What cover-your-ass sanctimonious pro-life legislative whackjob thought that giving a pharmacist the "right" to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship on moral grounds, but then also requiring said pharmacist to take steps to see the prescription is filled anyway, does not put the pharmacist in the same moral dilemma he or she was trying to avoid?
The cunning SOB who figured that nobody would object when it was piously put as not making someone violate their own conscience... and that nobody would look ahead to realize that this was a wedge issue to put the pharmacist's opinions over the customer's needs. Make no mistake, the end goal is to eliminate birth control, period.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-01 02:31 pm (UTC)The cunning SOB who figured that nobody would object when it was piously put as not making someone violate their own conscience... and that nobody would look ahead to realize that this was a wedge issue to put the pharmacist's opinions over the customer's needs. Make no mistake, the end goal is to eliminate birth control, period.