Ms. Adams, You can safely bet if this was a man's issue it would quickly become a non-issue. It is only because pharmacists (mostly male) are trying to control women's access to women's products that this is a problem. If the same pharmacists refused men Viagra or Cealis or even male hormones, this problem would be a thing of the past pronto.

And for all those who think I'm male bashing I say I have three sons and four grandsons so that is not the case. I love the menfolk but that does not mean I don't live in reality. It's still a man's world.

The simple answer to pharmacist that are unable to fulfill perscriptions because of moral concerns is they must find a job that they are able to fill the requirements in. It's not as if these aspects of the job come as a surprise, they are a known part of the job. If the person has qualms about them going into the profession they shouldn't go into it. If these attitudes develope later they should quit. None of us get to pick and chose which of our job obligations we wish to fulfill and those we don't. We do have some choice in what careers we follow but once we accept a job we have an obligation to meet our responsibilities.

What other professions do we let pick and chose what duties they perform? It's a slippery slope once you start down it. Perhaps if a policeman doesn't believe in enforcing drug laws he shouldn't have to. If a teacher doesn't belive that the holocaust happened then they can teach around it or that it never occured. If an infantryman doesn't believe in killing should we excuse him as he sits on his hands instead of supporting his comrades if they come under attack?

These decisions come up front when you make career choices, not on a case by case basis while on the job.

Just simply send in a male to pick-up your birth control pills.

Good one Steve. LMAO.

Marshall, Could not have said it nearly as well myself so glad you posted.

I was all set to say my piece, but seems Yvonne and Marshall said it for me, and quite well too. Leonard Pitts wrote a great column earlier this week on the same topic.

why can't the pharmacist just work for a pharmacy that permits him to refuse to fill these prescriptions? unless we think a pharmacy has a government granted monopoly, there's no separation of church and state issue, because the pharmacy isn't the state. and sure an employer (state or private)can fire teachers, policemen and infantrymen who won't perform their duties, but the pharmacy can define the pharmacist's duties however it likes, and may decide to accommodate a dissenter. does this bill provide some protection for the pharmacist i'm not considering?

the pendulum can swing. the "public" may one day decide 12 is old enough to buy a powerful gun. some gun sellers may be of the opinion that that's too young. should we then tell those gun sellers to sell to 12 yr olds or find another line of work? and if you think birth control pills etc are obviously more of a necessity than guns, you haven't been listening to the NRA. or maybe the "public" decides all therapists must tell their patients to be saved in Christ or offer Christian-based therapy if requested by the patient (eg, make this guy offer an AA program too http://www.a-1associates.com/AA/humanist2.htm ) . You could come up with a million examples like this, and the some on the right are eager to use the state to impose their vision.

i don't think the "if this were a male drug..." argument holds up. plenty of women at those pro-life rallies. now, you may think anti-abortion/contraception folk are sexist or delusional, but there are a lot of people who feel as strongly about it as you do child prostitution and they aren't misogynists, etc. forcing a few pharmacists to sell this stuff may make you feel vindicated, but it doesn't strike me as a good way to maintain Roe v Wade. just my 2 cents and frnakly i dont know what the terms of the proposal are.

Miss Gail,

What a sly little politician you are! And you're learning to spell!

Steve,

It's Ms Gail to you! And I spell quite well, thank you, although I don't type nearly as well.

I only recently started reading these blogs, but apparently there is some hidden agenda. I don't have any idea what your sly politician comment is about. If it is intended to be funny, perhaps you'll let me in on the joke. You appear to have a good vocabulary; say what you mean and stop with the obtuse sarcasm. It doesn't become you.

I think I'm in love. . .

And here I've been wasting all this time surfing the personals...

gail sed "And here I've been wasting all this time surfing the personals..."

just remember the pill does not protect against STDs. no offense, steve.

None taken, I considered the source.

I think gail and steve are the same person.

Now that is a concept I had not thought to explore (before now, that is). Ummmmm.

I am very definitely NOT steve...whoever he may be!

A dreary, lonely Saturday and I thought I'd see what blogs were all about. Turns out it's kind of like having a conversation with an ex husband.

Psst! dave...it was only a joke.

Best I ever had. . . NEXT!!

Just gimme tha drugs and STFU. Thats all you need to tell some DEA wannabe pharmacist.

I don't know where you guys get your prescriptions filled, but I haven't found that most of the pharmacists are male.

In fact, it is rare that I even see a male behind the counter.

I think this is a non-issue. I can't see any company of a decent size trying to keep people from getting their prescription. I just don't see it. This looks more like Bread and Circuses to me.

I think the issue is that a political climate has been established at the top levels of our government that has encouraged some pharmacists to think it is okay for them to be unprofessional in carrying out their responsibilities to the public. No one would argue that they do not have a right to their religious beliefs, simply that they have no right to foist those on other people. Those who say they should find other jobs are right. I don't believe in capital punishment so I would never take a job that involved carrying out such an act, no matter how legal it might be.

"Those who say they should find other jobs are right."

I disagree, Susan.

Should a preacher be forced to find another job because he doesn't want to be involved in a gay marriage? Should a doctor be required to no longer be a doctor if he doesn't want to give abortions? Should a police officer be expected to find another job if he disagrees with racial profiling?

These pharmacists began their careers and received their training before a 'morning after' pill ever came out. These are moral and ethical decisions and they should have the freedom to not be a part of them. Birth control is frowned on by the Catholic church. Your position basically states that all Catholics should have to quit their jobs to maintain their beliefs. That is wrong.