Pill propelled into abortion debate.
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-13-2004 - 1:35pm |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3652462.stm
The birth control pill revolutionised women's health - and grew to become one of the most popular forms of family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-life groups in the US.

A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.
Pro-choice groups fear this new moral objection to the Pill could lead to more unplanned pregnancies, even more abortions.
A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But occasionally she might - and it is possible that egg could be fertilised.
The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or survive.
![]()
Family doctor
Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek - a family doctor in Milwaukee - now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion.
"The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilisation may occur," Dr Jones-Nosacek says.
"Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."
'Caught off-guard'
That definition is suddenly gaining support and some pharmacists now refuse to dispense the Pill.
Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.
![]()
Planned Parenthood
"I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...
"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.
At first these were just isolated cases, mostly in the Midwest. But recently they have increased dramatically.
Pro-choice groups now call it a significant and growing trend. Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin says it is a conscious extension of the abortion debate.
"They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin," Ms Boyce says.
"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."
Conscience clauses
And in the run-up to the election, it is a hot political topic too.
This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.
In Wisconsin, the mostly-Republican assembly passed the bill, only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor.
Representative Curt Gielow says pharmacists should be protected.
"There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment," Mr Gielow says.
"That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."
At the moment, the Pill is hugely popular in the US. But calling it a type of abortion opens up a whole new front in the pro-life, pro-choice debate.
This moral condemnation is a fresh challenge to one of the most used, most reliable methods of family planning.


Pages
But I am bothered by the apparent attitude that somehow puts the wants and needs of a fully formed human being at the mercy of a morula or blastocyst. Dear God, we have come so far in our struggle to have equal opportunities. Please don't send us back to be reluctant mothers if we want to have other choices.
Also, I want to know whether those "people of conscience" have any qualms about dispensing male potency drugs like Viagra or Cialis!
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
It isn't the job of a pharmacist to impose their belief systems on the clients of the pharmacies they are employed at. Nor is it their job to refuse to dispense valid, legal, and accurately prescribed medications in accordance with the directions of a physician on the basis of their personal morals.
~mark~
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
If a physician is working for a hospital or clinic and was hired to perform duties which he or she later refuses to perform, the hospital or clinic should have every right to dismiss him or her. If a physician runs *his own office* and decides to no longer perform certain procedures, they have the right to make that decision for themselves.
In regards to pharmacies and pharmacists, should the pharmacist own or run the pharmacy, they likewise have the right to stock and dispense whatever medications they choose. They also then have the right NOT to stock a given drug. When they work for someone else though, that isn't the case if the pharmacy chooses to stock drugs the pharmacist finds so offensive they refuse to dispense them. Then, the pharmacy should have the right to dismiss the pharmacist for failure to fulfill his employment obligations.
~mark~
"Please don't send us back to be reluctant mothers if we want to have other choices."
Amen!
I'm not surprised.
The RC church has long thought BC wrong, but all RC I know choose to ignore this.
I also agree with Mark's post.
Pages