# Now the Pill is under attack!



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

This article really surprised me. Are the people who are trying to restrict the Pill really this short sighted? It's more likely to result in an increase in later abortions. Doesn't history count for anything anymore? Does anyone know if restricting birth control and abortion ever had a healthy effect in any society? i.e. didn't result in a black market which endangers women?

When I think of all the effort some pro-life groups must put into their cause, and see these anti abortion protesters outside clinics (and why are they mostly middle aged men??), it makes me angry that they're not spending their time helping the children that are ALREADY here. There are disabled children in institutions that no one visits, abused chldren who need foster families instead of institutional care... Doesn't it make people on both sides of the debate angry that more effort/time is spent on arguing the debate than actually supporting children and families?

I don't disagree that in some instances the Pill actually does constitute a very early 'abortion', if the egg is fertilized. I feel for the pharmacist who has strong feelings on this issue and is in a dilemma. But to impose their personal opinion on another person's life/health is too much.

BTW I'm pro-choice but hope no women needs to have an abortion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3652462.stm


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Wombat, i quickly scanned the article, but it is talking about the regular birth control pilll, not the "morning after" one correct?

I find it outrageous that pharmacists can take a stand like this and keep their jobs.

It looks desperate.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

I'm birth control ignorant but aren't there several types of the pill... one that can cause a fertilized egg to not implant and one that allows it too.

Thats one of the reasons I didn't take it (not the main reason though) but I think it should still be available. I like to say that your reproductive health is your business.

What in the world is a "conscious clause" going to do. That is a scary thought! It opens the door to a lot of other things. I don't want MY person and family to have to be at the whims of YOUR (general you) conscious!

What are the odds if taken correctly a gal gets pg on the pill anyway? I kow 4 or 5 but I think they were also taking either supplements or other scripts that nixed the effects of the pill.


----------



## mthomas (Mar 20, 2004)

I don't understand. What is the alternative? Are women/families supposed to either have babies regardless of thier ability to support them or the want to have them? Oh wait, I know. The women should just close their legs.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mthomas*
Oh wait, I know. The women should just close their legs.

Except what if its their husband wanting to do the deed? Aren't they then supposed to fufill his needs? And then if she gets pregnant and he's mad because he didn't want another baby, then she's just supposed to quietly let him beat her. Right? Isn't that the way its supposed to go?

AGH! I don't know who got the idea that MY uterus belongs to anyone BUT me.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Wow - I can not believe that article! Doesn't make sense to me... don't get an abortion but don't try to stop pregnancy either. So yes I guess abstinance is the only way... uh, yeah right.

And how horrible that people are being refused their medication because a pharmacist "doesn't believe in birth control". So that means if they don't believe in pain relief they can decide not to hand out that type of medication as well? I can see this thing opening up a whole can of ugly worms.

Kitty


----------



## MamaSoleil (Apr 24, 2002)

Quote:

Except what if its their husband wanting to do the deed? Aren't they then supposed to fufill his needs?
Isn't that the only reason we have sex? Is to procreate?

:frustrated


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Wow! I don't think of the pill as abortion, and I have no moral objection to using it. I certainly don't think it should be outlawed, but the article doesn't say that is what they are trying to do.

Quote:

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.
I can see not taking away a pharmacist's liscense for it, but if they are working for someone else, then that person still has a right to fire them. They can open up their own pharmacy if they don't like it. I don't see this as a government issue.


----------



## comet (Aug 22, 2002)

What is outrageous to me is that a pharmacist's own beliefs are able to dictate what prescriptions can be filled.

How long would such pharmacists last if they had a moral objection to viagra?


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_our_family*
I'm birth control ignorant but aren't there several types of the pill... one that can cause a fertilized egg to not implant and one that allows it too.

Thats one of the reasons I didn't take it (not the main reason though) but I think it should still be available. I like to say that your reproductive health is your business.

What in the world is a "conscious clause" going to do. That is a scary thought! It opens the door to a lot of other things. I don't want MY person and family to have to be at the whims of YOUR (general you) conscious!

What are the odds if taken correctly a gal gets pg on the pill anyway? I kow 4 or 5 but I think they were also taking either supplements or other scripts that nixed the effects of the pill.

you are wrong.The pill prevents one from ovulating making the body think one is pregnant.So because your body doesn't really have a cycle anymore you also don't menstruate but the bleeding has a special name ( it's not in my dictionary and I don't know what the english word is)

So if the hormonal dose is too little it can happen that you ovulate anyway.In that case the pill has nothing to do with whether one keeps the baby or not.

I think you are confused with the morning after pill which induces menstrual bleeding

TC,


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'm disgusted that pharms think that they should be able to limit my access to legally rx medications.

and yes, for some people the goal is to make all women close their legs unless they are married and their husbands want them open.

ugh!


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty*
Wow - I can not believe that article! Doesn't make sense to me... don't get an abortion but don't try to stop pregnancy either. So yes I guess abstinance is the only way... uh, yeah right.

And how horrible that people are being refused their medication because a pharmacist "doesn't believe in birth control". So that means if they don't believe in pain relief they can decide not to hand out that type of medication as well? I can see this thing opening up a whole can of ugly worms.

Kitty

This country is sinking more and more into a religious swamp spreading out all over.I don't care what someone believes as long as I am also entitled to believe what I want.And imposing religon based values onto others reminds of the dark ages.It is NOT right.If you can't handle the thought of giving the pill to women, don't become a pharmacist.Some else will be happy to do the job.It's that simple..but don't tell others how to live their life


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

If I remember correctly, it is simply a BELIEF that the pill causes the fertilized egg to not implant. It has not been proven.

Also, getting rid of all forms of birth control has been the stated goal of many "pro-life" groups for some time now.

The war against women is heating up, sisters.


----------



## lillaurensmomma (Jul 5, 2003)

Most pill packets say that it helps suppress ovulation AND creates a hosile environment in the uterus. That is the argument that it "aborts" at times. If ovulation does happen, then the uterus has been made hostile to the fertilized egg and won't let it implant. If you believe that life begins at conception (as many do) then that is considered an abortion.

I did a lot of reading on this when I first found out about it. I read some statistic about how many eggs get fertilized (under no b/c circumstances) and then do not implant. Are all of those miscarriages? I don't think so (just MY opinon...not worth much lol). I wish I could find the stats that I read when DD was a baby. There was a reputible source that discussed how rarely this all happened, etc. I chose to go back on bc after reading those sources.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

Also, getting rid of all forms of birth control has been the stated goal of many "pro-life" groups for some time now.
Sunshine, i didnt know that. Honestly.

In my ignorance, i knew that pro-lifers wanted to outlaw abortion and rule me that way, but i had no idea they were against birth control. What is the theory behind that, whats their point? isnt taking birth control taking personal responsibility for your body and preventing an unwanted pregnancy?

Or do they want total and complete control over my reproductive rights.

Someone enlighten me, while i throw up in the toilet.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
you are wrong.The pill prevents one from ovulating making the body think one is pregnant.So because your body doesn't really have a cycle anymore you also don't menstruate but the bleeding has a special name ( it's not in my dictionary and I don't know what the english word is)

So if the hormonal dose is too little it can happen that you ovulate anyway.In that case the pill has nothing to do with whether one keeps the baby or not.

I think you are confused with the morning after pill which induces menstrual bleeding

TC,

Um, no I'm not confusing it with the morning after pill. I know the difference. Growing up we were told that there were 2 different types. I know the pill stops ovulating... but I also know that some supplements nix the pill.

If you don't ovulate on the pill...then whats the deal with them having aproblem with bc. If it has nothing to do with keeping a baby then aren't the pharmacists confused? If the "normal" pill doesn't cause a m/c or prevent implant then whats the big deal?

I was still taught, even in health class, before the morning after pill, that there were 2 different types. One to prevent O and one to stop implant AND the morning after pill.

http://epigee.org/guide/pill.html#progestin

This says this pill allows O but not implant.

http://epigee.org/guide/pill.html

This says it stops O and possible implant


----------



## mirlee (Jul 30, 2002)

! Margaret Sanger is rolling right now! I find it repulsive that the government and other people want to tell me how to manage my ability or desire to reproduce.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

I am still confused as to *why* they want to put the kibash on the BC Pill.

Megan, thanks for the links.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

The reason for getting rid of birth control is that it allows people to have sex w/o the risk of getting pregnant (well significantly reducing the chance of getting pg). Many prolife groups are part of the no sex unless your married and that sex is only for procreation camp. Ergo, if BC is available then people can be out having deviant (hey speaking for myself here, LOL) sex and no one would know (you can't hind that growing belly forever).

Ya know al la shot gun weddings and the shame of unwed motherhood and all.


----------



## iris0110 (Aug 26, 2003)

What I have to ask is are all of these bc condeming pro-lifers going to pay to raise all of the children born to women who were denied bc? I mean even alot of married women don't want to be pregnant all of the time. I want to be pregnant very badly right now, but two years ago I didn't so I went on bc. I was married and we were far from having devient sex. Unless sneaking in a quicky once the baby falls asleep when I don't just pass out myself counts as devient.







(I know TMI) I have never understood this argument. If you are anti birth control because it makes way for devient sex, shouldn't you be anti viagra too? Yet I haven't heard a peep about that.


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

My favorite analogy is what if a vegan doctor denied the vax-happy US citizens the polio vaccine? "I'm sorry, I'm vegan and won't dispense medications or vaccinations made from animal byproducts."

Not very long. But deny a woman reproductive freedom, and everybody supports YOUR rights to deny her HER rights based on YOUR beliefs! If I owned a pharmacy, I'd make all my pharmacists sign a waiver stating they understood that taking this job meant they would supply any medication prescribed by a doctor to any patient, and that their personal beliefs held no weight in the situation. Don't like it? Don't work at my pharmacy.

I don't like living in a country where the delivery boy gets more say than the one taking care of my health.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

A, thanks for answering. Sick is what it is, sick.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

I thought the pill is supposed to suppress ovulation but like all meds, there's no guarantee. There's a small probability of it not working. And of course, if you're taking other meds/substances that interfere with it's effectiveness, that'll reduce it's effectiveness. So I suppose for the pharmacist there is a SMALL (miniscule?)theoretical risk that the pills they dispense could cause an abortion of a fertilized egg. I follow their thinking on that one. But most of the time, the pill works as intended and suppresses ovulation. I suppose Catholics (according to the Pope) aren't really supposed to be suppressing ovulation either but of course, pharmacists couldn't impose religious beliefs on their customers. No one would stand for that.

So these pharmacists must be most concerned about the SMALL theoretical risk of killing that fertilized egg/life. Yet many (most?) meds they dispense carry a theoretical risk or have the potential to terminate a life. And add in some accidents like giving customers the wrong med or wrong dosage, and pharmacists compared to other occupations have a high probability of terminating life. So I think these pharmacists shouldn't be practicing at all.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy. But some of those strictly against abortion do.
(this from original article)

Hmmm, lets go ahead and based medical decisions on *medicine* shall we?









Quote:

"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.
Hmmm, so the pharmacist was fired for refusing to do his job? Poor guy.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I don't like living in a country where the delivery boy gets more say than the one taking care of my health.

Good One!!


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

I have always thought that those that say sex is for procreation and not recreation must not be doing it right!

Speaking as a pro-lifer (even though I'm not really anti-choice... make sense??)the idea of not filling bc is outrageous! Why in the world would I deny someone what it takes to NOT get pregnant??? It just doesn't make sense....

It's another way to make you do what I want so you are helpless.

If you don't want to fill scripts aren't you in the wrong profession??


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

yeah, lets just force women to become brood mares and birth babies until their bodies wear out and they die in their late 30s at the latest because they've had too many children...























DP and I are trying to decide if we want birth control and if so, which. I'm thinking of the patch because it seems to be the closest to the shot but since it isn't a shot, I won't freak out about it.

Last time I was on bc, I ended up spotting for months and had to have a d&c to "clean me out" because I built up too much lining. So I'm real leery of birth control.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachmentfeminist*
If I owned a pharmacy, I'd make all my pharmacists sign a waiver stating they understood that taking this job meant they would supply any medication prescribed by a doctor to any patient, and that their personal beliefs held no weight in the situation. Don't like it? Don't work at my pharmacy.

That is precisely how it should be handled! If the fired employee went on to open his own pharmacy, he could refuse to fill B/C scripts all day, and his customers could decide to take their money elsewhere, where they could get their medications without a sermon. I don't see where there is any need for legislation here. It is capitalism at work.

I don't understand being pro-life AND wanting to ban birth control.







: I would, however, like to see the pharmaceutical companies be more up front abot the side effects of these medications instead of handing them out like candy to any woman that walks in to the Dr.'s office. A good friend of mine had to fight like crazy NOT to get a depo shot the day she had her baby. The doctor kept telling her it wouldn't dry up her milk...


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I don't understand being pro-life AND wanting to ban birth control.
While I don't agree w/the attempt to ban birth control or the reasoning behind it, I can very easily understand the *logic* of the arguement.

Lets start with the following assumptions:

Life begins with the joining of egg & sperm (not implantation) and life should be protected.

Birth control pills occasionally fail, allowing the woman to ovulate.

Further, birth control pills encourage an inhospitable uterus.

Therefore, in this situation you would have "life" (egg & sperm joined) being forced from the uterus due to a drug.

One issue I have with the arguement is that medicine advances, it becomes more clear that there are many more "miscarraiges" than one would have thought even 10 years ago. I would need to see some real stats showing that people on the pill who are carrying a fertilized egg are *more* likely than people not on the pill who are carrying a fertilized egg to spontaneously abort.

To me, though, it just proves that the ultimate goal of many pro-life supporters is an almost complete loss of reproductive freedom.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I do not find that it is morally appropiate for a pharmacist to be able to prevent a woman from being able to get birth control meds.

B/C is not only used to prevent pregnancy. It has other uses as well.

I am on B/C to regulate my hormones. If I do not take B/C I have 2 periods a month, since have always been slightly anemic during my periods having an extra makes me ill (weightloss, hairloss, dizziness)

I am NOT obligated to explain this to a pharmacist in order to get my meds. The pharmicist is obligated to fill the perscription as prescribed by my DR. A pharmacist is not a Dr and I shouldn't have to explain that I do, in fact, require the perscription.

Should a pharmacist refuse me my medication based on thier morals over my health, I am afraid I would have to contact my attorney. I don't find it ethical and I would feel obligated to protect other women as well from a pharmacy who would feel it was appropiate to choose someone's morals over another person's health.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I would need to see some real stats showing that people on the pill who are carrying a fertilized egg are *more* likely than people not on the pill who are carrying a fertilized egg to spontaneously abort.

To me, though, it just proves that the ultimate goal of many pro-life supporters is an almost complete loss of reproductive freedom.

If you're purposefully taking a drug that makes your uterous a hostile environment there's nothing "spontaneous" about it.

Also, despite what many people want women to believe, you can have reproductive freedom without using birth control. Mother Theresa taught NFP to 18,000 women in Calcutta and there was only a 0.04% unwanted pregnancy rate.

The key to reproductive freedom is education, not pills, IMO.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

It isn't just about reproductive freedom.

It is about whether it is ethical to choose morals over health.

It is not.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

If you're purposefully taking a drug that makes your uterous a hostile environment there's nothing "spontaneous" about it.
You missed the point... I was asking for proof that *all* birth control pills do, in actuality, make a hostile environment. BTW, its a medical phrase.

Quote:

Also, despite what many people want women to believe, you can have reproductive freedom without using birth control. Mother Theresa taught NFP to 18,000 women in Calcutta and there was only a 0.04% unwanted pregnancy rate.
Citation. I *really* would have thought that would be mentioned in the books the Couple to Couple league use, or Taking Charge of Your Fertility.

Quote:

The key to reproductive freedom is education, not pills, IMO.
Education about abstinance? Because while you are certainly welcome to your opinion, in a free society people should not be forced to live based on the whims of individual opinion.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Never mind the citation, found information myself:

Quote:

The most effective reversible birth control method is a version of the Sympto-Thermal Method that allows intercourse only after the rules determine ovulation. Most couples don't want to follow such a strict regimen and are willing to accept a small risk of pregnancy, so they choose a variation that suits their needs. The effectiveness is really
your choice.
So, if you want it to be *that* effective you have to limit your bding to the after ovulation. So, 10-16 days monthly for most people (people who are still bfeeding, or have other problems, could have significantly fewer safe days).

Yes, if I were impoverished in India AND had no other options AND could absolutely not handle another pregnancy AND had a low sex drive AND had a supportive husband, I guess that might sound like an acceptable method of birth control.

Is that seriously your suggestion, though?


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
You missed the point... I was asking for proof that *all* birth control pills do, in actuality, make a hostile environment. BTW, its a medical phrase.

Here's a link from the American Medical Association's site.
http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/9/2/126
Most of the stuff on the internet about that is on pro-life websites and I thought this one would carry more weight in your eyes. I also think someone said that the inserts to the actual pills will tell you that but I've never seen them and wouldn't know for sure.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
It isn't just about reproductive freedom.

It is about whether it is ethical to choose morals over health.

It is not.

If you don't live by your morals, then why do you have them?


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Yes, if I were impoverished in India AND had no other options AND could absolutely not handle another pregnancy AND had a low sex drive AND had a supportive husband, I guess that might sound like an acceptable method of birth control.

Is that seriously your suggestion, though?

So in using NFP you can not do it like bunnies. Big deal. I gladly choose this over the supposed reproductive freedom the pill gives me when it also gives me side effects such as moodiness, weight gain, decrease in sex drive, blood clots, strokes, and even death. That's not even talking about all the social aspects of its use. Yes, there are positive medical aspects of the pill, but its abortificient properties and the whole possibility of death thing aren't for me.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

My only comment about all this is that its my body, not the pharmacists. My body. My choice. I choose to remain pregnant. I choose to prevent pregnancy. A pharmacist choosing to fill a required script for anything could be breaking the law. If birth control isn't filled, then what about viagra? If the pharmacist fills viagra scripts then he's the cause of a potentially unwanted pregnancy too and is also a hypocrit.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

I have done soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much research on this issue, I can no longer quote any of it. I myself chose not to go on the pill because I couldn't conclusively say that I would not concieve. For me personally, it wasn't worth the risk. I have decided to use condoms and monitor my fertility with the Luna. (Sorry if that is too much info!







If you are concerned about perhaps aborting a child accidentally, I would suggest looking into the bc you plan on taking.

As far as the pharmasist not filling prescription, doesn't bother me. If people are going to encourage freedom of choice, that should include the pharmasists also. However, I could see him being fired depending on the establishment that he works in. He should find somewhere where his beliefs would fit in.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
If you don't live by your morals, then why do you have them?


I have my morals and you have yours. I don't have to live by YOUR morals though. I might not feel it morally wrong to be on the pill and you do. I'm living by MY morals to be on the pill because I'd rather chance the pill than have an abortion. In my opinion preventing unwanted pregnancy prevents abortion.

I was taught absitnence growing up and I see nothing wrong with teaching it. Sadly though, it isn't something that is realistically happening in our generation.

Not everyone has the same morals...and for that I'm glad!

BTW... I'm not on th pill for this reason and a few others but I would also not have an abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is a thing we are willing to chance...and we've had a couple







And the fact I'm not on the pill has nothing to do you being or not being on it.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
So in using NFP you can not do it like bunnies. Big deal. I gladly choose this over the supposed reproductive freedom the pill gives me when it also gives me side effects such as moodiness, weight gain, decrease in sex drive, blood clots, strokes, and even death. That's not even talking about all the social aspects of its use. Yes, there are positive medical aspects of the pill, but its abortificient properties and the whole possibility of death thing aren't for me.

From looking at and trying the NFP method, I was not able to have sex HALF of every month (considering I don't like period sex). I wouldn't say that's simply "not being able to do it like bunnies". I'm glad NFP works for you, but it doesn't work for me unless I'm using something else like condoms for the fertile days.


----------



## Graceoc (Mar 26, 2002)

Quote:

It is about whether it is ethical to choose morals over health.
Why is it that a Dr. who morally is against say circumcision is applauded for taking a stance on a pratice he/she finds objectable...but the same dosen't apply here?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

This has nothing to do with me living by my morals, thank you very much.

We have used FAM very succesfully and now DH has had the big snip.

But, that is not what this is about.

This is about trying to force all people to live by the same moral code.

I do not believe that should even be a goal in a free society.

Quote:

Why is it that a Dr. who morally is against say circumcision is applauded for taking a stance on a pratice he/she finds objectable...but the same dosen't apply here?
This has been addressed previously. I don't think anyone has a problem w/doctors not providing whatever services they do not want to provide as long as they are up front with it (ie don't make a circ appt and then say "no" when the parents and child are already there and paid).

The issue is that a pharmacists job is to dispense medication. NOT perscribe it. If a doctor has prescribed a medication that a pharmacy carries, the pharmacist should dispense it, IMO.

I totally encourage people to make their own personal stand. It is when they try to remove the rights of others that I get upset.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

So in using NFP you can not do it like bunnies. Big deal. I gladly choose this over the supposed reproductive freedom the pill gives me when it also gives me side effects such as moodiness, weight gain, decrease in sex drive, blood clots, strokes, and even death. That's not even talking about all the social aspects of its use. Yes, there are positive medical aspects of the pill, but its abortificient properties and the whole possibility of death thing aren't for me.
Thats great that you feel confident in your choice. I, personally, think it is great choice with some solid reasons behind it.

But why should you get to make the choice for everyone?








Would you like to be *forced* to use a form of birth control you were not comfortable with?


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

We were using a loose fam and weren't worried about conceiving because the doc said that the chance of my being able to without pills was slim to none.

What a surprise it was to miscarry in November and then to get pregnant again in December!

I use Ovusoft - the program that incorporates what TCOYF has in the book. I'm really miffed at DP. He took my TCOYF book and sold it to a second hand store for store credit and I wasn't able to get it back until after it got sold! So he has to buy me a new one.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_our_family*
I have my morals and you have yours. I don't have to live by YOUR morals though. I might not feel it morally wrong to be on the pill and you do. I'm living by MY morals to be on the pill because I'd rather chance the pill than have an abortion. In my opinion preventing unwanted pregnancy prevents abortion.

I completely agree..you live by yours and I'll live by mine. What I don't understand is why people who believe this are in an uproar over a pharmacist living by his own morals. Should he be forced to live by the bc woman's morals instead of his own?


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

The pharmacist is being paid to dispense meds, not to pass judgement on patients requiring the meds.

That's the jist of it. If he can't do his job, why the hell is he working there?

gotta go.. DD just squeaked. She needs her nummies.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
The pharmacist is being paid to dispense meds, not to pass judgement on patients requiring the meds.

How is he judging the patients? His stated belief is that the pill causes abortions and that is wrong so he can not dispense that particular pill. It has nothing to do with the patients.

I took my son to an allergist and the doctor prescribe a nose spray for him. It turns out that the nose spray was a steroid that could have terrible long term consequenses if he were to use it. The doctor should have never prescribed it in the first place for a 2 year old. Should I hope that my pharmacist just filled the prescrip without warning me of the dangers? Not exactly along the lines of the pill debate but you make it sound like a pharmacist should just be a pill dispensing robot.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
Should he be forced to live by the bc woman's morals instead of his own?


He isn't living by her morals. He is allowing her to live by hers. I'm not saying that youa re completely wrong.

Should he be allowed to refuse her service because of his morals? Why couldn't he have someone else fill it? Does his pharmacy have it in stock? You would think that if he has it in stock it is there for a reason. If it was his OWN pharmacy I can see him refusing to fill it and not having it in stock. Why couldn't he allow someone else to fill it?

If he was stopping her because he didn't want to be the "supplier" for her then that is one thing. But if he refused to fill it because he was trying to stop her from getting what she needed in order to prevent her from using it.,..then that is another story.

I'm not sure that made a lot of sense so let me clarify. If he was not doing it because he did not want to handle the bc and be the cause of a possibly m/c due to the drugs that is one thing. But if he refused her bc because he was trying to stop her from taking it then he was in the wrong. If his actions were for his own part in the transaction he has every right to not do it. However, if his refusal was meant to stop her...then he has no right.

I think that made sense.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I took my son to an allergist and the doctor prescribe a nose spray for him. It turns out that the nose spray was a steroid that could have terrible long term consequenses if he were to use it. The doctor should have never prescribed it in the first place for a 2 year old. Should I hope that my pharmacist just filled the prescrip without warning me of the dangers? Not exactly along the lines of the pill debate but you make it sound like a pharmacist should just be a pill dispensing robot.
Its fine to warn you of the dangers. It is quite another to deny you medical treatment you have been told to obtain by a doctor. If the pharmacist told you about the medication and you replied, "Thanks, I already know that but I need this medication for *whatever* reason" you should be given it (assuming it was not a spelling error or something on the part of the doctor, lol).


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Graceoc*
Why is it that a Dr. who morally is against say circumcision is applauded for taking a stance on a pratice he/she finds objectable...but the same dosen't apply here?

How does it? Most Drs today agree that circumcisions are RARELY medically necessary. I haven't heard of a Dr that wouldn't perform one under one of those RARE situations.


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Someone said something about the pharmacist's choice, and I'm really wondering why the pharmacist should have a choice in what *I* decide is right for ME. I'm not making HIM take my pills, I'm not making his WIFE take my pills. Is it the pizza boy's choice whether or not to give you pepperonis? What if your pizza boy was vegetarian? Does his choice then come into play when taking your order? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
If you don't live by your morals, then why do you have them?


I don't get it.What do the pharmacists morals have to do with mine?

explain,pls!


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

cloak, I can understand your views and the views of the pharmacists in this situation but I can't understand how they can go so far as to impose them upon another woman. Attachmentfeminist brought up a scenario of a vegan doctor, but what if it was a fanatical vegan pharmacist (sorry vegans in general!), and they decided you couldn't have your medicines cause they contained lactose? Assuming you're not vegan, is that ok with you? Would you happily find another pharmacist and not be bothered by this intrusion into your life?

And sometimes pregnant women need treatment for medical conditions that will endanger the life of their baby. I'm thinking of a friend who needed cancer treatment while pregnant. Her baby survived but it was a risk. She agonised over her decision. Should the hospital pharmacist be allowed to refuse her the medications needed? Should the hospital orderly be allowed to refuse to wheel her to the oncology department. Do you really want all these people exercising their morals over others?

You know I don't just think we need separation of State and religion, I think we need separation of pharmacy and religion.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_our_family*
I think that made sense.









It did make sense and I agree.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I don't get it.What do the pharmacists morals have to do with mine?

explain,pls!

Ummm...nothing. I think you are confused or I am. I talked about this more in an earlier post. Maybe you missed it?


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombat*
cloak, I can understand your views and the views of the pharmacists in this situation but I can't understand how they can go so far as to impose them upon another woman.

I understand how this is a gray area because the person needing the birth control might not even be sexually active and therefore could in no way have an abortion. Denying it to someone like that wouldn't be right. I'm surprised the pro-bc people here haven't brought that up yet.







A pharmacist would have no way of knowing that though and could take a stance of better safe than sorry. If I was a pharmacist who wouldn't dispense bc I wouldn't work at a place that carries it. So, if I was a vegetarian, I certainly wouldn't be working at a pizza place around all that meat. And yes, I would just go somewhere else to get my prescrips and pizza.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Being prolife or prochoice is not a religious decision necessarily. Most people have access to numberous pharmasies. She has the choice to go to a different establishment.


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

Quote:

I understand how this is a gray area because the person needing the birth control might not even be sexually active and therefore could in no way have an abortion. Denying it to someone like that wouldn't be right. I'm surprised the pro-bc people here haven't brought that up yet.
Hasn't this been brought up here yet? I've read threads about this on other boards where it's been mentioned, I thought it was here as well.

One big huge problem I have with all this is, all these "morals" seem to affect only women. And only women's reproductive rights. Please tell me of any other instance where a pharmacist has refused someone (preferably male) a legally prescribed medication for moral reasons.

Keep your damned hands off my uterus.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
I understand how this is a gray area because the person needing the birth control might not even be sexually active and therefore could in no way have an abortion. Denying it to someone like that wouldn't be right. I'm surprised the pro-bc people here haven't brought that up yet.









True, and as I said in an earlier post, if the pill works as intended and suppresses ovulation, then there is also no abortion involved.

According to the article and the pro-life Dr :
"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.

So more than or equal to 70% of the time, the pill suppresses ovulation and no abortion is involved.

The up to 30% of the time it doesn't suppress ovulation - gee need to factor in the odds of having sex at the right time AND the egg being fertilised. Probably pretty low.

Then factor in the odds that the pill doesn't cause the egg to be aborted (women do 'accidently' get pregnant on the pill, the fetus manages to survive even with the pill, and mother keeps the baby).

So that pack of pills the pharmacist is refusing to dispense has a pretty low chance of aborting a fetus/baby.

Yet think about the other far more potent and toxic meds pharmacists dispense to people including potentially pregnant women, and as I said before, pharmacists with these views shouldn't be practicing. I imagine pharmacists have killed more people with dosage and drug errors than with bc pills.

So these pharmacists must really be concerned with suppressing ovulation.

I'm curious - Is it only the Catholic Church that believes in suppressing ovulation? Any other religions?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I'm curious - Is it only the Catholic Church that believes in suppressing ovulation? Any other religions?
What?


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombat*
I'm curious - Is it only the Catholic Church that believes in suppressing ovulation? Any other religions?

I thought they taught the opposite...


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Do they ask men if they are married before giving them viagra?


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

I'm trying to understand why these pharmacists are against bc pills. I find it hard to believe it's because of abortion/loss of life. As I tried to explain in my last post, there seems to be a pretty low chance of the pill causing an abortion. Routine pharmacy work might even have a higher chance of causing loss of life. So I'm wondering why ANYONE would be so interested in suppressing ovulation and the only reason I can think of is the Pope is against bc. No slight against Catholics - my dh is one but I want to understand where pharmacists are coming from.

ETA Thanks itsourfamily. You're right. I just realised what I did. Insert "Catholic church doesn't believe in suppressing ovulation" I should go to bed.


----------



## Graceoc (Mar 26, 2002)

Quote:

there seems to be a pretty low chance of the pill causing an abortion
I would guess because for some people *any* chance of aiding in the cause of an abortion is just not acceptable to them.....


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

The Catholic church does not believe in supressing ovulation. According to the Catholic church, from what I know, the only acceptable forms of birthcontrol would be abstinance and natural family planning.

FYI...It seems unlikely to get preg. during being on the pill, but fertility can be a tricky thing. With my ds, I became preg without having any penetration of the penis, with dd I had been on the pill for a little bit and decided it wasn't for me....was preg two weeks later. With baby to be.....having communication probs. with Hubby......literally did it three times in about 5 months.......one time on the wrong day apparently!







Not to scare you...............(just kidding) but it all depends on the woman as far as the likelyhood of concieving when on the pill.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Graceoc, I thought pro-life was pro-LIFE not just pro-fetuslife. I'd love to have some stats on how many lives pharmacists have taken through through incorrect dosages and drugs. I think if you dispense methadone or similiar, that qualifies as a pretty good chance in aiding in the loss of a life. I would think it'd have a higher probability of taking a life than bc pills do.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee*
FYI...It seems unlikely to get preg. during being on the pill, but fertility can be a tricky thing. With my ds, I became preg without having any penetration of the penis, with dd I had been on the pill for a little bit and decided it wasn't for me....was preg two weeks later. With baby to be.....having communication probs. with Hubby......literally did it three times in about 5 months.......one time on the wrong day apparently!







Not to scare you...............(just kidding) but it all depends on the woman as far as the likelyhood of concieving when on the pill.

I imagine these pharmacists have a crystal ball and they'd know not to give you any bc pills.









Or perhaps they'll require highly fertile women to disclose such information before they dispense their medications?


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
Do they ask men if they are married before giving them viagra?

LOL. Maybe some pro-choice groups are just gonna have to resort to picketing pharmacies with 'Use Sperm Wisely' and 'Only use sperm to procreate' and harrassing every man above puberty who comes out with a brown paper bag - asking if that Viagra in there - checking for wedding rings, pleading with them not to squander those sperm, only to give them over to their wife, consider the potential life in that ejaculate...


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Hehehe...if that were the case... speaking of failed contraception...how many barrier babies are there? How many bc babies are there? How many NFP babies are there?

Nothing is full proof!

I even had a friend tell me that she got pg without ever having sex! What did she do...sit on a toilet seat??

Oh, the point... did I miss somewhere a stat relating to how often bc fails? and what causes it to fail?

You would think if they were concerned about bc failing they would educate ppl on using it correctly. I know there are certain herbal supplements that nix the pill but no one is told. I have friends that found out that their multi-vitamin had an herb that did jsut that.

But what do I know... I've gotten pg using NFP, condom and spermicide together, spermicidal condoms with spermicide, and WD!


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

why am I hearing Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred"??????


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

So say someone found out which pharmacies weren't dispensing B/C and a bunch of women went there and asked them if they dispense viagra without proof of marriage...

And if they did..suppose the women then made lovely signs about how they are sexist..

Or pick and choose the morals they back..

hhmmm...


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
why am I hearing Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred"??????









: i know it


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

So I'm wondering why ANYONE would be so interested in suppressing ovulation and the only reason I can think of is the Pope is against bc. No slight against Catholics - my dh is one but I want to understand where pharmacists are coming from.
I still don't understand what you are saying.

For Roman Catholics who follow the Pope's instruction on birth control the *only* option is NFP (FAM w/abstinance rather than a barrier method during "unsafe" days).

The Roman Catholic Church in NO WAY endorses the bcp to lessen fertility (you can go on it to *increase* fertility, which is what some people have to do).

Quote:

Hehehe...if that were the case... speaking of failed contraception...how many barrier babies are there? How many bc babies are there? How many NFP babies are there?
The difference is that barrier methods & NFP/FAM methods do NOT increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. I consider it a choice to be left to each individual, but that *chance*, that difference between the various forms of birth control should, IMO, be acknowledged.








T

Quote:

But what do I know... I've gotten pg using NFP, condom and spermicide together, spermicidal condoms with spermicide, and WD!
What's WD?


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

TiredX2, sorry I did it again. It was late, I was having problems with my negatives in sentences.

I was trying to say that the Pope is against bc because it suppresses ovulation. I don't know of any other group that believes it is wrong to suppress ovulation.

Did I get it right this time?

I think that "chance" should be acknowledged also. Women should have this information to make an informed choice. I just think it's hypocritical that these pharmacists don't extend that acknowledgement to the other drugs they work with and dispense that have a much higher *chance* of taking a life.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I was trying to say that the Pope is against bc because it suppresses ovulation. I don't know of any other group that believes it is wrong to suppress ovulation.
Are you sure that is the given reason (ovulation suppression)? Because they are just as adamently opposed to barrier methods and the IUD. I was taught that it was any interference with "God's Plan" (which naturally provides for a way to avoid pregnancy with abstanance at certain times). I did confirmation with a fairly liberal priest, though, and he taught the doctrine of conscience as superseding *any* edicts by the pope, so have no problem w/bc, lol.


----------



## clewal (Nov 20, 2001)

Since not every fertilized egg implants should we all just be banned from having sex?


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Are you sure that is the given reason (ovulation suppression)? Because they are just as adamently opposed to barrier methods and the IUD. I was taught that it was any interference with "God's Plan" (which naturally provides for a way to avoid pregnancy with abstanance at certain times). I did confirmation with a fairly liberal priest, though, and he taught the doctrine of conscience as superseding *any* edicts by the pope, so have no problem w/bc, lol.

The teaching doesn't have anything to do with suppressing ovulation. If you're really interested in what the Church teaches I suggest you read Humanae Vitae. http://tinyurl.com/9km3

It's also sad that a liberal priest taught you incorrectly. This is taken from the Catechism.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and *tempted* by sin to prefer their own judgment and *to reject authoritative teachings*.

Definitely just not allowed to do what you want as a member of the Catholic Church.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloak*
Definitely just not allowed to do what you want as a member of the Catholic Church.

Unlike some Pharmacists it seems.

TiredX2, yes you're right. bc suppresses ovulation which interferes with God's order or whatever. I didn't particularly want to get into the nitty gritty of Catholicism which I know little about anyway. I just have a suspicion that these Pharmacist are refusing to dispense bc because of their Catholic values (seeing no other group has an issue with bc?)but rather than come out and say that, they're using a back door approach citing abortion issues.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

T

Quote:

It's also sad that a liberal priest taught you incorrectly. This is taken from the Catechism.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

Definitely just not allowed to do what you want as a member of the Catholic Church.
I didn't mean to imply that you just go with "what you want."

BUT, there are acknowledged reasons to go on bcp within the Catholic Church and *any* priest will tell you that. I just happened to have one that covered decisions of conscience in confirmation rather than on an individual basis in times of need. (As he said, "On judgement day, the questions will not be, 'Were you a good Catholic?' but 'Were you a good person?')

For example, you can, if after contemplation and consultation w/a priest decide to use birth control for the following reasons (just off the top of my head):
Fertility Issues
Health Issues
If having another child would harm a currently living child or your relationship with them.
If having another child would harm your relationship with your spouse.

As an orthodox Catholic (which I am NOT, btw) there *are* legitimate reasons to use birth control. I don't think most Catholics give it more thought than your average Protestant (which is reflected w/stats on birth control) but you can be an actively practicing Catholic AND be following your religion AND still use non NFP birth control.

Kay


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I just have a suspicion that these Pharmacist are refusing to dispense bc because of their Catholic values (seeing no other group has an issue with bc?)but rather than come out and say that, they're using a back door approach citing abortion issues.
Are the pharmacists involved all Catholic?

I was not aware if that is true.

I, personally, would think people who are adamently pro-life (from fertilization) *would* have a major issue with various forms of birth control. Of course, I would go after IUDs *first* if that was my view, but I guess this is easier since one person can affect an entire community rather than having to get something banned/made illegal.

Kay


----------



## shine (Nov 20, 2001)

If I have a right to reproductive freedom, which I do in this country (U.S.), then why does the pharmacist have the right to deny me my rights? He has the right to free speech and he can say anything he so desires. However, he should not have the right to deny me my right to reproductive freedom. If he refuses to walk to the shelves and pull out the birth control pills for me, he is interfering with my rights. If I live in a small town where there is only one pharmacy (and, in fact, I have lived in small towns where there is only one pharmacy) then he has fulled interfered with my rights since I cannot just go to another pharmacy. If I have transportation problems and cannot get to another pharmacy, then he has interfered with my rights. What I put in my body is not his business, so says the Supreme Court. Then if we really wanted to we could get into privacy rights regarding health information, which is a whole other matter that comes into play here...

Bottom line: we have the right to reproductive freedom in this country. Other people do not have the right to interfere with our rights. If you don't like birth control then talk about it, write about it, shout about it, make art about it because that's your right. But don't try to prevent me from getting birth control pills, because I have the right to reproductive freedom.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Are the pharmacists involved all Catholic?

I was not aware if that is true.

I, personally, would think people who are adamently pro-life (from fertilization) *would* have a major issue with various forms of birth control.

I don't know. I can only assume their stance on not using the pill to suppress ovulation/interfere with God's plan comes from a Catholic viewpoint, because I can't understand where else such a viewpoint comes from.

I'm actually surprised to hear that pro-lifers have such a problem with various forms of birth control, considering most bc (Pill, condoms, diaphragm) work to prevent fertilization rather than cause abortions.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
What's WD?


Withdrawl


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shine*
If I have a right to reproductive freedom, which I do in this country (U.S.), then why does the pharmacist have the right to deny me my rights?

You know, this right here brings a valid point to mind for me. Why is it that when it comes to reproductive rights, other people have the right to infringe on someone else's rights, but not when it comes to anything else? I can't stop the KKK from gathering in my town (which happened recently, but there were only 5 people rallying) because it would infringe on their right to free speech, despite my desire to not be subjected to such stupidity. Their right to free speech outweighs my moral outrage at their opinion.

Why then, does a pharmacist's morals outweigh my right to reproductive freedom?

I realize this post is probably very sketchy, but it is late. I hope someone understands the message I'm trying to send here, and maybe has a better example.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

I understand...

But in my opinion it comes down to intent. What was he intending to do? Was he trying to get her to not take bc or was he trying to remove himself from a situation that he felt was morally wrong?

I'm not saying he acted right and I'm not saying he acted wrong.

This might not really seem important to some but in some Christian churches you are taught to obey the law unless it goes against God's law. It is possible that this man was acting in the way he had been taught. Right or wrong it doesn't matter. He was acting on his conscisous to remove himself from the situation (if his intent was not to stop her but to stop himself)

If he refused solely to stop her then he was wrong.

Is the issue that he said "no" or the issue that he is paid to do something and he refused to do it?

If I'm a cashier and I believe with all my heart and soul that it is wrong to drink alcohol I would refuse. I would have no intention of stopping him from drinking but I have every intention of not making myself the one responsible for his drinking. (Make sense...and I don't think drinking is wrong I was jsut giving an example.)

We keep asking why his morals outweighed hers. Well, why do hers outweigh his? But like I said, I think it comes down to intent. I also want to know which is the issue that he said no or that he didn't do the job he was paid to do.


----------



## spooky mom (Jul 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombat*
True, and as I said in an earlier post, if the pill works as intended and suppresses ovulation, then there is also no abortion involved.

According to the article and the pro-life Dr :
"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.

So more than or equal to 70% of the time, the pill suppresses ovulation and no abortion is involved.

The up to 30% of the time it doesn't suppress ovulation - gee need to factor in the odds of having sex at the right time AND the egg being fertilised. Probably pretty low.

Now, from this CBS article "Only 50 to 60 percent of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks and of pregnancies that are lost, 75 percent represent a failure of implantation"

Now, 75% of the 40 to 50% of conceptions that don't survive adds up to 30 to 37.5%. Now, if 30 to 37.5 percent of implantations fail anyway, why bother getting worked up about a pill that might let you ovulate 30% of the time? Because then there's only a 30% chance that an egg will be there at all, and then you add in the chances of it getting fertilized before it's flushed out and the chances are pretty slim, compared to that 30 to 37.5% chance of fertilized eggs flushing out on their own after implantation fails.

Seems to me that, if you do the math, you'd see that fewer of these fertilized eggs get flushed out with people on the pill than the people who aren't. If fertilized eggs are "babies" that some pharmacist is trying to save, he should *jump* at the chance to prescribe pills.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I don't know. I can only assume their stance on not using the pill to suppress ovulation/interfere with God's plan comes from a Catholic viewpoint, because I can't understand where else such a viewpoint comes from.

I'm actually surprised to hear that pro-lifers have such a problem with various forms of birth control, considering most bc (Pill, condoms, diaphragm) work to prevent fertilization rather than cause abortions.
Do you understand that people have a problem with "the morning after pill"? And why?

Same thing. IF you believe that life begins at fertilization AND you believe that bcp increase your likelihood of spontaneously aborting a fertilzed egg THEN you could consider that abortion, in and of itself.

Quote:

Seems to me that, if you do the math, you'd see that fewer of these fertilized eggs get flushed out with people on the pill than the people who aren't. If fertilized eggs are "babies" that some pharmacist is trying to save, he should jump at the chance to prescribe pills.
Well, that certainly is a different way of looking at it, :LOL

That was my original question: are a larger % of fertilized eggs spontaneously aborted in women on the pill versus women not on hormonal birth control? If not, the pill CANNOT be implicated in their rejection.


----------



## spooky mom (Jul 3, 2004)

If we're using medical terms here, fertilzed eggs can't be "spontaneously aborted" at all, because a pregnancy can't be aborted untill it occurs, and pregnancy does not occur untill the egg implants.

Previously, someone in this post said the morning after pill worked by inducing menstrual bleeding, which is not true. The morning after pill is a stronger than normal dose of regular birth control hormones to stop you from ovulating. It can also stop a fertilized egg from implanting if you've already ovulated, but like the pill, that is not it's primary function.
If you're already pregnant, your body is making so much of those hormones on its own that the morning after pill won't really do anything.
It works to prevent pregnancy, not end it.

(Thanks for reminding me to mention that, Tiredx2. It was back on page 2, I think, so I forgot all about it.)


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thank you for clarifying spooky.

I should not be willing to misuse medical terms that, when misused, lend validity to an arguement that I do not support. Hmmm... prevent implantation?


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

spooky_mom, thanks for the math! That is very interesting when you compare bc pills and what nature does anyway.

TiredX2, I can understand why pro-lifers have a problem with any bc that kills a fertilised egg but I believe in our society, they shouldn't be able to impose that viewpoint on another woman. And I don't think it's good enought to say women can just go to another pharmacist. You end up with areas where bc is practically outlawed in certain fundamentalist areas while other more liberal areas have availability. For women who don't have the money, knowledge or ability to travel to acquire such things, this represents a huge violation of their rights and discrimination. I think it's a far better solution that pharmacists with such basic dilemmas over life and death shouldn't practice in a profession that deals with MANY life threatening treatments. I would think bc pills would be the least of their concerns!

But now spooky_mom mentions the issue of implantation, I realise just how complicated it is to define when life begins. I have no problems considering a fertilised egg, life. But I subscribe strongly to the idea that it's the woman's body and it's her decision about what to do about that.

I think society can do a lot more to reduce abortion rates by simply improving womens lives. The first step in looking after children is looking after the mother. I hate hearing about women who feel forced to have abortion due to economic reasons. And that's a reality in this country. I wish the enormous energy and enthusiasm of prolifers could take a much wider focus.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

TiredX2, I can understand why pro-lifers have a problem with any bc that kills a fertilised egg but I believe in our society, they shouldn't be able to impose that viewpoint on another woman. And I don't think it's good enought to say women can just go to another pharmacist. You end up with areas where bc is practically outlawed in certain fundamentalist areas while other more liberal areas have availability. For women who don't have the money, knowledge or ability to travel to acquire such things, this represents a huge violation of their rights and discrimination. I think it's a far better solution that pharmacists with such basic dilemmas over life and death shouldn't practice in a profession that deals with MANY life threatening treatments. I would think bc pills would be the least of their concerns!
Just wanted to clarify... I agree with you. I am adamently pro-choice and have already argued that pharmacists should give the pill out (if their store carries it) or be fired. I was just presenting "the other side" when people said they don't understand


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Heck, I still don't understand. The "other side" just makes absolutely no sense to me. If a pharmy can't hand out pills, then he can't do his job and should find another line of work. What if he didn't want to support possible addictions of cancer patients to pain meds? Now it's okay that cancer patients be deprived of pain meds because the pharmacist (who didn't prescribe it) doesn't want them to have it?

I guess what irks me the most is that none of these what if examples apply. This situation only applies to women who want to control their reproductivity. That pharmacist doesn't know why they're taking it, doesn't know if more children could physically kill the woman, doesn't know if she's already reached her financial, physical, and mental limit for how many children she can handle, doesn't know if maybe she wants her tubes tied but can't afford the surgery, doesn't know anything. It's none of his business. But it's okay for him to be her moral regulator because she's a woman and therefore can't regulate morals herself. I get really tired of politicians and whathaveyou telling me I'm too stupid and immoral to handle my business based on my own beliefs.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachmentfeminist*
I guess what irks me the most is that none of these what if examples apply. This situation only applies to women who want to control their reproductivity. That pharmacist doesn't know why they're taking it, doesn't know if more children could physically kill the woman, doesn't know if she's already reached her financial, physical, and mental limit for how many children she can handle, doesn't know if maybe she wants her tubes tied but can't afford the surgery, doesn't know anything. It's none of his business. But it's okay for him to be her moral regulator because she's a woman and therefore can't regulate morals herself. I get really tired of politicians and whathaveyou telling me I'm too stupid and immoral to handle my business based on my own beliefs.

That is so exactly "it." That is just exactly the problem.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*







Tbut you can be an actively practicing Catholic AND be following your religion AND still use non NFP birth control.
Kay

I really don't think this is accurate. Do you have any sources to back this up? The only thing that I have ever heard is that if you have grave reasons to avoid pregnancy you can use NFP. The Church teaches that you otherwise should always be open to another life.

It's also no secret that many priests councelled couples that using birth control was up to their conscience expecting the Pope to do the same and then Paul VI came out and said the exact opposite. I'm sure many priests today will still tell you it's up to your conscience, but they are wrong.


----------



## spooky mom (Jul 3, 2004)

Who decides if your reasons are "grave" enough to warrant use of birth control? You? The preist? The pope?
You have to stop being Catholic if they say your reasons aren't truly "grave"?

Is it like getting a procedure approved by an HMO, can you appeal their denial and get a second opinion?


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spooky mom*
Who decides if your reasons are "grave" enough to warrant use of birth control? You? The preist? The pope?
You have to stop being Catholic if they say your reasons aren't truly "grave"?

First of all, the use of birth control is never approved. The couple may decide that they have grave enough reasons to use NFP. There are guidelines given out by the Church but ultimately it is up to the couple to decide whether to use NFP to avoid pregnancy or not.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

I reread Humanae Vitae and it is okay to use birth control in one instance.

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from-provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

I'm not really sure if this would include the pill since the Church also teaches that abortion is never okay. I think more clarification would be needed in order to say it doesn't include the pill. The abortificient properties of the pill may not have been publicized at the time Humanae Vitae was written. The exception would definitely allow for something like condom use to treat a woman who is allergic to her husband's sperm.

For the sake of arguement though, if it does include the pill, my understanding is that a Catholic pharmacist would have to fill the prescription trusting that the user is using it to cure bodily disease.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

cloak, thanks for explaining the Catholic 'rules' for bc. I think it's quite clear though that there is major conflict of interest between being Catholic (at least one who follows the Pope's ideas and feels the need to impose them upon others) and being a Pharmacist.

The pharmacists concerned need to get into a career where their religion doesn't interfere with their work. In fact I think the board/association that registers pharmacists should require prospective pharmacists to disclose this info. If they're not able to fulfill part of their duties, they should have to disclose it.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombat*
cloak, thanks for explaining the Catholic 'rules' for bc.
The pharmacists concerned need to get into a career where their religion doesn't interfere with their work.

You're welcome wombat. I like these discussions since it is a nice refresher for me.

I think like in any case of activism there will be some pharmacists who forgo the occupation, some who get their own store so they don't have to comply with anyone but themselves, and some who choose to fight the system.

I don't think you should force pharmacists to register their beliefs. Certainly a prospective employer should know, but not their association. Plus, there are already instances where I have to go to a different pharmacy because one does not carry what I want. The diaper rash cream I use is OTC but you have to ask for it at the pharmacy and most don't carry it. So if one pharmacy carries the pill and one doesn't, no biggie IMO.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

This conversation seems to be going in circles, to me.

First, if we really want to debate Humanae Vitae (and the *actual* teachings of the American RCC) we should probably take it to spirituality.

Secondly:

Quote:

Plus, there are already instances where I have to go to a different pharmacy because one does not carry what I want. The diaper rash cream I use is OTC but you have to ask for it at the pharmacy and most don't carry it. So if one pharmacy carries the pill and one doesn't, no biggie IMO.
We are not arguing over if a pharmacy needs to carry every single drug. Rather, if a pharmacy DOES carry it (and has, for example, filled it before or accepted a new perscription) if the pharmacist on duty NEEDS to fill it. Those are two very different arguements, imo.


----------



## cloak (Aug 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
First, if we really want to debate Humanae Vitae (and the *actual* teachings of the American RCC) we should probably take it to spirituality.

I actually tied the two together so I think it fits both places.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
We are not arguing over if a pharmacy needs to carry every single drug. Rather, if a pharmacy DOES carry it (and has, for example, filled it before or accepted a new perscription) if the pharmacist on duty NEEDS to fill it. Those are two very different arguements, imo.

You also took my example out of context. Maybe I just didn't clarify it enough the first time. I do think a pharmacist could get fired for not dispensing the pill and should disclose those beliefs to a potential employer. I think it is up to the employer whether or not the pharmacist could work there and/or carry the drug. If a pharmacy chose not to carry the pill, I would just go somewhere else, as I do for my diaper rash cream. Is that clearer?


----------



## sleepies (Nov 30, 2001)

if women don't get the pill,
they are more likely to get pregnant
and therefore more likely to have an abortion
which is going to cause an INCREASE in the number of abortions.

pro life people should really try to focus on getting the message of adoption out, instead of worrying as much about the actual abortions. i think that might actually help to reduce the number.

i also think birth control should be made EASIER to get and not harder!

it is pretty hard/embarassing for a teenage/unwed mom to go to a dr and get birth control as it is. much less have to face all this junk.

give us our dang pills!

ps.
i think if the pharmacist has issues with giving out drugs, then they should think of finding another career. or opening their own store.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I do think a pharmacist could get fired for not dispensing the pill and should disclose those beliefs to a potential employer. I think it is up to the employer whether or not the pharmacist could work there and/or carry the drug. If a pharmacy chose not to carry the pill, I would just go somewhere else, as I do for my diaper rash cream. Is that clearer?
Clearer, in that now I have no idea what I was arguing about, LOL.

Quote:

i also think birth control should be made EASIER to get and not harder!










I remember when Safeway in my town started locking up the condoms because they were being stolen so often. I was like, "Can't the taxpayers just give them the $$$, that is one item I wish people would steal more often."







Sure, they are FREE at the health clinic, but I figure if someone is too embarrased to go to the health clinic and too poor to buy them at the grocery that is one person i DO NOT want having children.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
This conversation seems to be going in circles, to me.

First, if we really want to debate Humanae Vitae (and the *actual* teachings of the American RCC) we should probably take it to spirituality.

Secondly:

We are not arguing over if a pharmacy needs to carry every single drug. Rather, if a pharmacy DOES carry it (and has, for example, filled it before or accepted a new perscription) if the pharmacist on duty NEEDS to fill it. Those are two very different arguements, imo.

I can wait, I expect EVERY Pharmacy to order what I need if it is not there, inclduing the birth control pill.


----------



## Devaskyla (Oct 5, 2003)

I almost never come to this forum, but decided to look in and found this thread. I think a few people said something similar, but I just wanted to comment on this

Quote:

Being prolife or prochoice is not a religious decision necessarily. Most people have access to numberous pharmasies. She has the choice to go to a different establishment.
I don't know if this is the exact story I heard awhile ago, or only a similar one, but the one I heard, the pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription, he also refused to give it back to her so that she *could* go somewhere else. I think he shouldn't be allowed to refuse to begin with, but to then take away her ability to go elsewhere is completely and utterly out of line and I only wish there were a crime he could have been charged with.


----------



## carlasher (Sep 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *comet*
What is outrageous to me is that a pharmacist's own beliefs are able to dictate what prescriptions can be filled.

How long would such pharmacists last if they had a moral objection to viagra?

*Good question! Considering the fact that studies have shown an increase of STD's including HIV among the elderly as a direct result of the careless use of the drug.
*


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Devaskyla*
I don't know if this is the exact story I heard awhile ago, or only a similar one, but the one I heard, the pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription, he also refused to give it back to her so that she *could* go somewhere else.

Isn't that theft? I hope she called the police.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

Not everyone has the luxury of a bunch of pharmacies to choose from, either.


----------

