victims, a deadly problem for a Republican in a general election. Already pro-choicers are working this angle, promoting the pill as post-rape treatment and spotlighting cases in which women turned away by pharmacists claim to be victims of sexual assault.
The other danger for pro-lifers is that the wall they’ve erected between abortion and contraception will collapse. Morning-after pills can prevent conception or implantation; in any given case, it’s practically impossible to know which. If pro-lifers appear to oppose contraception, rather than abortion, they risk antagonizing and alarming most Americans. Five months ago, a CBS/New York Times poll asked, “Should pharmacists who personally oppose birth control for religious reasons be able to refuse to sell birth control pills to women who have a prescription for them, or shouldn’t pharmacists be able to refuse to sell birth control pills?” Only 16 percent of respondents said yes. Seventy-eight percent said no.
[…]…If pro-lifers start to look like they care more about resisting contraception than avoiding abortions, look out
(emphasis mine)
Don’t worry. Because then we’ll know what this is really all about. Telling women that they can only have sex if they intend to procreate. As for rape victims….pregnancy and childbirth will make everything all better for her, won’t it? Excuse me while I go vomit. Good morning by the way.
Good morning to you too. Moist towel? Listerine? Alka Seltzer?
I’d say this is a good thing, but I think the anti-choice movement is finaly realizing that they can say anything, and the press will be too intimidated to call them on it. And if the press calls them on it, the voting base won’t care.
>>As for rape victims….pregnancy and childbirth will make everything all better for her, won’t it? >>
I don’t see why not. Babies are adorable! I certainly wouldn’t feel any lingering fury, resentment, fear, or depression if I were a mommy!
You know, terrifying as it is to see the front line moving closer and closer to The Handmaid’s Tale, it seems like it’ll be much easier to work the “They don’t care about rape victims, or any women” angle with this choice sub-issue than with the last big one. Kerry didn’t seem to get many points when he made the same argument around parental consent laws.
And speaking of patriarchal authority vs. female agency, I hadn’t considered that people might be really angry that a _doctor’s_ decisions were ignored. Could that really change people’s minds? Would that convince people who are less inclined to worry about the violation of a woman’s bodily integrity?
Piny, I’ve had a lot of luck convincing people with that argument–that doctors should be trusted. I say the pro-choice side holds our noses and uses that argument as much as we can.
Oh, I’m happy to pander if it’ll keep this nightmare from becoming status quo. I’ll be so screwed.
I guess the hesitation is that it takes away women’s moral authority over themselves and hands it to the doctor. But the “doctor’s judgement” argument is quite valid–why should a bunch of non-medically trained legislators and Bible-thumpers tell doctors what the best treatment is?
I think that is the creepy part, along with the idea of who gets privacy and respect. It’s like, his prescription pad is sacred, but her uterus not so much?
Might it also help to put this into a larger context of censorship and hindrance of healthcare providers? Stem cells, Planned Parenthood’s other services, defunding of support services for the sick?
“In recent years, they’ve gained the upper hand by focusing relentlessly on late-term fetuses that look like babies.” That’s because they are babies, geniuses…
I don’t see the need for rude sarcasm, or for insulting other people’s intellgence.
Pardon me, but it usually bothers me how people distance themselves from what is in essence a murder of a human by calling it a fetus.
Let me ask you this Ampersand; Do you seriously consider that you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and consider that right and just? Oh yes, I am being very closed minded in not mentioning that this is only one of the ways that this is praticed. The others might not be as sick and disgusting…
Will, are you familiar with the reality of late term abortions, or just the reality according to pro-lifers?
I am bothered by late term abortions, and would want to see alternate forms of saving both the mother and baby found. For the most part, from my understanding, late term abortions are about moms health or are about the lack of the babies viability (this is where I am not in favor of abortion. Moms health, yes, babies chances or quality of life, no). However, I also don’t think we get anywhere by saying
I think most pro-lifers know it would cause the mother a great deal of pain, but believe the life of the baby outweighs that pain, and if one believes a conception is equivalent to a child, then it doesn’t matter what the stage of life is. I don’t agree that life begins at conception, but I think one has to understand how the “other side” views things, and not to simply tag them with a deragatory label. If one believes it is murder it is murder, and would I really want someone to say; “Okay, its murder. But that’s alright. I’ll let it pass.” ?
There might not be a solution to this and many other debates. I don’t know; I think we have reached the point where many of us are secure in whatever belief-niche we are in, and can no longer regard the multiple views of the issue as having moral standing. “I disagree but accept that you have a right to your beliefs”.
Ampersand has far more information on it than I do, but yes, late term abortions were by law health related. And yes, a woman’s health is more important than an undelivered child, and yes if there are alternatives they should absolutely be a point of consideration when it comes to making these decisions.
The problem, Rachel, is that this issue is not about people agreeing to disagree, but instead people attempting to force agreement or compliance of their beliefs on others personal life-altering decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone who objects to terminating pregnancies to do so, unfortunately the same can’t be said with regards to those attempting to force their beliefs with regards to people objecting to deciding to terminate a pregnancy.
I’m sorry to disagree with Kim (basement variety!), but the legal requirements for late term abortions aren’t necessarily health related; the laws vary from state to state.
Virtually all aboriton procedures can be described in ways that make them sound gross. However, I don’t think we should base our laws on what sounds gross or not.
Regardless of if D&X abortions (which is what you’re describing here) are “right and just,” I think that’s a decision better left to individual women than to Big Brother Government. So to some extent, I think your question is irrelevent.
However, yes, I think that D&X abortions can certainly be “right and just.” For some examples, read these two earlier posts I wrote: why D&X abortions are medically necessary and some real women who have needed d&x abortions.
You’re kidding, right? This is how most pro-choicers make omelettes. Because if liberals hate anything, it’s the unborn.
I love pro-lifer reversals. Almost all late-term abortions are performed for the sake of the health of the mother; in many states–like mine–they’re illegal otherwise. If, for example, you detect anencephaly after the second trimester, you get to deliver the baby. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed. Do you think a woman would dither for five or six months over an unwanted pregnancy if there weren’t other considerations?
And if you care about keeping fetal brains intact, what’s your excuse for voting for the Mercury President?
Especially since, I’m guessing, Will doesn’t want any abortions legal, at any point in the pregnancy.
Will, this is my post so I have authority here as Amp has given me. I suggest you calm the fuck down and stop be so insulting to others if you wish to keep posting your opinion on this thread. Differing opinions is perfectly okay but being an asshole on purpose (for the sake of being an asshole I guess) will not be tolerated. Clear?
“If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed.”
Although, with all due respect, the alternative is to force people who think abortion is murder to support it through their tax dollars. Not really a pro-choice position.
Granted, people already are forced to support things they find immoral through their tax dollars, but in most of those cases the people advocating government expenditures aren’t calling themselves “pro-choice.”
I’ll rephrase: If a pro-lifer wants to force a woman to choose between a late-term abortion and no abortion at all, they can’t complain when she chooses a late-term abortion, or act as though women in general or pro-choicers in general support or prefer late-term abortions.
The problem, Rachel, is that this issue is not about people agreeing to disagree, but instead people attempting to force agreement or compliance of their beliefs on others personal life-altering decisions
And I agree that is the problem. However, the reason the problem exists and I’m not certain there is a solution, is because one group feels abortion is murder. They cannot simply allow murder to continue. It is easier for me to debate this issue and allow people their say,because while I think many abortions are immoral, I do not think they are murder. But if one thinks that abortion is murder, if one thinks that contraceptives are murder, then there is no more talking. The “other side” cannot sit back and allow a discussion to go on but must work tirelessly against laws which allow, what they feel is murder to continue.
It is like two people debating whether a garment is aquamarine or plain green; one can take it to a vote, but that doesn’t alter anyone’s vision.
This is just one of the first forays into the real agenda of the religocrats. The want to make ALL forms of birth-control illegal. The justification used is an extention of their existing argument. “Abortion is murder.” then “The morning after pill is murder.” then “The pill is murder.” then “A condom is murder.”
There is no appeasing the zealots. They will not be satisfied until all forms of birth-control are illegal. (and if they could find a way into the bedrooms, they’d make the rythym method illegal, too)
I’m just unwilling to accept or even humor the argument that abortion is murder.
If it was murder, I’d be in jail as a self-confessed person whom has terminated a pregnancy, and well, I’m not, and there hasn’t been any attempt to prosecute me as so.
Abortion ! = murder. Period. No matter how hard moralists attempt to make the argument, it just isn’t so.
For another example, I think attempting to force a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to is rape. Does that make anti-choice people rapists, just because I said so?
Anyone who thinks procedures should be legal depending on their grossness ought not to be present at childbirth.
Although, I must say, the best thing my mom ever did to me to encourage me to stay abstinent was show me a movie of a live birth. To me, sex was equated with pain, and mess for the longest time (thank you, psychological scars).
Comparitively, abortions are down right clean.
For another example, I think attempting to force a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to is rape. Does that make anti-choice people rapists, just because I said so?
No; however, if your perception is that all forms of intercourse are a form of rape, then prseenting “willingness” as an arguement that it is not rape will not suffice. Does that make it rape? It would depend on the circumstances of course; if we are talking about two legally consenting adults (using those words to avoid drunkeness, being drugged, being by reason of insanity etc. etc. unable to actually give consent) I would have to say no it isn’t. That doesn’t change the mind of someone who believes rape means penetration of a woman by a man under any circumstances. Similarly, if one were to say that it is impossible to rape a woman will also not be persuaded by any arguments suggesting it wasn’t consensual. So what is the solution?
The middle ground is where I head; but my middle is someone else’s right (far right) another’s left, and we still leave people dissatified. Perhaps that is what happens. We will always need to keep arguing abortion till somehow it is decided absolutely by some factor or other, if we want to keep it legal at least in some instances.