Civilly Disobedient Pharmacists

Pharmacists in Washington State are suing that state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill." The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.

Sold as “Plan B”, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The FDA made the morning-after pill available without prescription to adults last year.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the new rule violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit. Doctors do not have to perform abortions if that violates their personal ethics or moral conscience, and pharmacists are seeking to have the same latitude.

Opponents argue that health care providers should not be allowed to withhold legal treatments and medications based on their own moral beliefs, but must serve the needs of the patients.

At the heart of the debate is the question of when life begins. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted. For those who believe life begins at fertilization, they wee the pill's effect as ending an innocent life.

Does life begin at conception? Even some who would affirm that it does, say that conception occurs not when the egg in fertilized, but when the fertilized egg is implanted, and see no problem with the pill.

I am not sure what the penalty is for the pharmacists who deny to fill such a prescription; whether it is a fine, loss of license, or imprisonment. It the courts uphold the regulation and force pharmacists to comply, it will be interesting to see how many will risk their careers by exercising a little civil disobedience by fefusing to comply with a law they feel is unjust.

It will be interesting to see what happens if pharmacist exercise their "freedom of choice" in keeping with their own religious convictions. Keep your eyes on this case: I believe the court's ruling will impact "abortion rights" and "religious liberty" cases for years to come.

What do you think? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

Permission to Pray

For Buddhist monks in Virginia Beach, government permission is needed to pray in their own home. And that permission was granted...for one year. Jason Marks, of Norfolk's NBC affiliate, filed the report on last night's City Council meeting.

Some neighbors argued that the monks' home sits on land zoned for residential use, and the house should not be used to hold worship services. While residents voiced their concerns, members who attend services say not allowing them to pray would be a violation of their rights.

Last year the monks moved to the area and began to hold their services. They wanted to build a temple on the land instead of using the home. Instead city council sent the message that there will be no temple and the praying must stop by next year.

The monks wanted to pray for three hours on Sundays and a few holidays during the year. In the end, the city council decided to grant a one year permit for the monks, but only to give them time to find a new building for worship. Neighbors say that's a fair deal. "I feel that a vote against this is a vote against freedom, which is what our nation was built on," said Samantha Neizgoba, one of the worshippers.

The noise would not be an issue, as the monks don't engage in communal singing, but in quiet meditation. Folks who live nearby say the Sunday prayer services would cause unnecessary traffic. "First five cars," said neighbor Dan Franken."Then ten. Twenty. Thirty. Forty. Fifty. Tour buses, port-a-potties, etc.,"

I live in a neighborhood with homes in close proximity to one another. We have neighbors who throw a party almost every weekend. Both sides of the street are filled with cars, lining up nearly the length of the block. They do not need a special permit to host a gathering in their home. But if the gathering is religious in nature then you need the permission from the city council?

Citizens shouldn't need government permission to have a gathering in their homes. The purpose for the gathering shouldn't matter as long as the peace of the community is not being disturbed and no illegal activity is taking place. It seems this group is being discriminated against because the gathering being hosted is religious in nature.

Meeting for worship should not be against the law, especially in a private residence. To say you cannot erect a building is one thing, but to say you cannot pray in your own home is ridiculous!

No one should need the government's permission to exercise a right that is already guaranteed in the first Amendment to this nation's constitution.

My understanding of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Congress (the government) shall make no law respecting (in respect or regard to) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (even in their own home), and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

As an American and a Christian I enjoy this "right", but also feel an obligation to make sure it is defended and extended to other religious groups as well.