|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 28, 2005 / 19 Nisan, 5765 No conscience over the counter By Debra J. Saunders
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
You know the world is changing when the left — which used to
believe in respecting choice and requiring businesses to accommodate
workers' personal preferences — opposes choice and letting individual
workers say no to tasks they find morally abhorrent, while the right —
which used to stand for letting businesses choose policies that promote
their bottom line — supports laws that could force employers to accommodate
workers whose personal scruples prevent them from selling a product.
Yet that's exactly what you get as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.,
and other Democrats introduce bills that would force pharmacists to sell
birth-control pills and emergency-contraception pills such as RU-486 and
Plan B, even if the pharmacist is morally opposed to one of these forms of
birth control.
The issue here isn't hypocrisy. The issue is that these laws can
present serious consequences. Do Americans want the government to tell a
business what it has to sell?
Some states have laws protecting pharmacists' conscientious
objections. Do employees have a right to expect legal protections that allow
them to say no to tasks to which they morally object?
And: How can feminists — read Boxer — say they support
"choice," as they conspire to outlaw the right of pharmacists to make a
choice they don't like?
Here's another question Washington rarely asks: Is this law even
necessary? I asked the American Pharmacists Association how frequently
people had trouble filling prescriptions. "We don't track that data," said
Director of Government Relations Kristina Lunner. "Our understanding is that
it's only been a handful of circumstances."
Boxer spokesman David Sandretti answered, "We have reports of
refusals in a dozen states." Hmmmm. That could mean only a dozen people had
trouble getting a prescription filled — and they were free to find another
pharmacy. So why make this a federal case?
(Critics say that options in rural areas aren't so available. If
and where such a problem exists, let states or family-planning organizations
provide an alternative.)
Supporters of such a law note reports that some pharmacists
refused to return a prescription to a customer so she could have it filled
elsewhere, or publicly lectured someone who went to a pharmacy expecting
pills, not a sermon. If that's true, let these consumers haul the offender
before the relevant pharmacy board, which can take action.
Or they could hire a lawyer. Let me note: I am a strong believer
in birth control. That said, there is no need for a federal law — not when
cooler heads know how to protect the rights of both consumers and
pharmacists.
The pharmacists' association has had a "conscience clause" since
1998 that allows pharmacists to not dispense prescriptions on moral grounds.
It initially allowed pharmacists, like doctors, to refuse to dispense lethal
medication under Oregon's assisted suicide law. It also helped dissenting
pharmacists refuse to dispense lethal injection drugs for state executions.
Lunner feels that the proposed federal legislation could obliterate these
personal choices.
The conscience clause also allows pharmacists who object to
dispensing birth control, RU-486 or Plan B from doing so, but in a way that
protects the privacy rights and reasonable expectations of consumers.
Lunner repeated a nifty association slogan: "We support
pharmacists stepping away, we do not support them stepping in the way." She
added that pharmacists should refuse consumers "seamlessly" by getting
someone else to fill a prescription or by politely not stocking a particular
drug. In sum: "We do not support pharmacists using their role to harass
patients."
Warning: If Boxer and Sen. Frank Lautenberg have their way,
consumers could force dissenting pharmacists to stock particular drugs and
dispense them.
Choice, once again, is a one-way street. Indeed, some in the
anti-choice crowd can't even support the compromise of requiring pharmacists
to find a co-worker or refer a customer to a nearby pharmacy to dispense a
disputed drug.
And Boxer, who has railed against the "global gag rule" — which
prevents U.S. aid from funding family-planning groups that support
abortion — now embraces an American gag rule for drugstores. Explaining her
opposition to the rule in an April 5 speech, Boxer noted, "We are proud of
the fact that we don't tell our citizens what they can think, what they can
say, if it's on their own dime."
She really means it, too — as long as you're not a pharmacist.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here. © 2005, Creators Syndicate |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
