All over the United States, pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and RU-86, the "morning after" pill, thus significantly undermining reproductive liberty. The American Pharmacist Association has a policy that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds. The caveat, however, is that the pharmacists must make arrangements such that the patient will still receive the pills. Yet, in many drug stores only one pharmacist is available. In many others, pharmacists refuse to refer the patient to another pharmacist, often lecturing scared teenage girls to tears. Activists who want to legitimize this behavior through law claim that it is unethical to force pharmacists to choose between their livelihoods and supporting an action which they feel violates their sense of morals.

Four states­-Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota-specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs, while nine more-Arizona, California, Indiana, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin-are considering adopting this so-called "conscience clause." Many states have "conscience clauses" on the books for doctors that allow them to opt out of performing certain operations provided that they find another doctor who is willing to do the procedure. There are two key differences with this type of "conscience clause." The first difference is that other pharmacists are not always available to fill a time-sensitive prescription. The other difference is that filling a prescription is fundamentally different than writing a prescription. Thus, while perhaps one could be morally opposed to prescribing a medicine, filling an already written prescription does not hold the same moral weight. In considering both birth control and the "morning after" pill, missing one day of consuming one pill could mean an unwanted pregnancy.

The "morning after" pill is an emergency contraceptive that can prevent fertilization if taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Birth control pills are usually taken every day in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Thus, even when a pharmacist tells a customer to come back the next day in order for someone else to fill a prescription, the pharmacist significantly harms the constitutionally protected liberty of the patient. Is the patient to go to another pharmacy? In rural America there is often only one pharmacy in the immediate area. Even in non-urgent cases, women face obstacles like work or school which impede them from getting to the pharmacy on time.

In the decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court ruled that state obstacles that impede a woman's right to choose are unconstitutional. Since the state controls the regulation of drugs, it does have some jurisdiction over pharmacies' actions. By refusing to fill prescriptions, pharmacists are real obstacles that significantly curtail a woman's reproductive liberty. Even in considering basic concepts of liberty, we can see how the pharmacists' actions are absolutely outrageous. The concept of civil liberty holds that my rights only extend so far. The extent is the infringement on another's civil liberties. By refusing to fill prescriptions, pharmacists refuse to recognize the liberty of others. Supporters of pharmacist rights claim that the pharmacist has a right to free speech and has a right to a religious code. Yet, the rights of pharmacists should never extend to violating the privacy rights of another.

Pharmacists engaging in this denial of prescriptions exploit what is most intimate to a woman in order to impose their own moral agendas. As privacy is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, I shudder at the picture that comes to mind, a crying and terrified young woman being loudly berated by a pharmacist in the most blatant violation of privacy. The role of the pharmacist is to fill a prescription, not to judge a client. The irony is that by denying a woman access to birth control, the pharmacist may be adding to more unwanted pregnancies, and thus to more abortions.

A pharmacist's job is to fill a prescription and not to judge a client. If the pharmacist feels morally opposed to filling prescriptions then he should find another job. In America, one does not have the right to create a perfect job. Consider a man who smokes peyote for religious reasons. If he shows up at work high and his drug use becomes a deterrant to his job, then his boss would be perfectly justified in firing him. Similarly, if a moral objector to abortion worked at an abortion clinic and refused to perform abortions, his or her boss would be justified in terminating him or her. By refusing to sell birth control, a pharmacist curtails business for the pharmacy and thus could be justifiably fired for not doing his job.

By allowing pharmacists to deny birth control to consumers, the government allows pharmacists to impose their own moral code at the expense of denying a woman access to health care.

Maleck can be reached at mcmaleck@amherst.edu