Marquette Tribune: No Right of Conscience for Pharmacists

An editorial in the April 14 Tribune addresses the issue of laws that force pharmacists to supply “emergency contraception.” A recent court ruling in Illinois found that such laws violate the rights of pharmacists. But the Tribune did not agree.

Plan B, commonly known as the morning-after pill, is an emergency contraceptive that provides women with the option to prevent unwanted pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex. It is readily available to women in pharmacies across the country.

According to NBC Chicago, an Illinois judge recently sided with two pharmacists claiming that prescribing Plan B violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which protects health care providers from being forced to perform duties that conflict with their beliefs.

However, this freedom violates the rights of consumers who rely on pharmacies to provide them with emergency contraceptives if needed. Plan B, unlike the abortion pill, prevents ovulation or fertilization, not implantation, which would terminate a pregnancy.

The six-year-old state law requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions without making moral judgments is now abolished, granting pharmacies the right to choose whether to stock them or not.

Regardless of religious beliefs, pharmacists have an obligation to their clients to fill their prescriptions.

Simply put, it is not the pharmacist’s choice. Imposing personal moral judgments on another individual’s life choices in the medical field is unprofessional and intrusive.

Pharmacists should not be granted so much power. The power of choice should belong to the individual making the decision. Consumers should not have the burden of worrying whether their prescription will be honored due to someone else’s beliefs.

Encouragingly, the state attorney general’s office plans to file an appeal in the near future. But, the moral argument still stands. An individual’s own beliefs cannot be imposed on others, especially concerning one’s medical choices. Personal beliefs must be kept in the background in professional settings, not interfering with decisions of others.[emphasis added]

That’s a stunning statement.

It’s typical of liberals that they preen and prance and talk about the evil of imposing one’s moral beliefs on others, all the while imposing their moral beliefs on others!

When liberals talk about “choice,” they are always talking about people making choices they think are acceptable. Like the choice to have irresponsible sex with no consequences or the choice to have an abortion. Liberals don’t believe people should have a choice to own a gun, or drive an SUV.

The Tribune doesn’t believe medical personnel should have any choice to avoid dispensing medicines they think are immoral. The editorial doesn’t address this issue, but the exact same logic would say that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortions, or drummed out of the medical profession.

If the morning after pill is legal, women have a right to buy it from any willing seller. They don’t have the right to coerce an unwilling seller to provide it.

Consider, for example, Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas. It ruled that people have a Constitutional right to have homosexual sex. That’s bad constitutional law (although we wouldn’t vote, in a state legislature, to outlaw any consensual sexual activity among consenting adults). But suppose you can’t find a willing partner? You have to do without. It would be a very odd idea that your right to have homosexual sex means that somebody has to be coerced into having sex with you.

One expects young journalists to be liberals. Conservatives tend to self-select out of the profession, knowing that it will be hostile territory.

But a supposed Catholic university should have at least some fledgling journalists with a bit of respect for Catholic moral teaching, and tolerance for people whose consciences are formed by that Catholic teaching.

But Marquette isn’t really a Catholic university. Given the choice of siding with pharmacists whose consciences are formed by Catholic teaching, or young women who have engaged in slutty sexual behavior, the Tribune has sided with the latter.

Hispanic Journalists: Don’t Use “Illegal”

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists has some definite advice about how to refer to illegal aliens.

Key thing: don’t refer to them as “illegal.”

Illegal alien

Avoid. Alternative terms are “undocumented worker,” or “undocumented immigrant.”

Illegal alien

Avoid. Alternative terms are “undocumented worker,” or “undocumented immigrant.”

Illegal

Avoid. Alternative terms are “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker.” This term has been used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering, residing in the U.S. without documents.

Illegal immigrant

While many national news outlets use the term “illegal immigrant,” this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are “undocumented worker” or “undocumented immigrant.” Illegal immigrant is a term used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. People who are undocumented according to federal authorities do not have the proper visas to be in the United States legally. Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired.

These politically correct folks have a point where the word “alien” is at issue. Legally, it’s a perfectly correct term, but has taken on a variety of threatening connotations.

Many of us have seen those movies where hideous creatures chase Sigourney Weaver around this or that space ship.

But trying to ban the word “illegal” is simply an insistence that honest language be avoided.

That the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is demanding biased news reporting is most unfortunate. It tends to stereotype Hispanics in the same way that blacks in journalism have already been stereotyped: as affirmative action trophies proving the “diversity” of this or that news organization rather than working reporters who can cover a story fairly.

Just as journalism doesn’t need more Eugene Kanes, neither does it need more Ricardo Pimentels. (Pimentel, by the way, agrees with the demand for dishonest journalism in the statement quoted above.)

Journalism could certainly use more honest black and Hispanic reporters, or black and Hispanic columnists who say things at odds with what the white liberals who hired them want to hear. In other words, people different from Eugene Kane.

But even more, it could use more conservatives, Christians and people with military experience. Those sorts of people would provide the kind of diversity that matters.