Quite right you are- thanks for the complete oath- the "abortive remedy" part was quietly dropped after Roe vs. Wade became law, as a physicians role previously was considered solely as a healer, and it was not considered a doctors role to exterminate life.

Daggone it, Curtis! You are certainly on the ball today! Thanks for looking that up! It's a shame something so ancient, something that has stood over centuries, could be discarded due to self centeredness in a society free of values or morals.

Gynecology is a specialty, though. It would be taken after completion of a general degree in medicine. Yes, however, all doctors do need to have knowledge about women's bodies, as you know. That doesn't qualify a GP to perform an abortion.

hi nurse. as usual, i agree with most of what you've said.

"Pharmacists should dispense the medication ordered by a clients doctor."

in the case of day after pill, it's NOT prescription, it's over the counter (OTC).

so, if a pharmacist doesn't want to carry an unsure, unsafe OTC diet pill, can he be forced to do it?

Why is that different? It's not. Obese people will say that it's discriminatory, too.

I take care of terminal and chronically ill patients, they don't need the morning after pill! Wasn't aware it was OTC. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes it should apply to everybody. If giving ham to someone else is against your religion then you should not work in a god-damned deli!! This is a no-brainer, common-sense solution here.

If it is against someone's religion to sell any kind of drug whatsoever, then that person should not be a pharmacist. It is that person's choice to become a pharmacist. If they cannot perform their duties, they should find another line of work.

Anti-choice people should not work for abortion clinics...

Bhuddists shouldn't work in a place that puts animals to sleep.

Amish people should not become computer programmers.

etc, etc, etc

It's really common sense. A pharmacist should NEVER EVER be able to infringe on another person's right to get the legal medication they need, and it is ridiculous to think otherwise. There are many lines of work, and people get to choose what career they want to pursue. It is beyond stupid to pick a career whose practices are against your religion.

How in the hell is it your "right" to determine what any PRIVATE pharmacy sells?

it is the patients right to get the medication prescribed by the doctor. If a pharmacist is unwilling to recognize that right, they should find another job. Period.

Or like I said earlier. If keeping pharmacies in the private sector infringes on patients rights, then that is an argument AGAINST keeping pharmacies in the private sector, and further proof the free-market idealism doesn't always lead to the best product/service.

We're talking about medication here, not video games or some other meaningless knick-knack.

>>then that is an argument AGAINST keeping pharmacies in the private sector,

@tivol

Oh please -- you with the non sequiturs... I didn't say that and you know it. I also didn't imply that's what I thought either. You are the one who is saying that private businesses should have the right to deny medication, not me. I was addressing what you said, not agreeing with it. I obviously don't think that in the case of pharmacies, that private business owners should have that right. I just don't. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a liberal. As far as most other private businesses, yes they should have the right to sell what they want.

Thanks for demonstrating that you jump to conclusions and use non-sequiturs in your reasoning.

:-P (i'm teasing)

I see what you are saying and why you think the way you do, and you have a point, but I think in this instance the patients' rights are more important. Let's just agree to disagree and respect each other's differing positions. OK?

noxidereus, please, wise up.
THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT PRESCRIBED.

IT IS OVER THE COUNTER.

IT IS NOT A VITAL LIFE SAVING MEDICINE.

IT IS NO MORE VITAL THAN TOE FUNGUS CREAM OR CONDOMS.

There is a difference between a Mulsim not serving ham at a deli, and a private pharmacy not carrying a drug.
1) the Muslim working at a deli voluntarily worked where ham/alcohol was served. His boss should fire him, no court involvement needed.
2) If the pharmacist is an employee of a business where the drug is stocked but refuses to sell it for personal reasons, he is in exactly the same situation as the Muslim in the deli.
3) But if the pharmacist OWNS the pharmacy, how can you force him to stock something he believes is wrong?

IF THE MUSLIM OWNS A DELI, CAN YOU MANDATE THAT THE DELI MUST CARRY AND SELL HAM AND ALCOHOL?

NO!!!!!!!!!

Calm down curtis, I already understand your point, I just disagree with you. No reason to get upset.

"If it is against someone's religion to sell any kind of drug whatsoever, then that person should not be a pharmacist. It is that person's choice to become a pharmacist. If they cannot perform their duties, they should find another line of work. "

Oh, yeah? Well, what if that person was a pharmasist long before anyone dreamed there would be a "morning after" pill? How can the court think it's right to force someone to do something that goes against everything he believes in?

Not being able to get the pill at a certain store is the same as not being able to get anything else they don't carry-- you just go down the road to a store that sells what you want.

Well that's a good point (I really think it is), but since our pharmacies are for-profit businesses, and people need medication, you just can't let someone's personal convictions stop patients from getting their medication. There is no guarantee that the pharmacy down the street is going to sell what the patient needs, especially in southern rural areas.

I'm a computer programmer. If they come out with some new programming language came out that is against my religion (perhaps it is named offensively or whatever -- this is not reality only an example for the purposes of demonstration), and the company I work for adopted that programming language, then what do I do? Am I entitled to keep my job (basically just sit there in my cubicle and collect pay checks)? No. In that case, I should find a new job.

A pharmacist who denies another person their medication is imposing their mythical religious views on others. This is not very admirable and it does in fact mean that they are incapable of performing their duties as a pharmacist and therefore it's time for a career change. The patient's right trumps the pharmacists superstitions in my view.

that's a pretty simplistic and childish way of seeing things.

My father became a doctor before abortion was legalized. He thought it was an abomination. He would NEVER perform one.

Now the Liberals will mandate that doctors have no choice but to perform abortions....oh, couldn't happen?

you don't think there are pilots who are forced to fly in conditions they think are dangerous?

journalists told to publish info they doubt is true or unreliable? Or editors told to silence storiies that were crucial?

grow up, dear. we will allll be asked to do things that are not right in the course of our jobs. how will you handle that?

Oh yeah? what if a private business owner who does want to sell said medication, but unwittingly hires someone who does not and that employee's convictions are costing the store owner his business? Who's rights win then?

If a doctor prescribes the medicine, the pharmicist should be required to dispense it.

If you disagree on grounds that it is a private business, then perhaps pharmaceutical businesses should cease to be for-profit, and placed in the public sector.

Totally different argument.

noxidereus: in the example you gave, the OWNER of the store would have decided to stock the product, the Pharmacist made a personal decision, the customer can complain, and the OWNER can decide whether to FIRE the pharmacist, or not.

If this particular case involved a chain such as WalGreens, and a pharmacist imposed his personal views on the sale of the product, then I believe he would be wrong.

If however, it is a private pharmacy owned by the pharmacist, then the government should not mandate the products to be carried or sold.

"If a doctor prescribes the medicine, the pharmicist should be required to dispense it." WRONG again.
There are people--such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Jackson--who managed to "doctor shop" and find someone who gave them the prescriptions they wanted for drugs they would abuse. If the Pharmacist thinks there is drug abuse occuring, they are not required to sell it to the individual!

But Day After Pill is NOT prescription. It is OTC (over the counter). There is NO reason to OBLIGE a pharmacist to sell ANY OTC drug just because someone wants it. What about drugs that are abused to get high and are OTC? If he suspects abuse, he doesn't have to sell it.

What about OTC drugs that he thinks are actually dangerous, ineffective, such as a number of OTC diet drugs? Is he "discriminating" against the obese by not providing it?

"If you disagree on grounds that it is a private business, then perhaps pharmaceutical businesses should cease to be for-profit, and placed in the public sector."

Again you liberals reveal your fascist bent. Truly, I don't exaggerate, it is a FASCIST trait for government to mandate the operation of private business.

And as we know, the FASCISTS were a breed of SOCIALISTS, and Liberals are now proudly proclaiming their socialist bloodlines. "We few know better how you business people need to run your business so we will either A) mandate how you run your business, tell you what to produce and sell and how much you should be paid (fascism), or B) appropriate and nationalize your businesses and give their control to the state or workers (socialism).

Your personal freedoms? You are not intelligent enough to be free. We will tell you what you are allowed to do.

Welcome to the new AmeriKa.

curtis,

The point is whether or not the pharmacist has the right to deny service. If the pharmacist were to have this right, then the private pharmacy owner cannot fire her for it.

my statement that the pharmacist should be required to dispense medication is an opinion, so you can't say it's WRONG (especially in capital letters - hehe). This is a moral question about rights.

curtis, liberalism is not fascism and neither is socialism (which is an economic system). I think denying a patient his medication is 'fascist', but you and I both know that for either of us to use that word against the other in its strict definition, is not truly accurate and does not add to the conversation one bit.

It's not about telling someone how to run their business for the sake of it. The only reason for it is to protect the patient's rights. I think the distinction between my view and yours is basically that I'm concentrating on the patient's rights and you are concentrating on the business owner's rights. Both are important, so it is a judgment call.

Neither I nor you are factually correct in this matter because it isn't a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. I understand and respect your opinion, but I just disagree with it.

noxidereus told curtis:

>>I think the distinction between my view and yours is basically that I'm concentrating on the patient's rights and you are concentrating on the business owner's rights. Both are important, so it is a judgment call.

My assumption is that mine seems more reasonable to me and your opinion seems more reasonable to you.

I don't believe the the free market automatically takes care of consumers. An example I gave in another post was what about companies that outsource their jobs? ... to China for example, where they make toys with lead in them. They exploit workers with no rights for little pay, ship American jobs overseas, poison children with lead... etc, but yet the stockholders get their returns, so they're the only ones who really win. If people were more caring of their fellow human beings we might not need regulations, but there are some really greedy bastards out there.

I think regulations are required to guarantee the rights of the people, but I don't think we should go overboard with the regulations.

"Socialism, however, tramples on the rights of private business owners by forcing them to conduct themselves in a manner dictated by someone other than themselves"

that "someone other than themselves" are the people... the workers... (which means the only kind of socialism I would even consider must be practiced under democracy and not fascism) Giving power to the people who do all the work and getting rid of the practice of wage-slavery does sound reasonable to me. I'm not a fan of worker exploitation.

That's just my opinion. I really see your point as well, because there are 2 sides to everything, but at the moment I am not in agreement with libertarian sorts of philosophies.

No problem. That just means your my enemy.

nice chatting with you, nemesis :-)

yea, yea...see you at the revolution. (nemesis would be a cool name for a rock band)

noxidereus: "If the pharmacist were to have this right, then the private pharmacy owner cannot fire her for it."

Not so! If the pharmacy owner stocks the shelves with a product (s)he wants sold, and the pharmacist refuses to sell it--not out of safety concerns, but out of extraneous reasons such as religious beliefs--then the pharmacy owner can fire the pharmacist. See, that's LIBERTY.

And the customer can go to another pharmacy to get what she wants. That's LIBERTY.

And again, my friend, day after pill: NOT a medical treatment, NOT a critical form of medicine, and NOT prescription.

No, locutus, it's a victory for Fascism, and a defeat for Liberty.

By the way, no one was denying any women "basic health care".

The morning after pill is OPTIONAL, it's not like they refused her a lung transplant.

If you are a pharmacist you DON'T have to provide medicine for everyone, especially if the pharmacist is also the store owner. Since when is abortion "basic health care"? "Christian rednecks" Christian fascists". You put your bigoted narrowminded intolerance on display for all to see. People like you who demonize those who disagree with them could be likened to the Nazis. Nazis didn't tolerate differing views, either, and they viewed Christians as a threat, just like the Jews. If you want to live in a totalitarian state, where the government tells you what to think, move to North Korea! When you call Christians those names, you show your lack of intellect- moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Your college professors did an outstanding job of indoctrinating you.

Thanks curtisreed for letting me know that George Bush was a liberal. He is, after all, the one who turned the USA into an Orwellian nightmare with his unconstitutional prying into everyones private affairs. Thank God we know have a president who respects the rights of the individual a little more...by the way..the government has no power to force a physician to perform abortions against his or her will.

charliesommers, you are correct: Bush was NOT a conservative. Conservatives were infuriated by many of this policies, from illegal immigration to his pharmaceutical bill, to his support for the community investment act, etc.

As for forcing doctors to perform abortions, you are mistaken. If you can force a pharmacist to carry a drug he believes is immoral or unsafe, you can force a doctor to perform a procedure he doesn't want to do.

In the waning days of the Bush administration an executive order was signed giving health care workers recourse in rejecting procedures like abortions and physician-assisted suicides if they violated their conscience. The new administration has given a 30 days notice that it intends to reverse that provision.

The Bush order was written in response to a number of complaints from medical health workers particularly from Christians. According Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical Association, an informal survey taken of its members found that more than 40 percent were being pressured to violate their ethical standards on the job:

“Physicians report losing positions and promotions because of their life-affirming views. Residents report losing training privileges because they refused to do abortions. [And] medical students report changing career tracks away from obstetrics for fear of pressure to do abortions.”

Here is the response of at least one unidentified Planned Parenthood lawyer:

‘If you’re not willing to provide a legal procedure, you have no business being in healthcare.”

Planned Parenthood: Force doctors to do abortions
Law firms gear up to defend right of conscience

Three pro-life medical associations are seeking to defend the law against challenges by some state officials, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union

The whole point of being called to conversion is to LIVE your faith, letting it guide you, and living according to a moral code. If one is a Christian, (or a Buddhist, for that matter) one cannot simply "leave his faith at home." They live it by their actions, by their love of humanity, by being Christ unto others. Pehaps this is why the Hippocratic Oath was dropped by medical schools, as, according to the Hippocratic Oath, it was forbidden to give a woman "an abortive remedy." If you are an atheist, there is no moral dilemma. But don't expect one who believes in God to put their faith in a nice box, and only use it at Church on Sunday- that isn't going to happen.

Interesting you say that unclecharlie, don't most religions say you should follow the law of the land?

so if you were an ObGyn, and you were opposed to abortion, I guess if a patient demands one, you HAVE to perform it?

You can't refer the woman to another doctor without moral conflicts?

You don't see any Liberty issues there?

It's one thing to TREAT a person whose values are different than yours. It's another to PERFORM A TREATMENT that violates your ethical standards. If you have any.

div, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but render unto God the things that are God's." God is not telling us to violate our conscience for the sake of being politically correct. We are not to violate God's laws to be popular. Re: FOCA, Catholic hospitals are being told they MUST perform abortions under this act. The government is intruding upon religious freedom- telling us what we can and can't believe! When Catholic hospitals are told they MUST obey the government, and perform abortions on poor black and minority women, they will be forced to close- a great loss for the community that may rely on that hospital for their healthcare....

@ curtisreed:

I'm sorry that you feel bad for a select few pharmacists who don't want to dispense EC to women (who are also likely to be the same people who try to withhold BC for women but not condoms for men) as opposed to feeling some understanding for the women who need this service.

But really, if a person is so dysfunctional that they cannot dispense a medication... well, how about a pharmacist working next to them? Could they not dispense said medication?

Oh, what if it's a Catholic pharmacy and no one there can dispense EC, you ask (well, you didn't really, but I'm using it as an example).. what's the likelihood that a woman in need is going to go to a Catholic pharmacy to get EC that she knows she isn't going to get? Yeah, slim to none. Surprisingly, we women know where we're welcome and where we can go to be treated like we're sinners.

And perhaps, you might understand, as I do, that dispensing EC is not an act of ending life. Taking EC (if you look at it from the viewpoint you have described) may be considered as such.

BTW, do these same anti-abortion folks own a gun?

As for liberty issues... a bigger concern for me is these women. I'm sorry, but it's true. I find it amazing that you don't think it's a liberty issue for women to be unable to get something they need, but for a pharmacist to dispense a legal medication, then we can get all up in arms. What about the rights of the woman? Are those overridden by the rights of a pharmacist whose only task is to verify a prescription, prepare the prescription, and explain it to the customer?

@ unclecharlie.

The government is not intruding upon anyone's religious freedom to believe what they want to believe. And I will strenuously note the hypocrisy of anyone (generally speaking; not you) who is concerned about the religious freedom for a Catholic to avoid performing abortions but not the freedom of a Muslim to pray 5 times a day even if it interferes with their work schedule.

I've already gone over the abortions on minorities thing with you, haven't I? But I will add one more thing about that... Even if they were once directed towards minority women, it doesn't mean that abortion is any less important for women. If some people misuse abortion, it doesn't mean that others do not honestly need it.

@ both curtisreed and unclecharlie
there was a law, previously, I believe, that allowed doctors and pharmacists to avoid filling prescriptions or providing services that the doctor/pharmacist morally disagreed with. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Does this not infringe upon the rights of the people to get medical service? Whose rights are more important? You say the doctor/pharmacist. Why is that? I say that the patient has more rights in this case. Why? Because they are legally acquiring the service.

If people WERE being referred to doctors who WOULD perform the service, there would be no problem. But the case is that some doctors/pharmacists liked to impose their morality on women. For example, women who try to get birth control may have problems obtaining it because some pharmacists may impose their stance against pre-marital sex against the women. Is this right? No.

PS. Sorry for the essay.

@div

right on! I could not agree with you more! Bravo, you did an excellent job of expressing the rational reasons behind your position (which is my position too)!

I love your terms of euphemisms, trying to dehumanize (and demonize) the child in the womb. "Pro fetus"....that's a good one. "Product of conception, medical tissue, womb contents., etc." Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the same mentality, as she revealed in the NY Times, hoping that Roe vs. Wade would have eliminated "unwanted populations". Hmmm.....I don't have to think too hard to figure out who comprises those "unwanted populations." Yes, abortion transforms racism and eugenics into acceptable, government sanctioned policy. Too bad you participate in such nefarious thought.

I tire of simpletons who cannot distinguish between a fetus and a person. Such thinking is sloppy and reflects an inability or unwillingness to engage critical thought.

there is nothing simple about it, except in your mind.

liberals make it "simple" to make it "convenient"

the origins of the abortion industry, especially Planned Parenthood, was based upon Eugenics, a racist notion that we should control the population growth of the "undesireables" by aborting their children.

You are participating in defending an industry founded upon racist assumptions that we must limit the number of blacks.

Does that give you a warm fuzzy?

The government's duty in many cases is to make laws for the common good. Those who do not want to wear seat-belts not only take a chance on hurting themselves but if they do have a wreck they generally have more severe injuries which effects the cost of my medical insurance.
Buckle up for everyone's sake.

Sorry. but if you are a pharmacist you do not get to pick and choose who you will serve, that is discrimination.

As for your constitutional arg. - seems pretty clear you did not read the article and have a very limited understanding of the constitution.

charlie: You missed the point.

Wearing a seatbelt is a good idea. So is regular exercize and taking vitamins everyday. Does that mean the government should require everyone to do it? Just because it will lower your medical insurance cost?

unimatrix: I did read the article. 5 days ago when it was news. The ruling has nothing to do with discrimination. These pharmacies are already required to provide drugs when legally prescribed by a doctor. The court ruling requires them to also provide Plan B as an over-the-counter drug. If anything is being descriminated against its the thousands of other OTC drugs that pharmacies are NOT required to provide. Diet pills, cold remedies, etc...

YEAH CHEETUM! RIGHT ON!!! You hit it on the head.

Unimatrix, you are totally WRONG on this. It is NOT discrimination for a Pharmacist to determine which over the counter (otc) meds he or she will sell. That is a decision based upon his/her own specialized knowledge, as well as moral determination, and is part of his personal LIBERTY--apparently that's a concept that means nothing to you.

Are you going to force all Pharmacies to carry otc diet pills? what about vioxx? or viagra?

The government has NO BUSINESS telling individuals what products they must sell. That is a major part of the equation that makes a government a FASCIST state!

that is true, technically, but what you have is a fertilized egg (zygote) that in all likelihood WOULD be implanted and WOULD become a fetus and then a child, but for the pharmaceutical intervention.

I personally feel that the morning after pill is morally acceptable, or at least, less morally reprehinsible than abortion, but I understand the sentiment that is is yet another example of playing God and killing a potential human life.

Knowing "biology" does NOT change that moral equation, although you may want it to.

Your morals are not universal.

A) the church is wrong

B) More sex makes for a better country

A) the church is right, and even doctors, science states that life begins at conception.

There really is no debate about that. The debate is whether or not that is "human" life, or "just some cells".

B) more sex makes for promiscuity, more reckless intercourse that creates unwanted babies, aborted babies, it's a burden on the people who have to raise the children, etc etc. Your response was childish.

and some peoples minds are still flat...

It's mind over matter, if you don't mind it doesn't matter!

that's an assinine statement. this arrogance is astonishing, for liberals to simply dismiss other people's moral beliefs about a deeply troubling issue, is just unconscionable. Let me remind you that before the Civil War, the common opinion was that Slavery was morally acceptable, but it was Christians who persisted to protest the reprehensible nature of the industry.

It's deja vous all over again.

pluto, are you kidding? If I walk into a pharmacy and say I want oxycontin, are they obliged to give it to me? So it's clear that with prescription medicine, if you don't have a prescription, they CAN'T give it to you just because you want it.

OK, so let's think about "over the counter" items. Let's suppose you go into a store and you want Tylenol, but the pharmacist doesn't stock the name brand, just a generic. Should he be FORCED to provide name-brand Tylenol? Or, maybe you can drive to the next store to get what you want?

Here's a thought:
"Cold medicines such as Robitussin, Nyquil, Vicks Formula 44, and Coricidin HBP Cough and Cold tablets contain a chemical called Dextromethorphan (DXM), which is found in more than 120 non-prescription cough and cold medications.

Teenagers have various nicknames for DXM including: Robo, Skittles, Triple C’s, Dex, Vitamin D, and Tussin. Coricidin HBP Cough and Cold tablets contain much more potent doses of DXM than cough syrups, so the kids don’t need to drink a whole bottle of nasty tasting cough syrup. They can easily and conveniently take a few pills containing DXM to get high. "

What if the Pharmacist refuses to sell someone a bottle of Tussin, because he has noticed that she returns every couple days for another bottle, and he suspects she's addicted to it?

Can he be prosecuted for not providing the drug?

This is the danger of government intruding into invidual liberty.

Great, islek. I support your support. BUT, is it right to tell a shop owner that the government has decided what products he MUST keep on his shelves?

Ever heard of PERSONAL LIBERTY?

I agree with you 100% (except that I would not judge it as a "wrong decision", it would just be HIS decision).

the implications to this judgment are monumental, in my opinion: it set the precedent that governent can intervene even more in private business and tell them what they MUST stock and provide.

The religious issue around the abortion/morning after pill is what is clouding this discussion. Remove it, and the issue becomes clearer.

I think the best example of why this is wrong, would be to compare over the counter diet drugs. Some of these are being questioned for their safety and effectiveness. What if the pharmacist just said: "these are not proven safe or effective, I won't carry them." Would that be wrong? NO.

So, if some idiot showed up and tried to SUE because the pharmacist didn't provide over the counter diet meds, and the government said "you have to do it", it seems like it would be much clearer that the pharmacists liberty had been trampled.

A business owner has the right to stock what he wants, not stock what he doesn't and not serve any person at any time if he doesn't like him.

Or, I guess freedom means NOTHING anymore.

sigh....that's a tired old argument. I know of women who were raped who actually gave birth to the child, when people with your ideas say she just should've had an abortion. These children, who obviously never knew their "father" grew up into loving human beings, who are grateful their mother didn't abort them, and I know at least of a couple of them are active in the pro life cause.

It's OK that you don't understand.

It's NOT OK for you to violate their liberty to choose what is morally reprehensible and force them to do something they believe is wrong.

So that pharmacist doesn't provide the pill? Get in your car and go somewhere else.

''I don't understand how even pro-choice people can be against the morning after pill. The alternative for someone who does not want a baby, is most likely going to be a later term abortion when the fetus is weeks or months old [rather than a couple of hours or days when it is still a bundle of cells.]''
...I agree, I am pro life, yet a this early stage it 'not' a fetus.... already there are far to many unwanted children from and ''unwanted pregnancy''.

I'm amused by the facile way you assume everyone has a car. Thanks for demonstrating your limimted, suburban mentality. At least we know what we're dealing with now.

Well put!

HIV has nothing to do with unprotected or improperly protected sex?
Any sex that can get you pregnant can also give you HIV.
Women who expose themselves to the possibility of pregnancy have also exposed themselves to the possibility of HIV, among other STDs.

The connection is that the advent of easier forms of birth control/abortion in a bottle, the less seriously women are taking intercourse.

but hey. the government will pay for their AIDS treatement under Big Brother's plan. Even less reason for responsible and cautious behavior.

Screw until you bruise, girls and boys.

That would be interesting but certainly possible, a pharmacist who opposes abortion but practices lying, strange mix of moral values.

it's too totally different and unrelated issues, mr funkrx.

doctors can't turn away (and shouldn't) emergency care, because it's 1) lifesaving and 2) not optional.

the 'morning after pill' is neither.