Wed 23rd Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 23rd Jul 2014 at 12:22pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Pharmacists who object to handing out pill could lose job

By on Monday, 15 August 2011

Photo: PA

Photo: PA

Pharmacists could face the sack if they refuse to hand out morning-after pills under unprecedented new guidelines issued by their industry regulator.

Some chemists say the new guidance circulated last week by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) effectively strips them of their right to conscientiously object to handling such drugs.

They say it will make them “morally complicit” because they will not only be obliged to refer a customer to a pharmacist who is willing to distribute the pills but must also ring ahead to check that the product is in stock. Many pharmacists have objections to dispensing morning-after pills, and some contraceptive pills, because they have an abortifacient action, working post-conception by preventing a fertilised ovum from implanting into the womb.

The guidance will also compel Christian pharmacists to make drugs available for IVF, to which many object because embryos are destroyed in the process. The Government revealed last month that 32 embryos are created for every live birth.

Furthermore, for the first time it informs pharmacists that their right to conscientious objection on religious grounds is secondary to the contractual demands of employers such as the NHS.

Pharmacists will also have a duty to inform a potential employer of any moral objections they have to the morning-after pill when they apply for a post.

Anna Sweeting-Hempsall, a Catholic hospital pharmacist, said the guidelines will lead to the dismissal of some Christians from the profession and prevent others from entering it. “Catholic pharmacists have the obligation to respect the fact that life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death by not supplying, or participating in the supply of, drugs for abortion or euthanasia,” she said.

“Until now, the conscience clause gave Catholic pharmacists the right not to compromise their beliefs, and provided invaluable protection against unethical employers who might have tried to force pharmacists to act against their conscience and supply these drugs,” she said.

“But the new guidance makes it clear employers have the right to choose not to employ pharmacists with a conscientious objection, or to impose contractual obligations which take precedence over the rights of conscience. In other words, the conscience clause is now meaningless, and Catholic pharmacists who cannot accept being party to attacks on unborn life are virtually unemployable.

“Even if a pharmacist does manage to find a job under a sympathetic employer, the guidance states that the pharmacist must still ‘refer patients to alternative service providers’, which is still an unacceptable level of involvement for Catholics. Surely, if I am prepared to phone round other local pharmacies to find the one that is prepared to dispense a prescription for the morning-after pill, I may as well have supplied it myself,” she said.

The “Guidance on the Provision of Pharmacy Services Affected by Religious and Moral Beliefs” comes a year after a majority of members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain voted to retain a conscience clause during a consultation by the GPhC. The regulator responded by producing the guidance to explain how such a right must now be interpreted.

All pharmacists are accountable to the GPhC and must be able to explain their actions in the context of any guidance issued. The GPhC said, however, that the guidance was not binding and was open to review after one year.

“Our guidance is advice for pharmacy professionals and explains how our standards might be met, or provide additional suggestions for practice,” a spokeswoman said. “The requirements of our guidance are not mandatory.”

But John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, urged pharmacists to reject the guidance. “It is a shocking direction and it has no validity whatsoever. People with a conscientious objection must refuse to obey it,” he said.

“What they are stipulating runs directly contrary to the fundamental right of conscientious objection, of having absolutely nothing to do with drugs which may kill an early developing human embryo. It is also contrary to the right to life of the human embryo.”

Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said that the guidance was flawed. “What many people do not seem to grasp is the fact that if you are refusing to do something because it is morally objectionable you cannot be obliged to recommend someone else,” he said.

The revised code comes as the Government is placing pharmacists under increasing pressure to make the morning-after pill easily available to children to reduce Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate, the highest in Europe.

In a 2007 address to the International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists Pope Benedict XVI said concientious objection is a “right your profession must recognise”.

He said it permitted pharmacists “not to collaborate either directly or indirectly by supplying products for the purpose of decisions that are clearly immoral”.

The Church has traditionally taught that conscience is not a subjective judgment but an echo of the Natural Law, helping individuals to discern objective moral truth in concrete situations.

During his June visit to Croatia the Pope said: “If, in keeping with the prevailing modern idea, conscience is reduced to the subjective field to which religion and morality have been banished, then the crisis of the West has no remedy and Europe is destined to collapse in on itself.

“If on the other hand, conscience is rediscovered as the place in which to listen to truth and good, the place of responsibility before God and before fellow human beings – in other words the bulwark against all forms of tyranny – then there is hope for the future.”

  • Alan

    What a bizarre article.

    It makes me somewhat concerned. Why such a negative story when the lawyer consulted above reports last Friday that he has made something of a breakthrough in dealings with the NHS. http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/2011/08/abortion-and-equality-act.html

    What’s more it is a breakthrough that should answer some of the very concerns mentioned in this piece.

    Still, is the hospital pharmacist concerned claiming the law allows her not only to refuse to dispense a drug used for abortions but to refuse to hand the script to a colleague or inform a colleague that she is not willing to fill the script? If she is then I can see how a hospital might feel reluctant to give such a pharmacist a role in a hospital where they might enjoy sole responsibility or be the first person to receive requests for drugs.

    On the same principle made by Mr Addison in his winning argument that the two nurses could not be asked to work in ANY capacity within the abortion unit, one wonders how a pharmacist with similar conscientious objections can work in a pharmacy that dispenses abortion drugs? 

  • The Moz

    Strange days indeed.

  • Anonymous

    People make a bid deal about conception, but it is not such an astonishing stage in the process. It is very hard to claim that at this stage ‘ensoulment’ occurs because the group of cells that from from the first cell can be split and turned into numerous human beings (this would mean the sharing or splitting of a soul!).

    This is how twins are made, from one ‘moment of conception’ two or more human souls get created when split. Theoretically you could split the ball of cells from 1-14 days into many tens of babies.

    It is this fact that leads me to question the validity of conception as an significantly important in the way it is made out to be.

  • Anonymous

    People to need to access these services and drugs. They are legal under the law, and with intelligent moral scrutiny many people believe them to be morally acceptable.

    Until it is the case they are made illegal, provision must be made for drugs to be dispensed somehow.

  • Anonymous

    “Until it is the case they are made illegal, provision must be made for drugs to be dispensed somehow.”

    But not by anyone to whom these drugs are morally objectionable.
    A Catholic pharmacist can easily display a notice in the pharmacy to the effect that such drugs are not available in that pharmacy, and the customer will have to go elsewhere to buy them.  It will not be beyond the wit of such a customer to find another pharmacy that does supply these drugs, without any help from the Catholic pharmacist.  The customer may find it inconvenient to do so, but that is most unfortunate.  It is not as if it is a matter of life or death – except to the baby.

  • Anonymous

    “…one wonders how a pharmacist with similar conscientious objections can work in a pharmacy that dispenses abortion drugs?”

    For the same reason that a Catholic nurse can work in a hospital that performs abortions.
    Or a Catholic doctor.  Or a Catholic physiotherapist.  Or a Catholic office clerk.
    They must NOT be compelled in any way to take an active part in an immoral procedure, such as an abortion or a sterilisation.  Of course, as taxpayers, they should be granted some form of tax-relief, rather than be obliged to pay towards the provision of these ‘services’, but I can’t see the Department of Health allowing any such entitlement any time soon.  It will be cheaper for them to try and coerce Catholics in the NHS to conform to the pagan consensus.

  • Anonymous

    “It is very hard to claim that at this stage ‘ensoulment’ occurs because
    the group of cells that from from the first cell can be split and
    turned into numerous human beings (this would mean the sharing or
    splitting of a soul!).”

    The human soul is not a commodity that can be measured in some way or other.  It cannot be shared or split, no matter how many babies may be conceived or result from one pregnancy.  The division of the zygote results in the creation of another person and another soul.

  • Alan

    “For the same reason that a Catholic nurse can work in a hospital that performs abortions.
    Or a Catholic doctor.  Or a Catholic physiotherapist.  Or a Catholic office clerk.”

    And just what is that “same reason”?

    Just where are the lines that define complicity, and who draws them?

    The two nurses who sought Mr Addison’s excellent counsel thought any work in the unit where the two drugs were administered was not acceptable: so does that mean that NHS staff no longer have to support patients in a surgical ward pre and post op? Might pharmacists also refuse to dispense drugs that became necessary as a direct result of an abortion?

    Is a dissenting GP obliged to refer a patient seeking an abortion to another GP in the practice? Can the dissenting physio refuse to support the recovery following an abortion? Can the dissenting office clerk refuse to process the pay of those working in the abortion clinic?

    How many degrees of separation does there need to be, or is this a matter of personal choice?

     

  • Anonymous

    “And just what is that “same reason”?”

    As I have already stated, the principle is that no Catholic employee can be coerced against their will to take an active part in an immoral procedure.

    “Just where are the lines that define complicity, and who draws them?”

    Complicity involves assenting participation in the immoral procedure.
    The Catholic Church draws the lines and sets them out quite clearly so that any Catholic who finds himself/herself in a situation in which a decision has to be made can do so knowing that the Church’s ruling is the correct one.

    “…so does that mean that NHS staff no longer have to support patients in a surgical ward pre and post op?”

    NHS staff who are Catholics are morally bound to absent themselves from any department that is used to facilitate an immoral operation.

    “Might pharmacists also refuse to dispense drugs that became necessary as a direct result of an abortion?”

    I refer you to the previous answer.

    “Is a dissenting GP obliged to refer a patient seeking an abortion to another GP in the practice?”

    No.  One would hope that the patients who attended that practice would be aware that a particular GP did not treat patients who were seeking an abortion and would ask to consult another GP.

    “Can the dissenting physio refuse to support the recovery following an abortion?”

    Recovery?  You mean, something could go wrong with an abortion!?  Surely not!?  We all know that abortion is a safe and healthy choice for a woman to make, don’t we?
    Don’t we?

    “Can the dissenting office clerk refuse to process the pay of those working in the abortion clinic?”

    In normal circumstances a clerk is not actively involved in aiding the procurement of an abortion.  That is the principle – active involvement – that decides the culpability of the action.

    “How many degrees of separation does there need to be, or is this a matter of personal choice?”

    No, it is not a matter of personal choice.  The principle is well defined and it must be followed to the letter.

  • Anonymous

    Baby being the wrong word obviously. The average time for conception to occur after sex is 24-48 hours, so for the most part things like the morning after pill, do NOT kill the early embryo.

    I don’t know the solution to people who have moral issues with selling these drugs, because the access needs to be there.

  • Anonymous

    So this means that NOT all ‘babies’ are formed at conception.

    The Church has not always had its mind made up about this – for many years it was the case that abortions were not considered akin to the murder of a baby – it occurring before movement of the fetus for the first time.

    This was what Thomas Aquinas believed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RSX46YHVLTDE4WV254JB5DRT2Y Larry

    You are incorrect. St Thomas Aquinas position on ensoulment was based on the writings of Aristotle. Aquinas considered abortion to be wrong under any circumstances because it was a violation of natural law.  St Thomas Aquinas is not the Pope. The Catholic church has always been against abortion. One need look no further than to the Didache  (teaching of the twelve apostles) dated in the late first and early second century which states that abortion is wrong. A translation from Chapter 2 (The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden) states “And the second commandment of the Teaching; … you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..”. Furthermore, the science at the time of Aquinas was not advanced as it is today which categorically states that human life begins at conception.

    It is obnoxious for the state to not recognize concientious objection which is a person’s natural right that the state cannot deny since the state is not the source of the rights of man. The US military recognizes the right of concientious objection. No one should be forced to do something that is immoral or illegal. It’s discrimination.

  • Anonymous

    Larry I did not suggest that anyone should be forced to do anything against their will. As Catholics we should be the first to recognize that tolerance of different points of view is necessary.

    I may have been oversimplifying, but in essence my point is the same. I never said that the Church found abortion morally permissible. The point I want to make is that at different times in its history it found it to be more or less serious of a sin.

    There is a difference between contravening natural law, and murder – would you not agree?

    The Didache you are correct did forbid all abortions.
    However Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380), allowed abortions to be carried out if early enough in the pregnancy.

    St. Augustine wrote that a ‘human cannot live in an unformed body’, and therefore that the termination of an early pregnancy would not be murder because no soul is destroyed.

    Pope Innocent III believed that the soul enters at the ‘quickening’ stage of pregnancy – when the woman first feels movement from it. Due to this he determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.

    Pope Gregory XIV, removed the previous Pope’s ban on abortions, and re-introduced the quickening-test which he decided around 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks)

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “The
    access needs to be there.”

    The
    access needs to be there? The state of being pregnant is not a medical problem
    except in a few rare instances - pregnancy in a healthy female is
    neither an injury, an illness, nor a disability.

    Healthy
    human females became pregnant and gave birth for millions upon millions of
    years without any medical intervention whatsoever.

    Many
    survived the process to become pregnant and give birth time and time
    again.

    And all
    this without the intervention of modern medicine. (Imagine that!)

    It may
    well be any given pregnant woman of today, as well as the baby’s father, the
    woman’s family, or all of the above are of the opinion that this
    particular woman being pregnant at this particular time represents an
    inconvenience, an annoyance, or an inopportune and unfortunate state of
    affairs. But their opinion would be attributable to circumstances,
    attitudes, and expectations not pertaining to any *medical* issues
    surrounding the pregnancy itself. It is risible to advance the claim personal
    opinions pertaining to an otherwise normal and healthy medical condition would
    constititute a medical emergency sufficiently grave to override and to
    crush the religious convictions of chemists (U.S. Eng. = pharmacists) who adhere
    to long-standing Church teaching against deliberately annihilating the
    existence of human life – any human life.

    It’s too
    bad there aren’t more Muslim chemists: I’d like to see these bullies try to
    pull this kind of crap on Muslim chemists. They would soon be sorted out.

  • Anonymous

    The morning pill is usually taken the morning after – which would not be much more than 12 hours after the act.

    Conception itself does not occur until 24-48 hours after sex. Therefore the idea that the morning-after pill kills an embryo verges on stupid.

    But the Church tries to make us believe anything, as long as it fits in with its morally and scientifically illogical stance on abortion.

    The Church will also tell you the its stance on the issue has never changed – this is also untrue.
    Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV each believed that abortions up to around 16 1/2 weeks would not kill the soul of the fetus and therefore were acceptable.

    As explained by the great Christian theologian St. Augustine ‘the human soul cannot live in an unformed body’

  • Anonymous

    Muslims also believe in a similar concept of ‘ensoulment’ or ‘Ruh’ is given to the fetus. It is disputed whether this ‘happens’ at 40 or 120 days – or when the baby starts to move.

    So the average Muslim chemist would be quite happy to hand over the morning-after pill.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The Church has always taught that it is never legitimate willfully and intentionally to target human life for annihilation – even human life at its very earliest stages.

    Your characterization of Church teaching on this point as having “changed” is a misreading: it is the canonical penalties for acts of targeting of human life that have changed over time.

    Catholics have never legitimately willed the destruction of the life of another human person.

  • Anonymous

    I never said the Church willed abortion. I am saying that it was at times found to be acceptable.

    This is a massive ‘change’ in belief, as many high in the Church today do not even allow for abortion in the case of danger of death to the mother, or for rape.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The Church has always taught that even *to will* the direct destruction of another is morally impermissible, much less to act to bring about that destruction.

    Although individual theologians and authors have certainly debated the moral status of the infant in the womb at the various stages of his or her existence, the Church has always taught that it is a crime that cries to Heaven for vengeance to willfully target another for destruction.

    Recent advances in medical science – genetics, embryology, and ultrasound imaging technology – have given scientific backing to the Church’s constant teaching that the infant in the womb is not a *thing* to be destroyed at our convenience, but a brother and a sister, as deserving of our love and protection as anyone else.

    I am not to target others. I am not to assist others to target others.

  • Anonymous

    I would much rather a woman be given the morning-after pill
    within 24-hours of unprotected intercourse than opt for the horrors of an
    abortion weeks later.

    But I know of a married Catholic woman who has had two sons
    and took the pill regularly for the rest of her fertile life. Immediately following
    the birth of her second child she found herself in a critical life or death
    situation. Her GP, herself a Catholic, strongly advised that she took the
    contraceptive pill from then on saying, paraphrased, it is much better that
    your young sons have a caring mother to come home to rather than they pay
    visits to your gravestone.

  • Paulspence

    If you believe there will be things you don’t want to do in your chosen career choose another career!

  • Anonymous

    Medical science really does NOT support the Church.
    The Church doesn’t even seem to recognize that conception does not occur on the ‘night’ of the sex act.
    Conception occurs 24-48 hours later – when the sperm reach the womb.

    If it followed its own rule that it is at conception that a ‘human being’ is created – then it would allow for quick use of the morning after pill.

    This is because for the first 24hrs all the morning after pill serves to do is to stop the sperm and egg meeting! Why does it not support or even acknowledge the fact that this is the case?

    Medicine tells us that in early pregnancy the fetus is totally brain dead – which could not mean the presence of a soul is possible.

  • Anonymous

    This sounds like just another allegation of disobedience on the part of a Catholic who is made to appear to be a victim of circumstances.
    No actual facts or names are mentioned in this allegation.  Just an airy-fairy flight of fancy from which we are supposed to fear the worst – that Catholic teaching is wrong and should be abandoned.  Some hopes!

  • Anonymous

    Stop telling people what they may do and what they may not do!
    Your arrogance is utterly nauseating.

  • Anonymous

    “St. Augustine wrote that a ‘human cannot live in an unformed body’, and
    therefore that the termination of an early pregnancy would not be murder
    because no soul is destroyed.”

    This is absolute nonsense.  St Augustine taught no such thing.
    I have a collection of St Augustine’s works, and I cannot find any such quotation.
    You will have to provide the precise work, together with chapter and verse.

  • Anonymous

    “So this means that NOT all ‘babies’ are formed at conception.”

    Oh yes it does!  A baby cannot be conceived without conception.  I thought you knew that.

  • Anonymous

    “So the average Muslim chemist would be quite happy to hand over the morning-after pill.”

    What the average Muslim chemist would do about the MAP is of no importance to Catholics.  Islam is not the true religion and its doctrine is irrelevant in this matter.

  • Anonymous

    “I am not to target others. I am not to assist others to target others.”

    Absolutely correct.  Active participation in the murder is the criterion of personal responsibility for the procedure.
    The suggestion that abortion was “found to be acceptable” at times is just nonsense and without any historical foundation.

  • Anonymous

    “Conception itself does not occur until 24-48 hours after sex. Therefore
    the idea that the morning-after pill kills an embryo verges on stupid.
    But
    the Church tries to make us believe anything, as long as it fits in
    with its morally and scientifically illogical stance on abortion.
    The Church will also tell you the its stance on the issue has never changed – this is also untrue.”

    You are obviously not a Catholic, paulsays, so there is little point in trying to debate this matter from a supposedly Catholic viewpoint.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    Whether the mother-to-be administers the death-dealing drug that will destroy the life of the newly forming infant in her womb at a period five hours or forty-eight hours after that infant has come into existence, it is the intention and the willingness *to kill*, to annihilate, to destroy a vulnerable human infant in his or her earliest formative stages that renders the use of the so-called Morning After Pill a most heinous and execrable act.

    No Christian can licitly *will* the death of another. No Christian can licitly cooperate with one who *wills* the death of another. It is never OK to *wish* to deal death and destruction to another.

    Never, never, never.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    Medical professionals’ career is is to treat and prevent disease, injury, and disability. Pregnancy is not a disease, a disability or an injury.

    To give health and healing. Not dealing death.

    To kill the developing infant in the womb is not “health care”. Even if a government decided to characterize vivisection or fatal experimentation upon prisoners or other crimes against humanity as a “required” function for all medical professionals, men and women of integrity and of principle within the health care profession would stand firm against it.

    So long as men and women of integrity and principle continue to exist, there is hope for Britain. If Britain should decide to persecute them, then God help Britain.

  • Anonymous

    I mean at the moment of sex

  • Anonymous

    You have to follow the thread I was replying to someone who said that a Muslim Chemist would refuse to hand over such drugs.

  • Anonymous

    Geoffrey I have been a Catholic all my life, but I do not accept morals without a basis in truth.                               

    If we had been Catholics in the time of Pope Innocent III, or Pope Gregory XIV then we could have had a proper philosophical discussion. 

    This is because they had the intelligence of being able to realize that terminating before the fetus has developed is only killing the potential person, and terminating after ‘quickening’ or ensoulment was a much greater sin.

    The Church HAS changed its position. It is even more hard-line then the medieval Church!

    Anyway Geoffrey before you brush me aside as not a true Catholic or some other bunk, have the decency to tackle my question.

    Why, does the Church condemn the morning after pill as a abortifacient – when if taken within 24 hours does not kill cells that have been fertilized. It is not even the killing of a ‘potential’ human being.
    The morning after pill if taken within 24h is no different to contraception.

  • Anonymous

    This is the truth! These are the facts! It is no flight of fancy! But why would you want to know names? The woman in question would have diced with death had she become pregnant again. Her GP exercised common sense to safeguard the health of her patient. 

  • geoffreysmith1

    “But why would you want to know names?”

    It would certainly give some credibility to what is otherwise just another fairy-tale about the Catholic Church and her teaching.

  • geoffreysmith1

    “Why, does the Church condemn the morning after pill as a abortifacient – when if taken within 24 hours does not kill cells that have been fertilized. It is not even the killing of a ‘potential’ human being.
    The morning after pill if taken within 24h is no different to contraception.”

    The MAP is designed to prevent the implantation of the early embryo in the womb lining.  It is irrelevant exactly when this embryo begins life as a zygote.  The drug kills the foetus/baby by preventing any further development to a blastocyst or a multicellular organism.  In that respect it certainly is an abortifacient and not merely a contraceptive, which prevents any formation of a zygote. 

  • Dolly

    I agree with the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children but that doesnt stop the clear discrimination against Christian ethical practises

    What is to stop pharmacists from offering there own explanatory warnong notes and written objections to being forced to decribing these pills?

    Perhaps we should just accept that we are to be discriminated in the name of Jesus and joyfully refuse to participate in the atheist sysem of things living our own distinct way of life in our own communities.

  • Anonymous

    “If the initial group of cells splits into numerous embryos, then conception has only occurred once for numerous fetuses.”

    Nevertheless it is conception that produces the baby/babies.  They all start life at a particular moment when the original zygote is created.  At no point in this process does anyone’s life ‘begin’ after the creation of the foetus/baby by fertilisation.  A human being is created by fertilisation and the formation of a zygote.  Any subsequent development as an identical twin or triplet is, again, irrelevant.  

  • Anonymous

    “The Church doesn’t even seem to recognize that conception does not occur on the ‘night’ of the sex act.  Conception occurs 24-48 hours later – when the sperm reach the womb.”

    This is a mistake.  Conception occurs long before that, and it does not take place in the womb.  You have obviously not heard of ectopic pregnancies.

  • Parasum

    “The revised code comes as the Government is placing pharmacists under increasing pressure to make the morning-after pill easily available to children to reduce Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate, the highest in Europe.”

    ## Abstinence = no sexual activity = no unforeseen pregnancies.

    What the bishops doing about this ?

  • Anonymous

    No this incorrect because fertilization only creates a single embryo – that then splits.

    It is the splitting, not the fertilization that creates new babies.

  • Anonymous

    You have wandered off the main thread of the argument, which is that the MAP is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive.  No Catholic pharmacist can in conscience make up a prescription for such a drug, any more than he can stock a supply of contraceptives.
    In all such instances the intention is to frustrate the natural result of the sex act, given that conception is likely.  This is not permissible for anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic.

  • bt

    “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards
    Bethlehem to be born?”

    -William Butler Yeats

  • Thinkfirst

    How rude and presumtuous of you to think that you or your religion is the only true religion. To push your opinions and will on others is wrong. Your bigotry and ignorance proves that you don’t care about the beliefs of others, only to perpetuation of your brand of dogma. In your mind, billions of people are horribly wrong, but for some reason the “real” truth has been given to you. The fetus is unwanted, why bring a child into such a home? There are so many kids who are waiting for homes that the adoption agument just doesn’t work anymore. I don’t like abortions but I would never push my beliefs on others. I feel the MAP is the lesser of a great many evils.

  • Pakuajen

    By not giving me the presciption, you are forcing your beliefs on me and nobody has the right to do that! I am always hearing people thanking God for our modern convienences, why is would contraception so evil?  Should we systematicly give girls tubal ligation or visectomies for boys until marriage? That would prevent the need for pills and abortion. Egg and sperm would never meet in this scenario so I would think Catholics would endorse this plan. I personaly believe that free will is always the best choice and that means accepting people even when they make a mistake.

  • Anonymous

    “How rude and presumtuous of you to think that you or your religion is the only true religion.”

    Yes, isn’t it?  It just so happens to be true, so I thought I would say so.

    “To push your opinions and will on others is wrong.”

    Why so?  The politicians do it, so why not the Catholics?

    “The fetus is unwanted, why bring a child into such a home?”

    If the couple concerned don’t want a child, they should not have sex.  Actions have consequences, and they just want to be free of any responsibility for what they do.

    “There are so many kids who are waiting for homes that the adoption agument just doesn’t work anymore.”

    So your idea of solving the “problem” of a surplus of adoptees is to kill any possible new applicants, right?  Playing God, eh?

    “I don’t like abortions but I would never push my beliefs on others.”

    You don’t have the courage of your convictions.

    “I feel the MAP is the lesser of a great many evils.”

    There is no greater evil than abortion, and any means of procuring it is a greater evil than any other.

  • Jasonmarkmead

    ““But the new guidance makes it clear employers have the right to choose
    not to employ pharmacists with a conscientious objection, or to impose
    contractual obligations which take precedence over the rights of
    conscience. In other words, the conscience clause is now meaningless,
    and Catholic pharmacists who cannot accept being party to attacks on
    unborn life are virtually unemployable.”

    Fantastic news!

    The so-called “conscience clause” should be immediately abolished anyway – it is as utterly ridiculous as someone joining the army and then refusing to fight because it conflicts with their “Pacifist Convictions”.

    If someone is unwilling or unable to do the job that is required of them that they are contracted and paid to do because of their infantile beliefs in the baseless, evidence-free myths of superstitious myths of goat-herders in the Late Bronze Age then they have made themselves unemployable as well as unsuitable for that particular profession so they should make room for those people who can do the job.

    This is long overdue and a very welcome development.

  • Jasonmarkmead

    ““But the new guidance makes it clear employers have the right to choose
    not to employ pharmacists with a conscientious objection, or to impose
    contractual obligations which take precedence over the rights of
    conscience. In other words, the conscience clause is now meaningless,
    and Catholic pharmacists who cannot accept being party to attacks on
    unborn life are virtually unemployable.”

    Fantastic news!

    The so-called “conscience clause” should be immediately abolished anyway – it is as utterly ridiculous as someone joining the army and then refusing to fight because it conflicts with their “Pacifist Convictions”.

    If someone is unwilling or unable to do the job that is required of them that they are contracted and paid to do because of their infantile beliefs in the baseless, evidence-free myths of superstitious myths of goat-herders in the Late Bronze Age then they have made themselves unemployable as well as unsuitable for that particular profession so they should make room for those people who can do the job.

    This is long overdue and a very welcome development.

  • Jasonmarkmead

    ““But the new guidance makes it clear employers have the right to choose
    not to employ pharmacists with a conscientious objection, or to impose
    contractual obligations which take precedence over the rights of
    conscience. In other words, the conscience clause is now meaningless,
    and Catholic pharmacists who cannot accept being party to attacks on
    unborn life are virtually unemployable.”

    Fantastic news!

    The so-called “conscience clause” should be immediately abolished anyway – it is as utterly ridiculous as someone joining the army and then refusing to fight because it conflicts with their “Pacifist Convictions”.

    If someone is unwilling or unable to do the job that is required of them that they are contracted and paid to do because of their infantile beliefs in the baseless, evidence-free myths of superstitious myths of goat-herders in the Late Bronze Age then they have made themselves unemployable as well as unsuitable for that particular profession so they should make room for those people who can do the job.

    This is long overdue and a very welcome development.