Roundup: ‘Pro-lifer’ Endorses Obama, ‘Pro-life’ Pharmacies on the Rise


Pro-life Catholic Denied Communion for Endorsing Obama Last week Senator Obama held a meeting to discuss faith and related issues with leaders in the field.  At that meeting Steve Strang, founder of Charisma magazine, declared Obama to be "more centrist" on the issue of abortion that he had anticipated. Doug Kmeic, a ‘pro-life’ professor at Pepperdine University, was at the same meeting. He writes in today’s Chicago Tribune that he is endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain because he was convinced that Obama is sincere in his desire to limit abortion and is correct in his approach to limiting abortion: encouraging "responsible sexual behavoir" through education and honest openess about sex. Kmiec was denied communion by a Catholic priest after endorsing Senator Obama.  So, no shock to many of our readers, but there does seem to be some middle ground on this issue afterall!  

The Rise of ‘Pro-life Pharmacies’ The Washington Post reports today that a pharmacy opening in Virginia this summer will be a ‘pro-life pharmacy’ meaning it will not dispense any contraceptives and that this Virgina pharmacy is one of a "growing number" of such pharmacies around the country.

The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the
country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients’ rights
against those of health-care workers who assert a "right of conscience" to
refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington state recently began requiring
pharmacies to fill all prescriptions or help women fill them elsewhere, and at
least another 10 states are considering such requirements. But some states
exempt pharmacies that do not generally stock contraceptives, and it is unclear
how other existing rules and laws and those being considered would apply to
those pharmacies.

The Shifting Reproductive Rights Debate, Contraception the New Target Vanessa Valenti of
Feministing has a must-read piece today on AlterNet
.  The anti-choice
movement is quickly becoming more and more anti-contraception.  Nearly
all American women use contraception at some point in their lives yet
members of the anti-contraception movement are trying to make access to
contraception more difficult and their efforts are beginning to
work as low-income women and students are starting to have serious
trouble acquiring birth control.

For the last three and a half decades, the big battle in women’s health has been
abortion. Anti-choice activists attack Roe v. Wade at every turn and
purposefully chip away at abortion rights. But as anti-choice groups expand
their net to oppose basic birth control, they have a helping hand in the myriad
political, financial and practical access issues that American women face in
trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

While the anti-choice movement and its allies in office attack reproductive
rights through policy, and while legislation like the Deficit Reduction Act
jacks up birth control prices, what goes unnoticed is the fact that many
American women are fighting a battle on the ground — in their everyday lives —
in a struggle to simply acquire appropriate reproductive health care.

PEPFAR Update Kaiser Network reports that the $50 billion President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief may not reach a vote on the Senate floor this year. Senate Republicans led by Senator Tom Coburn are working to block the bill because they are "opposed to the legislation’s cost and "mission creep" into
health and development efforts." Senate Democrats led by Senator Harry Reid are reportedly not motivated to pass the legislation for several political reasons:

"it would give [President] Bush an item for his legacy on his way out of
office," according to some advocates. "There’s no political win for (Reid) if it
passes," one advocate said.

Some international reproductive health groups, which are upset that the
legislation does not link family planning programs and HIV prevention, have said
it would be better to pass PEPFAR reauthorization legislation next year when
there is a new administration.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • http://www.bitchkittie.blogspot.com invalid-0

    One thing I noticed about the Washington Post story about the phramacies was there was no word on how many of them are. The Post article cites three examples, Chantilly, VA, Gray, LA, and Grand Rapids, Mich. None of these phramacies are marked as “Not-for-Women.” (As I call ‘em)

    I think it would be a great test to see what happens if a volunteers walk in and each asks for different items: Emergency contraception, condoms, and to fill a birth control prescription. I would like to know exactly HOW the phramacists handling such orders. I’d be very concerned that not only are they sending people away, they are also sending them away with misinformation.

  • invalid-0

    Pharmacies
    There are plenty of stores that sell pro-death, anti-life supplies. If you want more fo those stores, then open them yourself. As a businessperson, I get to choose the inventory that I will carry in my store. It’s called a right. Ever heard of those?

    Valenti is out-to lunch
    Contraception was the first battle in the recent life vs death war. Humanae Vitae was released in 1968. Abortion has always been murder.

  • invalid-0

    They will say “we do not stock those items. Anti-life and child murder supplies are available at other stores. Here is the list of those stores. Please tell them we sent you so they will be sure to send us our referral fees.”

  • http://www.bitchkittie.blogspot.com invalid-0

    Even if I somehow thought the pharmacists were correct about hormonal-birth control, why are they refusing to sell condoms?

    At worse, condoms might break, but they don’t “cause death” and rather prevent the spread of disease, and yes, contraception.

    It’s like refusing to sell fire extinguishers because of a moral reasoning that people shouldn’t be playing with fire anyway.

  • invalid-0

    Read Humane Vitae if you want to understand the consistency of God’s truth about contraception. Anything one wants to use to prevent life, is wrong. It is a consistent teaching.

    Abstinence (which is a part of the same consistent teaching) is 100% effective 100% of the time. By selling less than 100% effective means “just-in-case” you do the customer a disservice.

    The “oh well they will have sex anyways, so why not …” argument is also inconsistent. You either do what’s right, or you do what’s wrong. There is no mixing of truth and lies that will result in truth. It always = lies.

  • invalid-0

    “… refusing to sell fire extinguishers because of a moral reasoning that people shouldn’t be playing with fire” is a logical fallacy.

    Fires start accidentally. No one has sex by accident.

  • invalid-0

    stock only ED remedies, ovulation test kits and pregnancy test kits?

  • invalid-0

    It’s not until the last few years the anti-abortion industry began re-framing contraception as “anti life/pro death”. Like all of the anti abortion and now anti-contraception slogans ever coined, this new frame is a big smelly load of male bovine excrement.
    Just birth control pills alone have numerous non contraceptive uses: control of: endometriosis, uterine fibroids, heavy periods, & poly-cystic ovary syndrome are just a few.
    Just think about that as your business dwindles as your former women customers,who need the pill for non contraceptive uses go elsewhere. That is also called a right.

    • invalid-0

      I agree with you that we should let customers vote with their feet and dollars. If they don’t appreciate the lack of inventory, they should shop elsewhere and tell others of like mind to do so too. I personally think it would hurt business significantly in some areas, but it seems like it is fair to allow the business owner to make the call on what they sell.

      Not sure how the male bovine excrement thought squares with the fact that many who hold the position of pro-life, anti-contraception, business owners’ rights, etc. are women.

  • invalid-0

    You’ve never been drunk? You’ve never made out in the “heat of the moment”? If not for “accidents”, I’d wager some of the people reading this might never have been conceived. But you are half right, the pro life pharmacists are committing a logical fallacy by claiming a right to discriminate among their customers. It’s simply not ethical. Plus, where will it end? Some people will find a “conscience excuse” for just about any drug.

  • invalid-0

    America is not a theocracy built on the laws of an invisible deity, but on the rule of law. You can push abstinence all you like, but it’s unrealistic to expect all the people to abstain from sex unless they want babies. I feel using religious beliefs as an excuse not to do your job is what really does the customer a disservice. The final paragraph of your post suggests you have some kind of fear of sex. Sex in and of itself is definately NOT wrong, wether for procreation or not.

  • invalid-0

    Wow. Are you really so ignorant that you don’t know that birth control pills are used for a variety of women’s diseases that have nothing to do with contraception? I suppose you’re one of those sick people that think hemorrhaging and pain are the result of women’s original sin?

    What’s next? Not dispensing treatment for Sickle Cell or Tay Sachs?

    The fact that you are dispensing Viagra means that you don’t have objections to manipulating God’s plan for men. This is pure sexism, and has nothing to do with “preserving” life

  • invalid-0

    One diarist on the Daily Kos has written a series of diaries on the “parellel world/economy” of the right wing- “dominionist” pharmacies and OB/GYN clinics – are the simply the latest things. Here are the URLs of the two part series he just wrote about this:
    Part One – http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/16/12925/5798/260/536718
    Part Two – http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/17/174534/045/226/536744

    In part two, his descriptions of the ways some pregnancies can go horribly, horribly wrong (like molar pregnancies, essentially fetus based cancer) are truly scary.