Let's Hear it for Illinois

[rolanni]

Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions

Friday, April 1, 2005 Posted: 7:29 PM EST (0029 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Under the new rule, if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay.

The rest of the story

Comments

Right and Wrong

[neyland-tarr.livejournal.com]

Now, y'see, this is the kind of knee jerk Liberal reaction that has moved the country from 70-80% in favor of "abortion rights" to 60% in favor of 'broad limitations' on abortion.

You both (that is to You and the Pharmacist) have an agenda. Frankly, your comment does not convey any sense that you are aware of YOURS. Both are based on opinions that cannot be proven 'right' without recourse to faith.

Not that I think the new law is wrong; Quakers should not join the military, and and buttinski Catholics probably shouldn't be pharmacists.

Nevertheless, the automatic assumption of moral superiority is what is putting Abortion Rights in this country into jeopardy.

The Pro-Choice activists should not have tried to use anti-racketeering laws to bankrupt anti-abortion protesters. It smacked of fascism, and the Left especially is in no position to complain of disruptive protest tactics.

The Pro-Choice activists should not have positioned themselves to defend "partial Birth" abortion. Any moderately bright child of five could have told them that it was political poison. If there is a practical difference between "partial Birth" abortion and infanticide, it is a very fine line indeed. It is not defensible in a democracy.

Lastly, the Pro Choice activists should not position themselves to oppose parental notification laws. In the first place, it is hard to imagine a circumstance where obtaining an abortion for a girl without notifying her parents would be a right thing to do. where making her a ward of the court would not be better. In the second place, it flat out alienates just about all parents and a large cross section of people who expect to be parents.

All three positions were adopted with a smug attitude of moral superiority. All three are likely to cost the women of this country more than they want to pay for feeling morally superior.

P.S. I'm pro-abortion, just anti-smug politician.

Re: Right and Wrong

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I'm really failing to see how a woman with a prescription in hand from her doctor expecting the pharmacist to fill the prescription demonstrates an "agenda," other than her own health needs.

The rest of your argument belongs somewhere else -- it's not under discussion here.

Re: Right and Wrong

[adina-atl.livejournal.com]

Excuse me, do you mind if I ask who you are? You have no interests, no friends listed, two posts, and I don't remember seeing you around. You'll pardon me, I hope, if I wonder out loud whether you are trolling random journals looking for examples of "liberal smugness" to comment on. If you have, perhaps, another identity, one not apparently dedicated to this activity, I of course apologize.

Having said that:

Of course I have an agenda. Am I supposed to be so open-minded that I have no opinion of my own? I have an agenda, and that agenda is to support the freedom of individuals against those who appear to be trying to take it away. I am against war as well, but were a Quaker to join the military for the express purpose of refusing to fight, I would call that grandstanding too.