A state proposal to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for morning-after birth-control pills could lead to some absurd events.
It’s a compromise that makes little sense. Pharmacists who believe the pill is a murderous abortion want the conscience rule. Women’s groups want to require pharmacists to fill any legal prescriptions.
The state Pharmacy Board’s proposed rule allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their consciences, but requires them to refer such patients to pharmacists who will fill those prescriptions.
That could lead to a statement like this from a pharmacist: “I can’t give you those pills, ma’am, because I believe it could allow you to kill an unborn child, but I can direct you to the R-X Pharmacy three blocks south of here where a pharmacist will sell you that prescription.”
At a large pharmacy, the statement could be like this: “We have that pill, but my conscience won’t allow me to sell it to you. However, the other pharmacist here has different views. So, I’ll just go to another part of the building while she helps you.”
So, the pharmacist gets to avoid selling something he believes is immoral, but the patient still gets her pills.
It’s like a gun dealer saying, “No, son, I won’t sell a gun to a 12-year-old, but I can send you to the man across the street who will be happy to sell you one.”
If prescribing the pill violates a pharmacist’s conscience, then referring a woman to someone who will fill it also would violate his conscience.
On the other hand, if we force a pharmacist to make a referral, shouldn’t we also force him to fill it himself?
Fracture among supporters
The failure of a petition drive to get Referendum 65 on the ballot shows a fracture among anti-gay-rights groups. The petition would have put the Legislature-pressed civil-rights law to a public vote.
The chairman of the Faith and Freedom Network, which had gathered signatures at churches, blamed sponsor Tim Eyman for the failure of the petition drive.
The Rev. Joseph Fuiten, chairman of the group, said last week, “Tim Eyman has a knack for messing stuff up. He’s kind of an interloper on this whole thing in my opinion. Part of the deal is resistance to him.”
Eyman responded the next day that people decide based on an issue, not on who sponsors it.
“Opponents have tried the ‘vote no because Eyman is a bad guy’ strategy for years yet our measures usually qualify for the ballot and they usually are approved by voters,” he said by e-mail. “If these efforts were easy, we’d be voting on 40 measures every year.”
Evan Smith is the Enterprise Forum editor. Send comments to entopinion@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
