Last week, I contacted my representative, Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO), about the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act. Today, I received a response back, which was very disappointing.
Thank you for writing regarding HR 1652, the “Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act.”
This legislation, introduced by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), mandates that pharmacists ensure that prescriptions are filled regardless of whether they violate the pharmacist’s religious or moral beliefs.
This measure is intended to make oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices available at the expense of the conscience of many American pharmacists who either are morally opposed to contraceptives or are concerned by the abortive properties of certain prescription drugs. For example, “morning-after pills” may prevent implantation of an embryo, thus causing an abortion.
Contraceptive drugs and devices are available and legal. Though many Americans will disagree on the morality of contraceptives and abortive drugs, it is unconscionable to create a federal statute intended to
bully pharmacists into violating their personal beliefs. I do not support this legislation.
Thank you for contacting me on this matter and feel free to do so again on this or any other issue in the future.
He refuses to say directly that he opposes contraception, but that is clearly his view. He also pulls out the old lie that contraception or EC is abortion. So, I sent off a couple of LTE’s which I’ll reprint here.
Unfortunately, Representative Akin responded that none of us have a right to contraception such as birth control pills. Apparently, he believes that allowing a woman to choose when she wishes to become pregnant is against his morals. He cowardly hides his beliefs in language such as, “it is unconscionable to create a federal statute intended to
bully pharmacists into violating their personal beliefs.” My morals state that using the powers of the government to control what people may do with their own lives and bodies is wrong and un-American. If, as a pharmacist, you do not want to distribute medicine, find another line of work.
Allowing individual pharmacists to decide which prescriptions to fill, and which to deny, will most harm those in rural areas and the poor, where there are fewer pharmacies and long distances to the next. This is a serious problem that could affect the lives of millions of Americans.
A huge majority of this country want access to legal contraception. We must put the spotlight on this important issue; otherwise our access to contraception could be slowly and silently destroyed.
I felt the need to publicize this a bit more so I posted here as well. It becomes hard to believe those who claim that the religious right is not about controlling women, when they oppose contraception.
Good work on your LTE, that was well written and poignant.
This whole situation is so ludicrous to me, it defies belief.
Personally, I don’t eat artificially sweetened foods; I think the huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup that our society consumes is one of the myriad causes of obesity and other health problems. If I were to get a job at McDonald’s, do you think they’d let me refuse to serve people if they ordered a Coke? Hell no. I’d be outta there before you can say ‘Get me a water.’
Thanks, and I love that McDonald’s analogy!.
what if you refused to “supersize” a meal for a fat customer, but had no problem doing so for the skinny customer behind him? The point is selectivity; these moralists have no problem handing out Viagra and Cialis to men like M&Ms.
These “pharmacists” are putting their own values and judgements ahead of both their customer and the prescribing physician. You wouldn’t expect to find a devout Jehovah’s Witness working in a blood bank. What’s next, a Catholic judge refusing to grant divorces? (It’s probably coming…)
I don’t feel that it’s any business of the pharmacist’s what I’m taking and why, as long as there are no interactions with other medications I’m taking. I appreciate the caution to use condoms when I take antibiotics (which lessen the efficacy of oral contraceptives), but I don’t need someone butting in between me and my gynecologist.
clearly, supersizing is a right that is universally American. To even suggest that it could be denied based on one’s personal views or prejudice is sheer lunacy.
</snark>
Your point is a good one, and it goes back to one of the things that I always harp on. The current method of solving problems is flawed; instead of understanding the problem and solving it at it’s root, people try to fix a situation by putting a series of band-aids over it. This is what we in software call a ‘hack’ or a ‘kludge’. To use your example, these people don’t have a problem with supplying Viagra and Cialis to men because it isn’t ‘aborting a baby’. It is ‘encouraging the miracle of life’. They don’t put 2 and 2 together because of their biases; instead of solving the problem at its core by denying these E.D. drugs to men, they put on their band-aid of denying contraceptives to women.
It’s the same everywhere you look. Look at the drug war. Look at immigration. At some point, legislation is going to have to get proactive instead of being reactive (sorry for the buzzwords). It gnaws at me constantly. There’s a better way to solve problems out there, but no one is willing to do it.
(btw, I got a little off topic, sorry. I don’t look at people having sex with contraceptives [or any other way ;)] as being a problem. I was just trying to portray it from their viewpoint)
Once you start allowing this there’s no end to it:
Do you allow Jewish waiters/waitresses to not serve pork or bacon? Hindus or vegans to not sell you beef?
If they had issues with the practice, then should not have gone into the f@$%ing field, for crying out loud!
I graduated school with a chemistry degree around the time of Bhopal, and decided I couldn’t in good conscience go to work for a big oil or chemical company, so I got a different job – in a water department and directed my career into environmental chemistry. Is this a hardship? Of course! But you make that choice freely when you follow principles!
I have absolutely no sympathy for these so-called Christian pharmacists (as you may have noted). Let them put their money where their mouth is, and find other work, or shut the f@#% up. I thought they were supposed to be “in the world but not of it.” So quit trying to set the rules for the rest of us who don’t share your particular set of superstitions regarding blastulas.
Can I refuse to pay taxes because the way the government is spending them on wars and bloodshed is against my moral beliefs?
When I hear stories like this, it just defies belief. Have we de-evolved so much in this country that contraception is now an issue? What next? I think that high fructose corn syrup may be more than making us fat. It also seems to be making us dumb and easily manipulated.
To take this further, if I was a car salesman and I was opposed to low mileage wasteful behemoths (Hummers) because I believe that it is unconscionable to drive them, could I refuse to sell them to a customer? Could I only offer to sell hybrids? Don’t take the job if you are unable to perform it.
It’s interesting that Akin finds it acceptable for the pharmacists to bully the women into having both their personal beliefs and medical needs violated.
And I would question the actual morality of such pharmacists. If they have such high moral standards, wouldn’t they be putting their personal views aside because it would be immoral to cause unnecessary and easily preventable physical and/or emotional harm to other human beings?