It's the obligation of a pharmacist to dispense the prescriptions that are legally authorized by a physician. If he has a problem with this, then he should find a different profession.
Comparing liquor and restaurants to prescriptions and pharmacists is an apples and oranges analogy.
Originally Posted by jayhawkrobbie
Incorrect. There are lots of pharmacies that do not carry legally authorized prescriptions - I know this from recent personal experience. So, if a pharmacist has a certain religious or moral objection to carry RU-486 because of its affects, that's the pharmacist's right. If they decide that carrying contraceptives is morally objectionable (which, IMHO is a stupid idea) then that is his right.
As COG said, if a pharmacy does not carry the prescription you want, go find one that will. If a physician does not want to perform a procedure because of moral objections or a hospital does not allow certain procedures because the procedure violates tenents of their faith, then find one that does allow it. It's called freedom of choice, both for the patient AND the provider.
You get the government you choose - and the consequences that come from it - both on the state and federal level. So if you don't like it, change it at the ballot box. However, I doubt you'll have much of an impact - Kansas is considered the most conservative state in the Union, followed closely by Nebraska. Only the Kansas City, Lawrence and Wichita areas are considered remotely moderate, and these (other than the college crowd in Lawrence) lean towards the conservative side of moderate.
Doesn't it seem like the libs clamour for tolerance, yet are the most intolerant when someone does something to which they object? I guess tolerance is in the eye of the beholder.