iccky

I agree that at least theoretically a pharmacist shouldn't have to dispense a pill that is against his or her moral judgment. The problem is those cases where the woman doesn't have another option. I can easily imagine places in rural America, where the fundies are strong and pharmacies are few and far between where a pharmacist refusing to hand over the pill would mean having to drive 40 or 50 miles to get a prescription filled. Let's say you're a teenager and mom and dad don't know about the pill. Probably you're just not going to get it filled, and probably you're gonna get pregnant.

I remember a similar situation somewhere in Texas where they couldn't find a contractor who would pour the cement for a Planned Parenthood clinic that would be the only abortion clinic for a couple hundred miles. Certainly, the contractor has a right to not support an activity he/she considers murder, but if everyone refuses a woman's right is essentially nullified.

Seriously though, saying a pharmacist should find a new job because he or she doesn't want to give out birth control pills is ridiculous. I don't imagine filling birth control prescriptions is a large part of a pharmacist’s job, or that that many people get into the profession because of a zeal for birth control. If your mechanic won't fix your Pinto because he thinks it’s a POS car, you don't expect him to give up the trade entirely. I say this as a person who is very happy his girlfriend is on the pill and who would take one himself if they made a male version of it.

To turn the tables on you, if a med school belives that a woman's right to choose is important, and that it is essential that there be doctors available to perform this procedure, isn't it their right to require students to learn it? Can't the students simply go to another med school if they don't like it? (I haven't heard of any med schools doing this, but I'm sure that there are many med schools that do not require it, in fact I bet there are many that don't even teach it anymore).