Okay, I recognize that I am probably going against the grain- but hear me out.
This has obviously been in the news of late, but what prompted me to write the diary was this story here.
Within the text of the story is the reference to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his executive order requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control.
Now, I know why people here want there to be access to morning after pills. And, I am not trying to debate whether they should be legal or not. (And, to be frank, I don't know the details of the executive order that I referenced- I am discussing the issue generally)
But, to require pharmacists to fill prescriptions they find to be morally offensive? I think we are travelling down a dangerous road.
Sure, pharmacists are required to be licensed by the state, so I guess theoretically it's legal to require them to fill whatever prescription. But, doctors are licensed by the state- should OB-GYN's be required to perform abortions, even if they believe them to be murder?
How about a doctor who is against the death penalty- should they be required to participate in executions?
Getting away from medicine- consider the question of gay marriage. Like most people who I imagine are reading this, I generally support the proposition that homosexuals should be permitted to enter into legal marriages (to be technical, I actually believe the government shouldn't be getting involved in the marriage business at all, but that's a diary for another day).
However, my support comes with one caveat- that the government shouldn't start forcing clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies that their religion would forbid. When I add that one objection, generally it is shrugged aside- OF COURSE not, that's not even an issue, you idiot, I am told.
But, why not? The state licenses those who perform ceremonies- why can't they require that anyone so licensed cannot refuse to marry a couple based on their sexual orientation/gender?
Frankly, the list of hypotheticals could go on forever. I realize that abortion and birth control are dicey subjects, but I fail to understand why anyone would want the government to go down this road.
EDITED- Well, I knew I'd get flamed, and I was right on about that. So, I can't be upset that people disagree. But, I want to be clear, because from the analogies below, I think people are missing my point- I am not suggesting that such a pharmacist can't be fired, or refused to be hired in the first place. Or that there can't be economic consequences to such a store- I am just saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of ordering people to violate their faith.
Another point- lots of people are saying that if you don't want to fill the prescriptions, that you shouldn't take the job. But what about pharmacists who have been working for years, and only now is this becoming an issue?
What if a company comes up with a drug that renders people within the first few years of puberty impotent, and parents start getting it prescribed for their children to keep them from having sex. Does every existing pharmacist who finds the practice of neutering children abhorent have to go find another job?