21-year-old Jill Filipovic of Third Wave Agenda is pro-choice, as long as the choice is pro-abortion and pro-contraception. She doesn’t feel that health care providers should have a choice. Here are some excerpts from her blog:
it’s compassionate conservativism, right? just ask this guy: “Texas pharmacist Gene Herr, for example, was fired this year by the Eckerd drugstore chain after refusing to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a rape victim.
“They were forcing me to do something that I see is wrong,” Herr said.”i’m sure that the rape survivor, already traumatized by her attack, was grateful for this little lesson in morality.
Here’s the rest of our discussion:
Elena said…
So… you’re pro-choice as long as folks choose abortion and contraception… got it!
Jill said…
no… i think women should be able to decide what they do with their own bodies. pharmacists and hospitals shouldn’t be allowed to decide for them by refusing to fill birth control and EC prescriptions.
Elena said…
Right, that’s what I said. You are pro-choice as long as the choice is pro-abortion or pro-contraception but if the health care provider is personally opposed then, in your opinion, they should have no choice but to comply. That is your perspective isn’t it?
At 8:58 AM, Jill said…
if healthcare providers and pharmacists are personally opposed to birth control, then they shouldn’t use it themselves. but it’s not up to them to limit access to legal medical options when their patients and customers have a need for it.
Elena said…
You are affirming my original statement. According to you, shouldn’t have a choice. Whether they oppose it or not they should just suck it up and do the procedure, or pass out the drugs. They should have no choice.
It is one of the parodoxes of the pro”choice” movement that in reality there is only one true “choice.” Of course, having just one choice isn’t really a choice is it Jill.
Anonymous said…
Jill you wrote “it’s not up to them [healthcare providers and pharmacists] to limit access to legal medical options when their patients and customers have a need for it”
I have two questions for you
What do you base this opinion on – the law, the constitution, or is this your opinion as to how things should work?
Who should be able to limit medical options for customers?
Jill said…
i base this opinion on common sense. a pharmacist’s job is to fill prescritions, not to be a morality-enforcer. i think eating meat is morally wrong, but if i was working as a waitress, i should expect to be fired if i refuse to serve it. similarly, if you get a position as a pharmacist, you go into it knowing that you’re going to have to fill all kinds of prescritions, even for things you may not agree with. if you can’t take that fact, then get another job. if pharmacists were refusing to prescribe viagra to unmarried or widowed older men, you can bet they’d be canned and a huge stink would be raised. why is it ok to compromise women’s health under the guise of morality? being required to fulfill the stated aims of your occupation does not push anyone else’s beliefs on you; no one is saying that pharmacists have to use birth control or emergency contraception. however, when you are unable to find a pharmacy that will fill your birth control or EC prescription, you have had someone else’s moral code pushed onto you. this is particularly dangerous when it comes to EC, which is time-dependent. i’d like to see you explain to the rape victim mentioned in this post that, really, she shouldn’t be pushing her beliefs on anyone else, and she should just take her chances with pregnancy (after which you’ll berate her for getting pregnant in the first place, and tell her that abortion is immoral and her doctor shouldn’t even have to refer her elsewhere if she wants one).
as for who should make medical decisions, that should be between patients and doctors. good doctors will be basing their recommendations on sound science and healthcare, not on their personal religious code. i don’t appreciate being told to pray as a “cure” for debilitating menstrual cramps, or being refused birth control because i’m unmarried (a la bush appointee dr. david hagar). that isn’t medical treatment, it’s religious intrusion.
Elena said…
I’d say you’ve made my point in neon. To be “pro choice” to you means others don’t get a choice. In fact, they shouldn’t even have employment if their ideas, conscience and thoughts disagree with YOUR ideas conscience and thoughts!
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
