Oral contraceptives have been on the market for about 40 years, yet only recently do we hear of pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions because their religious beliefs oppose contraception.
I am, as the saying goes, “calling bullshit.”
If this had been an immediate and widespread issue when the pill was new, in the age of mini-skirts and white lipstick and white girls ironing their hair, when the question of ladies wearing “pant suits” was, in some smaller communities in the US, still a question, it is reasonable to assume that the pharmacy body, whatever it is called, as well as institutions that award degrees and licenses to practice this profession, would have settled the question in short order.
But this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and appears to be confined to the very narrow issue of oral contraceptives. I have yet to hear of a gentleman being told that the pharmacist will be unable to refill his Viagra due to religious prohibition.
There have been no reports of dental patients complaining because a drugstore employee informed them that pain is God’s punishment for sin, so no Vicodin for you.
What do you suppose the manager of the local Subway or Quizno’s would say to a devout Muslim or Jew who declared that he would be unable to prepare sandwiches containing ham?
Would they post a sign? Issue a press release? Ask the lunch line to divide itself into ham and not ham?
Would anyone challenge the employee, ask him, in light of his deeply held religious scruples, why in the hell was he working in a place that would require him to handle non-Halal/non-Kosher meat of ANY kind?
We can only speculate, because this is simply not a problem. Not in the US, not anywhere.
People whose faith precludes certain activities or contact with certain substances simply do not choose careers that require them to violate those beliefs. Duh.
Few Buddhists enroll in butcher school, or seek work in slaughterhouses. You will find a noticeable lack of devout Hindus at beef processing plants, and a similar dearth of conservative Jewish or Muslim men who are constrained from touching unrelated females presiding over a pedicure chair at the local beauty salon. (How about a nice pink-and-white today, Miss Chang? Let me just clip my payess up. There! health regulations, you know.)
Re-Duh.
It is up to the professional pharmacy associations and licensing boards to offer every help and support to those of their number whose recent religious conversions have rendered them unable to practice their chosen profession, to choose a new career that does not compromise their faith, train for it, and obtain employment that will not put them in the difficult position of having to face this moral dilemma every time Mrs. Gul comes in for her (or her daughter’s) birth control pills.
It should NOT be up to patients to lobby, scold, reason and plead with either politicians or pharmacies to please let them have their medicine.
That the appropriate institutions have NOT stepped in, that the issue instead is being debated among politicians, editorial writers, corporate exectutive boards, and again, patients themselves, is an indication that this has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with the effort to solidify the concept of women as property.
In addition to the obvious clear and present danger to women, it is also an insult to the millions of people who do have strong religious beliefs, and the common sense to avoid career choices that conflict with them.