Flavor du Jour: Getting Involved
Thoughts on political statements and lawsuits, by beth
This is ridiculous. To summarize for those who don’t care to go and read the article (and get madder and madder as they go, if you’re like me): the article details how three women in Massachusetts went to a WalMart pharmacy to request the morning after pill, simply so they could be told that WalMart has chosen not to stock it and thus they would be allowed to sue.
Again according to the article, Massachusetts’s law requires pharmacies to provide “all commonly prescribed medicines.” There is also a law that requires hospitals to provide the morning after pill to rape victims and allows pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription. Got that? Allows. Not requires.
The women, who have been up front about the fact that they went in as part of a planned stunt with anti-life groups and lawyers, are trying to state that the morning after pill falls into the genre of “commonly prescribed medicine.” So, in effect, they’re saying that it’s equivalent to an antibiotic or regular birth control pills – except, oh wait, a pharmacist can’t dispense either of those without prescriptions.
You would think that the liberals would be happy with their “win” in getting a law passed that allows this “medicine” to be dispensed without a prescription. But it’s not enough. Now they want to force any and everyone to carry it. Even though WalMart’s policy in the case when they don’t carry a medication is to refer you specifically to another pharmacy that does. Which, again according to the article, happened as per policy.
When did a “right to choose” morph into a denial of that same right if you’re choosing an option other than that supported by the anti-life lobby? If WalMart was the only pharmaceutical game in town, then maybe, just maybe, I could see the point. But when the women were able to easily go to CVS and get their pills – and when the majority of other pharmacies choose to stock it – the point is no longer about whether or not someone can get this “medication”, it’s now simply about the fact that NARAL and other anti-life groups want to legislate what you think - and if you dare to differ, you’ll be taken to court.
This is just one symptom of a bigger problem that is growing in America. In our effort to be free, we’re losing our ability to be just that. Freedom would imply that corporations are able to choose what they will stock in their pharmacies and what they will not. Freedom would imply that a woman who finds the concept of the morning after pill repugnant would have the ability to shop for her non-death-inducing prescriptions at a pharmacy that doesn’t carry something she’s adamantly opposed to.
But if the trend of vilifying those who choose not to embrace these liberal thought policies when there is no legal reason for them not to continues, where will it end? How can a day care center say that they’re not going to employ a pedophile? After all, that’s simply his or her life choice, right? Will churches be able to continue to hire pastors based on their theology and doctrines or will we be forced to consider and hire atheist men and women who apply to be pastors simply to bring the church to court for discrimination?
Some of you may feel that’s an overstatement – and for now it may be – but in another six months, a year, or two years will it be as far-fetched? I don’t think it will, unless we take action. We need to send a message to our legislators that we will not sit quietly, like that proverbial frog in the pot, as they slowly increase the heat until we wake up one morning and realize that while we were trying to be loving, accepting Christians, we were actually getting cooked. A line needs to be drawn. We need to stop allowing the vocal minority opinions to drown out and legislate to the silent majority.
(* Note: The Daily Brew attempts to engage ideas and address contemporary themes with truthful and relevant principles for the purpose of positively impacting our culture.)