The Morning After Pill

I see that the AP is reporting that a number of Pharmacists in Washington State are suing over a new regulation which effectively requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the Morning After Pill or Plan B.

The lawsuit argues that the regulation violates the plaintiff’s civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

This is not an easy question. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other situation where you are required to do something that you honestly consider immoral. Even the Army makes allowance for conscientious objectors.

So what is it that makes the Morning After Pill so special that a Ma & Pa pharmacy can’t tell someone to go to the Rite Aid down the highway? I mean, even though it’s called the “Morning After” pill, you actually have about 72 hours.

On the other hand, why should one person’s opinion about what’s moral inhibit someone else from doing something that is not only perfectly legal, but for which that other person has no qualms about?

I think this is a little different from issues like abortion and stem cell research. In those instances, if you have moral issues, then no one is forcing you to participate in or facilitate those activities. It’s also different from the issue of Muslim cab drivers not wanting to take fares carrying alcohol. There we’re talking about a passive role but, with the pharmacy deal, we’re talking about a more active role. If I was convinced that alcohol was a tool of the devil would you force me to sell it in my grocery store? I think not. So why is this different?

Wal-Mart (I think) decided to stop selling guns on moral grounds after somewhere bought a gun there that they used to kill someone and we all cheered Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” which unabashedly tried to pressure retail stores into not selling guns and ammunition.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for gun control and I’m all for a woman’s right to have control over her own body, but I’m squeamish about forcing, by law or regulation, someone to do something for which they have moral reservations.

These people aren’t taking the position that God doesn’t like it and therefore no one should be able to do it. They’re taking the position that THEY don’t like it and therefore they shouldn’t be forced to do it. The fact that the reason they may not like it is that they think God doesn’t like it strikes me as irrelevant.

I think I have to break with the liberal position here. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to do something they are morally opposed to. Washington State should rethink its regulation.