Once again, pharmacists have been given the option of deciding which medicines they choose to dispense.
Pharmacists in Illinois were told by a judge that they can say "no" to certain pills. And lawmakers in Missouri are attempting to pass a law that would restrict these same medicines.
What are we talking about? Viagra, maybe? I mean, if you can't get an erection by yourself, maybe that's God's way of letting you know that you're done with sex.
Cholesterol drugs? Well, if I saw that you were 300 pounds overweight, I might tell you that cholesterol drugs aren't going to save you from your gluttony and you should just take your punishment?
Pain relievers? No, God clearly wants you to be in pain, so just suck it up.
No. Of course, these are not the drugs we're talking about.
Two years ago, I wrote a long piece about Plan B contraception, otherwise known as the "morning after pill." Until President Obama came into power, you could not buy the morning after pill if you were younger than eighteen. (Under President Bush, you couldn't buy it at all for the longest time, until the FDA finally said okay. Once again, politics trumped science, until science finally pushed back.)
In my earlier piece, I reported my own use of the morning after pill. So, let's be clear, shall we, on what we are talking about? The morning after pill is not RU-486, which is taken several weeks into a pregnancy and is intended to induce an abortion.
The morning-after pill is exactly what it sounds like. It is a high dose of regular birth control pills, taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, that prevents implantation. In that respect, it works just like an IUD.
And, for rape or incest victims, the morning after pill is often the only remedy to prevent the additional punishment of being impregnated by your attacker. But don't let facts get in your way, dear pharmacists.
In how many small towns are women facing down the only pharmacist in town who has decided that women who are sexual do not deserve to make a decision about their own bodies? Are there morals clauses that allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense Viagra? Or is this just about punishing women, again?
Same bullshit, different day.
Here's a clue: you are a pharmacist. I respect that you went to school for as long as I did and now make twice my salary. Average starting salaries are:CVS / Pharmacy$70,000 - $115,642Walgreen Co.$82,424 - $104,176Rite Aid Pharmacy$70,337 - $113,200Walgreen's Pharmacy$68,784 - $99,442CVS Caremark Corporation$93,750 - $124,646
So, somehow, you think your education and your salary allows you to play priest. That's the only conclusion I can draw about a pharmacist who thinks that s/he knows better than the medical professionals and the women who make these decisions every day.
Pharmacists do not get to make moral decisions for their clients. If they feel that they cannot dispense the drugs that they are required by law to do so, then get the fuck out of the industry.
And, while you're at it, get the fuck out of my uterus.