CNN.Com: Protest follows denial of morning-after pill
Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t that illegal? According to the pharmacy board, the rule is that the pharmacist can deny to fill the med if it will harm the patient. It *does not* say that the pharmacist can deny the prescription for moral/ethical reasons. In this case, it wasn’t an issue of harming the patient — the woman had been raped! Instead, the pharmacist chose not to give it to her because they didn’t believe in doing so. It’s not like we’re talking RU-486 here where it is given for the sole purpose of aborting the child — it’s preventitive medicine so that the fetus can’t form — in other words, BIRTH CONTROL.
And for those who want to tell me that I’m a moron and don’t know what the medication does, I’ll explain how it works in plain English. It’s basically a larger dose of birth control and causes the woman to have a brief menstrual cycle that flushes anything that could be fertilized out of the uterus. (If you want to know how I know this, feel free to email me and I might tell you.) It doesn’t operate on the premise that there is a child — it operates on the premise that we need to prevent the child from forming.
Added on, the woman was raped! It’s not like it was stupidity on the part of her or her partner or a birth control method failing — it was RAPE. Consider this prevention of a later abortion as she probably does not want to be carrying a child that is the product of the violation of her body around for 9 months.
(And yes, I know I’m going to catch lots of fire for this entry.)
i am appalled at this pharmacist.
you are COMPLETELY correct. i am so tired of people calling EC abortion in a bottle.
Maybe my comment won’t matter since you don’t know me but I agree with you completely.
no fire from me, jen.
“flushes anything that could be fertilized out of the uterus” – “probably does not want to be carrying a child that is the product of the violation of her body around for 9 months.”
i feel deeply for the young woman involved, who feels violated twice now. but i also feel for the “anything fertilized”, the “product of violation #1”, that didn’t choose its time of fertilization nor its own termination.
i hope there was no child, that the young woman will thrive in surviving, and that castration (and salvation) finds her attacker.
Jen, I couldn’t agree with you more!
rick, jen said “flushes anything that could be fertilized out of the uterus” – iow, the idea is to prevent fertilisation altogether. The possibility of there being a “product of violation #1” only arises if the morning-after pill isn’t provided.