Pharmacists, the ultimate moral authorities

I hadn't read that particular story prior to now, but I was aware of the SD law and the proposed Bush administration regulation. They're really two completely seperate means towards the same goal, encroachin on the constitionally protected right to an abortion (whether you agree that it should be a right or not, it is and, thanks to the latest election results, is likely to stay that way for the forseeable future).

The SD law is just a case of forcing doctors to lie to their patients. At the very least, nothing that the law requires the doctors to say is "true" in the sense that it has either been objectively proved or reflects an objective reality in any way. A fetus, at least prior to the third trimester, is not a seperate person, otherwise abortion wouldn't be legal. The purported facts regarding suicide, etc. in the aftermath of abortions also are not true. My understanding of what studies have shown is in accord with what the article says, that there's no difference in suicide rates among women who have had abortions versus those that haven't. The misuse of statistics is rampant here and akin to those who might cite a study showing that those who used computers as children are more likely to attend college as proof that computer use causes that increase in likelihood of attending college (obviously it's just socioeconomics, not the computer use).

As for the moral/ethical out from the need to do their jobs, I don't even think we need to go as far down the slippery slope as Matt to see the problems. It's just so amazingly ambiguous, it allows a pharmacist or a doctor to pass on serving a patient for almost any reason. The most common example, and the one that this regulation is designed to handle, is to allow pharmacists not to prescribe the morning after pill. It can also be used to refuse to prescribe The Pill or other birth control, or even to refuse to sell tylenol to someone with a hangover if I don't approve of drinking. If something like this happens in the middle of NYC or Boston or even around where I live in Maine, it's no big deal. I just go someplace else to get my meds where the pharmacist isn't such a self righteous douchebag. But if I'm a 16 year old girl looking for birth control in rural South Dakota for example, where I might have to travel hours by car to get to the nearest alternative pharmacist (or doctor), you complying with your own personal ethics has just de facto made your ethics my ethics, which I suppose is part of the whole point and hope of Bush in enacting this regulation.

The SD law is just insane and I'm not convinced it will stand up to court review in the long run. In the meantime, women will be misled unfortunately. As for the Bush regulation, I have a couple of comments. First, at least Obama will be able to undo it, though it will create a needless distraction for him from the vocal minority that would like to see such a regulation remain permanent. More to the point, though, if Bush felt so strongly about doing this, why the hell didn't he do it earlier, like from day 1? Could it be that he really doesn't care and that this is just a craven political move designed to create the aformentioned distraction for Obama? Either the regulation is a good idea or a bad idea. If it was a good idea, he should have done it earlier. If it's a bad idea, I guess why should some of the final things he does be anything less than bad ideas given all the other bad ideas that he has followed through on throughout his presidency.