Monday, April 25, 2005


Christians Need Not Apply

Bob Rivard may have "apologized" yesterday for the SAEN's headline announcing the new Pope, but don't think that means a shift in attitudes at the paper. Check this out from today's column by Leonard Pitts:
Though no one seems to have hard numbers, published reports suggest a widespread pattern of "Christian" pharmacist refusing to fill prescriptions with which they disagree. And a chilling report last month in the Washington Post suggests that some have gone even further. It told of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth-control pills to unmarried women, of those who will not sell contraceptive devices to anybody, period, and of those who not only won't fill morning-after prescriptions, but who hold the prescriptions hostage...[emphasis added]"

More and more these days Christians are the only group of people not allowed to follow their convictions. Those scare quotes around Christian are Mr. Pitts' by the way. Second, check out the language he uses in his column, words like "chilling" and "hostage." In fact, later on in the column he calls such acts "lunacy." And did you notice the Pitts does not mention the source of the "published report" that suggest the widespread pattern he talks about? No doubt it is from an advocacy group with an agenda because in the next sentence he gives the Washington Post as the source of another study he cites. Interesting. So folks, you can add pharmacist to the list of jobs the MSM doesn't want Christians to have, along with appellate court judge and president. Indeed, Mr. Pitts offers some advice to "Christian" pharmacists who are indecent enough to hold to their beliefs:
Get another job.

Actually, getting another job would be the prudent thing to do. If a pharmacist is going to selectively fill prescriptions--any prescriptions--then he/she has no business being in this profession.
Pitts is being disengenuous when he says "so should a candidate for a pharmacy job understand that she might have to hand out contraceptive pills and devices. She should either resolve to mind her own business or keep searching the want ads." Implying that a pharmacist student should have known what they were getting into.

That might be true for contraceptives, which have been around for 40 years now...but not for what Pitts refers to as "the so-called morning-after anti-contraceptive pill". That is not a contraceptive, it is an abortion pill. And no pharmicist who studied more than five years ago can be expected to have known he would be required to dispense such an abominable "medicine."
If somebody believes that a certain medicine is a moral sin due to his to her religion then they should be allowed to do so. What's next, forcing Muslim buthcers to carry pork? Here is a nifty idea: instead of persecuting these pharmacist why doesn't the customer just go to another pharmacy? You know, let the free market take care of it.
Ah, if it only was as simple as letting "the free market take care of it." When law-abiding citizens cannot get a prescription filled for a legal medication at any pharmacy in their community, that is a problem. If the CVS, HEB, or Walgreens carries the medication, the phramacist, I believe, should be required to dispense it, regardless of his or her moral qualms.
Again I ask, where does it stop? Where to we put the brakes on government being able to force people to provide services not in agreement with their religious beliefs? Should we force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions or access to morning after pills or birth control pills? Can a woman sue a Christian doctor who refuses to perfom an abortion or provide her with a presciption for the morning after pill? Planned Parenthood alone has more than 850 clinics in the United States where these drugs are available so I don't believe that access is a consideration, and so the government, and the MSM, should leave pharmacists alone who wish to run their businesses in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs. And what about areas beyond healthcare? Do we force Muslim restaurants to serve pork just because you like it? Finally, as Mark mentions, in the case of the morning after pill we aren't talking about something that treats or prevents an illness, but a pill that terminates a pregnancy, something Christians in general, and Christians who happen to be pharmacists, consider murder.

I just wanted to thank you for reading our blog and for letting us know what you think. I hope you will continue to leave us comments in the future.

I think the Muslims and pork issue is off-base. A more apt comparison would be if a Muslim waiter refused to serve a customer pork, a produt already on the menu.

While some Christians may consider abortion murder, many others do not. Be careful with the generalizations.

I enjoy your site--not because I agree with what you and Mark write, but because I find your views provocative.
For the record, I did say "Christians in general," but if I was not clear then I apologize.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?