Two pharmacists in Washington have sued the state over a law which governs emergency contraception. Under that law, a pharmacist who has moral issues with dispensing the medication may refuse to do so, so long as another pharmacist in the store can dispense it. The law requires that a patient be able to receive the drug during the original visit.
Pharmacists in Illinois, Texas, and Wisconsin have been fired from their jobs for refusing to stock this drug. Massachusetts and Illinois laws require pharmacies to stock the drug (although they do not require pharmacies to stock any other type of drug).
All of these laws and policies are a result of the modern Leftist agenda. The theory is that pharmacists have no moral duty to unborn children; their jobs consist solely of providing patients with medication. While the pachyderm is loathe to grant pharmacists the same rights as physicians, who have developed lengthy relationships with their patients and have made a medical determination as to the necessity of the drug, she finds many of these regulations to be morally schizophrenic:
Consider that a bar is legally liable if it serves too much alcohol to its patrons, although its job is to provide its customers with drinks. Likewise, hosts are also responsible for the damage that their guests may do to others upon leaving their homes. Gun sellers may be legally liable for the sale of a firearm to a minor or “unfit buyer.” The manufacturers and owners of firearms are also liable for problems that result from their use. Psychiatrists are liable for harm resulting from a patient’s actions, if they had known or should have known that the patient was an imminent threat.
All of these laws place limits on what people may do in the ordinary course of business, due to the potential of harm to a third party. Yet, emergency contraception laws are silent on the harm done to an embryo; indeed, the pharmacist is prohibited from considering that harm before dispensing the medication. Is it simply because there will be no person to bring a tort claim for the dispensation of this drug? There are plenty of accident victims (or the families thereof) who are willing to sue firearm sellers, manufacturers, or owners; bar owners; or psychiatrists, but no one has the legal standing to sue over a terminated pregnancy.
It is absolutely asinine to, on one hand, prohibit gun dealers from selling a gun to a person, in accordance with his constitutional right, but to prohibit a pharmacist from exercising his conscience to protect a third party from imminent harm. The only thing that either restriction does is dictate the elements of the pharmacist’s or the firearms seller’s conscience.