Artificial contraceptives and the other measures included in the HHS contraceptive mandate are not health care - they are purely elective services that just happen to be administered by medical practitioners, lending those measures a false sense of legitimacy.
 
I applaud Mike Koelzer and the others for standing up for their beliefs, and right thinking.

I am a pharmacist.  I truly believe that this is the one specialty in healthcare that has been railroaded.  Nurses and doctors have rights, pharmacists don’t.  I know many pharmacists who would love to serve God, but don’t—simply because they would no longer be able to support their families.  It is nice to finally see even one article address this.

Why choose a profession when you can’t perform all of the services professionals in that field are called upon to perform?

Jon, would you apply the same logic to Germans who were charged with herding Jews into the gas chambers?

I’ve been a pharmacist since 1971.  I’ve been a hospital pharmacist the greatest percentage of these years - even in my hospital, going back 10 years or so, we pharmacists were called upon to dispense our hospital’s cobbled-together “morning after pill” (from birth control pills) to rape victims who came to our Emergency Department.  At first I thought that this was “noble” and then as became a better Catholic, I found out that it was anything BUT that!  I’m now a home order entry hospital pharmacist and, as of yet, it hasn’t come up. I’ve got too many financial responsibilities to try to live off of retirement and Social Security (great name, eh?), so I continue to work full time. I’m in what was once the most noble, respected profession, and now, I’m in one which, by LAW, must help herd babies into the modern-day Nazi concentration camp ovens.  I applaud any pharmacist who is 100% prolife and sticks by his or her guns.

My daughter has poly cystic ovaries and experiences terrible pain on a monthly basis. She finally went on birth control…not because she is sexually active but for the pain. While it doesn’t lessen the pain, it does reduce it from seven days of pain to three days. Please think of people like her before you assume the worst.

Thank you to those who stand for life.
Artificial birth control is bad medicine.
Even when used for non- birth control reasons.

The side effects are horrific. It can stay in the brain for up to a year and can also cause infertility,in addition to abortifacient action.
‘What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul ?’

I support the pharmacists for life and their decision not to stock the pill. However, if every pharmacist took this stance, I’d be in trouble. I am a woman who had past surgery for cystic disease and menorrhagia (whose daughter now has these conditions.) I used the pill off-label to manage my illness after other medications and surgery failed. The treatment effectively controlled my symptoms so I could lead a productive life instead of staying home in bed. I didn’t use it for contraception. My husband and I had to abstain while I took them; then I went off temporarily to get pregnant with my only child. Using the pill was a moral dilemma, but I didn’t choose to be sick. If I had gotten a hysterectomy instead, I’d never have my daughter. So you see, every moral decision has consequences. The Catholic priciple of double-effect applies here. Please do not make snap judgements about the souls of pharmacists who stock the pill.

In response to “mom"s comment above, I also have PCOS - I would strongly recommend that your daughter investigate Creighton and NaPro technology - the specially trained physicians work to treat the underlying causes of the pain and irregular cycles, rather than simply using birth control to mask the symptoms.  Good luck to your daughter.

“When you lose someone’s birth-control prescription, you normally also lose every other prescription for them and their family because it is typically moms who are making the choice of what pharmacy to go to.”

Yup, funny how imposing one’s personal views on other’s legal activities results in them not liking it.  What does this guy expect to happen?

And we have are Nazi comment:
“Jon, would you apply the same logic to Germans who were charged with herding Jews into the gas chambers?”

Err, no.  Would any REASONABLE person compare BC pills to Nazi extermination camps?

@dch: Well, sure. The Germans killed human beings they deemed not worthy to live. They also used some of these same people in medical experiments, most of the time, very cruel experiments.  They loved to experiment on twins and children were not exempt from this cruelty.  Abortafacient drugs kill unborn children early in their development.  The same people who support aboratafacient drugs many times support abortion or embryonic harvesting for medical experimentation….ever hear of embryonic stem cell research?  Just as the Nazis rationalized destroying human life for medical experimentation of getting rid of imperfect human beings (hello aborting Down Syndrome babies for example), it is chilling to hear people today think along the same lines when it comes to the value of human life in the womb.  Yeah, comparing this to the Nazi nightmare is a good comparison.

THREE CHEERS FOR MY PRO-LIFE PHARMACISTS
Wave your hands aboeyour head and Chant/Sing :
” ALL WE ARE ASKING IS .....LET THE CHILD LIVE! “

@ The Hat Lady and others:  No one is making ‘snap judgements’ that I can see here.  The article and most comments are simply stating what the church teaches. It is also a very clear fact that birth control pills are FULL of horrid chemicals.  Do you really believe that the pill is THE ONLY thing that would control your condition, or are you simply trusting a physician who prescribes them simply out of habit, or not researching if there is something that would be better.  Perhaps you should consider a holistic and/or a pro-life physician who would be willing to consider your COMPLETE health and look for another alternative.  Additionally, knowing that BC pills do soooo much harm, why not stand up and say NO, I WILL look for another alternative.  Maybe this was written for you to consider taking this to prayer?

Jon posted on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 3:18 PM (EDT):
“Why choose a profession when you can’t perform all of the services professionals in that field are called upon to perform?”

Kevin Rahe posted on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 4:00 PM (EDT):
“Jon, would you apply the same logic to Germans who were charged with herding Jews into the gas chambers?”

Is the analogy that when German citizens joined the SS they should have quit if they didn’t get ethicaL exemptions from imprisoning and killing Jews?  Yeah, they should have, but they probably shouldn’t have joined in the first place—if they had a choice, which people choosing a professional career in America do. Anyone who chose to become a pharmacist since the sixties knew that dispensing hormonal birth control would be part of his job. I’d be an idiot to apply for a job as a loan officer at a bank if I planned to refuse to arrange for customers to borrow money based on an agreement for them to pay interest on it because of my ethical objections to usury.

But it is impossible to have a rational conversation with people who equate the act of gassing men, women and children to the sale of pills that MAY reduce the nutrient quality of the user’s endometrium to the point where a blastocyst cannot successfully be implanted—assuming that the other mechanisms of the pill failed to prevent conception in the first place.

If you own the pharmacy, you can sell whatever you want. But, if you aren’t a full service pharmacy, please don’t waste the publics time assuming you have what the perscription requires.  No birth control if you are Catholic, no Antibiotics if you are Budist (as not to kill them), Herbicide if you are druid.

Godwins law sure came in quick on this article.  Almost a record!

cowalker said:
 

Is the analogy that when German citizens joined the SS they should have quit if they didn’t get ethical exemptions from imprisoning and killing Jews?

 
I’m sure that a good number of those who joined the SS were unaware they would be expecting to involve themselves in the process of killing other human beings, just like many pharmacists when they chose their profession didn’t know that drugs they would be expected to provide cause the death of complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human beings.

Kevin:

RE: viable: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya,

Althought a fertilized egg could someday be implanted and become a baby, viable is the wrong word for what the birth control pill prevents and even less condoms or spermicides.

Godwins law, (for those that haven’t looked it up) is the end of a thread and the person that brings up Hitler/Nazi loses the arguement. 

If you compare people to Hitler, you overestimate your current opponents evil and vastly underrate the evil of what Hitler projected.

Rover.

Embryonic stem cell researchers and fertility specialists refer to “viable” embryos all the time ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7397774.stm ).  The “viability” that you want to ascribe to the unborn or not is a specific use of the term with the implicit condition “outside the womb.”  I say “unconditionally” viable to clarify that I’m using a more basic definition of the term.
 

If you compare people to Hitler, you overestimate your current opponents evil and vastly underrate the evil of what Hitler projected.

 
Who compared anyone to Hitler?  I never mentioned the name, nor Nazis, either of which appears essential to invoking Godwin’s Law.  I did mention the SS, but not before someone else did.

At 23 when I graduated from Pharmacy school, I was not the same person in my faith as I am now 30 years later. As usual, people find it easy to tell other people how to live. I do struggle with dispensing bc’s but I cannot force my morality upon others. I always think about the devout Christian mailman who has to deliver pornographic material. As the world becomes more and more evil, I believe, almost all professions will have challenges. Accountant who work for firms that keep the books for immoral businesses, engineers who must work on weapons etc. Let us pray for one another and ask God for wisdom in all we do and mercy.

Kevin, thanks for the clarification.  Your posts are well thought out and I missunderstood but a quick check of “unconditionally viable” doesn’t show as an extention of “viable” that I found.

The SS/Nazi/Hitler was not directed at you.  Just an observation.

Again, my appologies.

I’ll bet they still dispense Viagra. It’s more important for a man to have sex whenever he wants to.

This *really* opened up the dialogue, didn’t it.  I’ve read all of the comments up to this point, and I’d like to clarify something that 100% prolife Catholics are supposed to espouse:  Use of any family-planning method other than Natural Family Planning (NFP) is against Church teaching and is unacceptable - even IF birth control pills, patches, shots, etc did not have the possibility of inducing an early abortion, and only prevented ovulation or other method of preventing conception. So-called “barrier methods,” while not abortifacient, are morally wrong, too.  If you are a Catholic, using or providing anything unnatural that interferes with a couple’s openness to life is a mortal sin (see 2370 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).  So, a truly prolife pharmacist will not sell condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal creams, etc, either.  Pope Paul VI warned us in Humanae Vitae (in 1968) that contraception would lead to abortion - I didn’t listen - I was too busy learning to be a pharmacist in 1968, but I had NOT learned enough about being a Catholic Christian, or I’d have changed my major. Now, all I can do is insulate myself from all things related to contraception and abortion, and it limits the venues in which I can practice Pharmacy.

Sorry that I forgot to make a comment on the hackneyed “I’ll bet they still dispense Viagra” come-back.  Viagra and its cousins, Cialis and Levitra, are not contraceptive and per se do not affect fertility one way or another.  Granted, these meds make conception possible for men with the medical condition, erectile dysfunction, but I know of no instance of them preventing conception, causing an early chemical abortion, etc.  This isn’t even an oranges-apples comparison - so nice, but no cigar. (...and I am aware that many men - and women, too - take Viagra, et al - without a medical need for it, but that’s an entirely different subject, but STILL, this doesn’t affect a person’s fertility.)

“If you are a Catholic, using or providing anything unnatural that interferes with a couple’s openness to life is a mortal sin (see 2370 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).”

Operative words: “IF YOU ARE CATHOLIC”...

Do any of care what the Hindu pharmacist has to say about anything you do? 

I did not think so.

anita posted on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 7:34 PM (EDT):
“At 23 when I graduated from Pharmacy school, I was not the same person in my faith as I am now 30 years later. As usual, people find it easy to tell other people how to live. I do struggle with dispensing bc’s but I cannot force my morality upon others. I always think about the devout Christian mailman who has to deliver pornographic material.” 

Anita brings up interesting points. I became a vegetarian in middle-life. If I had been employed as a chef in a steakhouse, I would not have expected to keep my job if I refused to grill steaks for customers. I understand that people’s ethics change over a lifetime, but one is not privileged to impose those personal ethics on others.

The plight of the mailman is also worth pondering. Since many people get prescription meds through the mail, presumably many Catholic mailmen have to deliver hormonal birth control pills as well as pornography. Catholic truck drivers must be moving hormonal birth control pills between the manufacturer and the pharmacies. Catholic retail clerks have to ring up the purchase at the register. Why out of all the people who enable the purchase of hormonal birth control pills is the pharmacist singled out as the only individual allowed to cite conscience as a reason for refusing to perform all the duties required by his job?

Kevin Rahe posted on Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 6:21 PM (EDT):

“I’m sure that a good number of those who joined the SS were unaware they would be expecting to involve themselves in the process of killing other human beings, just like many pharmacists when they chose their profession didn’t know that drugs they would be expected to provide cause the death of complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human beings.”

I’m not sure what members of the SS knew, or when they knew it, but anyone looking into a career as a pharmacist since the sixties who did not know about hormonal birth control and how it is thought to work, could not possibly have been intelligent enough to complete the coursework successfully. I was a student majoring in English in the early seventies, and I had this information as a function of living in the U.S. and reading newspapers and popular magazines—not professional journals.

Ummmmm, look at the name of the publication:  National CATHOLIC Register.  I am aware of other faiths/religions/whatEVERs, but my Comments have been those of a Catholic, Prolife (should be redundant) Pharmacist.  I cannot pretend to know anything about the beliefs of these other groups. I don’t write Comments on articles written for the National Confucian Register because I don’t read it, nor do I understand their belief system.

cowalker, you claim that you learned about hormonal contraceptives’ abortifacient effects from “newspapers and popular magazines—not professional journals.”  But for someone whose family rejected the use of such measures (though perhaps didn’t publicly or actively crusade against them), is it surprising that Mr. Koelzer did not read such articles in the popular press and did not learn about those effects until he heard it from a cousin sometime in his 20s, as the article claims?  He was at least well into his education at that point, if he hadn’t already completed it.

Great discussion, good to see all of these points being made.  Some basic moral theology might help.  The primary principle is: do good and avoid evil.  What is good leads to more and more life while what is evil does the opposite.  To judge an act as good or evil, you have to take into account the object of the act, the intention and the circumstances.  All three have to be good for the act to be good.  If an act is evil, and we intend to assist in the evil, that is formal cooperation and is always wrong. If we do not intend the evil that is material cooperation and can also be wrong but need not be.  For a good short review of this see http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1112

The example of a mailman delivering pornography is not a good analogy as they usually do not know what they are delivering (those magazines are usually not displaying their identity) and they do not intend the evil.  It is just part of all the mail they are delivering. What is more important is that hormonal contraceptives used specifically for contraception do not treat any pathology or do any good.  In fact hormonal contraceptives increase the risk for blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, breast caner, cervical cancer, weight gain, depression, etc.  As pointed out above they can on occasion (a very small % of cases) be used for legitimate medical reasons. When they are used to treat a disease, that is licit.  The question is, if you don’t know the use they will be put to, but you know that 95% of the time it will be for contraception, is it ethical to dispense them?  As an analogy, if a pharmacist dispensed narcotics and knew that 95% of the prescriptions were going to addicts, and only 5% to treat pain, should they continue to dispense them?

Thank you for this story. These heroes probably don’t have to have my respect and admiration, but they do.  They inspire me to keep seeking God’s will for myself in my vocation as wife, mother and nurse.  The secular world can be a hard place to live in, but as Catholics we know our faith is a way of life, a rich culture, that shores us up and provides much needed consolation and hope because our foundation is God!! How awesone is our God for inspiring pharmacists and doctors to support we natural family planning folks. “God created [us] and [we] are good.” His plan for the human race with procreation is flawless. Keep the faith. We are blessed by your committment to God!!!

Dr. Williams - it’s very good to read your points and, as is my nature, I should to like to add a comment or two.  You listed some of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives - I’d wanted to earlier, but at the time, I tried to limit my response length. If those same side effects were associated with, say, a blood pressure medication, you can BET that that particular drug would be off the market.  On the point about the postman, etc I was going to add the VERY same thing about a postman not knowing what’s in a “plain brown envelope,” etc.  And while I am in NO WAY belittling postal workers, I don’t know how long it takes to become a postal worker, up until about 10 years ago, it took at least FIVE years of college an at least ONE THOUSAND hours of documented practical experience (read “slave labor”) to even qualify to take the Pharmacy Boards exams (old guys like I had two days of written, practical and oral tests that tested everything we’d EVER learned, going back to the alphabet) before we could receive our licenses to practice, IF we passed the exams. Most recently, the college requirement is SIX years and I’m not sure of the practical experience requirements, but you can bet it’s not two months of on-the-job training (once again, not knowing how long it takes from Day One to become a postal delivery person.  The exam these budding Pharmacists take is “only” one day long now, but I’d bet it’s not any easier than the one taken in “my day.”  So, a postal worker, who, upon learning that he or she has been delivering porn or even contraceptives to mail clients, decides to get another job within the USPS, or change employers altogether, has not spent years in acquiring the skills required to deliver mail - and I remind you, I’m NOT knocking their jobs.  Lastly, I must add, that for those people who are so intent on “saving the earth,” it’s now known that human waste products from those taking hormonal contraceptives (and other meds that contain the same ingredients) contain powerful hormones and some species of fish and other wildlife (since this waste, after passing through a treatment facility, winds up in our lakes and rivers) wind up with almost NO male offspring being hatched or born - and they are now endangered.  I’m not going to lose sleep about the loss of the Wiggly Red Gurgler Minnow (not a real fish, or at least I think!), but some folks DO ... we ALL should have a reason for banning use of hormonal contraceptives!

(I sent this once and it didn’t show up, and I’d made a copy before the final version was submitted, so I’m sending it again ... I hope that it doesn’t show up twice!):

Dr. Williams - it’s very good to read your points and, as is my nature, I should to like to add a comment or two.  You listed some of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives. If those same side effects were associated with, say, a blood pressure medication, you can BET that drug would be off the market.  On the point about the postman, etc I was going to add the VERY same thing about a postman not knowing what’s in a “plain brown envelope,” etc.  And while I am in NO WAY belittling postal workers, I don’t know how long it takes to become a postal worker, up until about 10 years ago, it took at least FIVE years of college an at least ONE THOUSAND hours of documented practical experience (read “slave labor”) to even qualify to take the Pharmacy Boards exams (old guys like I had two days of written, practical and oral tests that tested everything we’d EVER learned, going back to the alphabet) before we could receive our licenses to practice, that is, IF we passed the exams. Most recently, the college requirement is SIX years and I’m not sure of the practical experience requirements, but you can bet it’s not two months (I have no idea how long it takes to be a mail delivery person) of on-the-job training.  The exam that today’s budding Pharmacists take is “only” one day of exams now, but I’d bet it’s not any easier than the one taken in “my day.”  So, a postal worker, upon learning that he or she has been delivering porn or even contraceptives to mail clients, decides to get another job within the USPS, or change employer altogether, has not spent years in acquiring the skills required to deliver mail - and I remind you, I’m NOT knocking their jobs.  Lastly, I must add, that for those people who are so intent on “saving the earth,” it’s now known that human waste products from those taking hormonal contraceptives (and other meds that contain the same ingredients) contain powerful hormones and some species of fish and other wildlife (since this waste, after passing through a treatment facility, winds up in our lakes and rivers) wind up with almost NO male offspring being hatched or born - and they are now endangered.  I’m not going to lose sleep about the loss of the Wiggly Red Gurgler Minnow (not a real fish, or at least I think!), but some folks DO ... we ALL should have a reason for banning use of hormonal contraceptives!

I also took the Pill “off-label” for years before finally rejecting it.  It was for management only, it did not fix my conditions.  I think we have to ask, why this fatalism about it?  Does the only option forever and ever have to be ingesting a class 1 carcinogen?
-
cowalker: I have some experience with this (see above).  Medical mail-order companies are discreet; if not, they aren’t worthy of one’s money.  The packages aren’t labeled “DEAR MS. X, HERE IS YOUR BIRTH CONTROL” in big bright letters.  You can’t know without opening whether the contents are that or some other medication.  Culpability is diminished.
Pornographic magazines may be easier to intuit from their shape and their black-out covers; still, the Christian mailman has to balance the harm of porn against the biblical prohibition of stealing, which could also be thought to extend to property destruction.  In any case, most stores do not carry hardcore pornography and as far as I know, hardly anyone seems to even need to ask why not.  There are also stores that have what I call “Cosmo shields” to keep young children from getting an inappropriately-timed education.  I support them.

Perhaps I took the question too far.  I was thinking about how a mailman might be tempted to “lose” certain items.  If I had good reason to believe I was delivering smut on a regular basis, maybe I would have to reconsider.
Another thought: how many fewer people get those magazines thanks to the internet?

Pharmacists should not be interfering in the patient-physician relationship.  A physician writes a prescription after a patient consultation.  The prescription is written for the medical care of the patient.  The job of the pharmacist is to fill the presciption.  End of story.  No pharmacist should be isnerting his/her religious beleifs into the the patient-physcian relationship (which doe not involve the pharmacist).  If someone is opposed to the use of certain drugs becasue of religious reason, that person should not be a pharmacist.

Where does it stop?  Why should have pharmacist have the right to deny any medically-prescribed pharmaceuticals to anyone?  Why does a pharmacist get to impose his/her religious beliefs on customers?  Will the pharmacist above not fill a Viagre prescription if he thinks condoms will also be used in connection with drug???

Lisa should we not question the millions of errors we catch the MD’s making also? We are professionals and human. It is a single package. I as a pharmacist, and I know may disagree with me, have no problem dispensing BC’s but I do stand in support of any pharmacist who finds it objectionable. They have every right to deny the dispensing.

“I cannot force my morality upon others.”

Your morality is yours. If it is Catholic you are told not to use force on others. Withdrawing your labor or product or consent is not force, it is following your morality. The extent with which each person does this is a personal responsibility enacted as a result of our education in the matter, degree of wisdom and understandng of life, our capacity to act in the face of opposition or our own fears. We are all different.

To not do what others insist you do is not force, it is resistance - just the opposite.

Anita,

No a pharmacist does NOT have the right to refuse to dispense.  A physician writes a prescirption for the health of a patient.  the pharmacist has NO right to interfere, to substitute his/her judgement for that of the physician and patient. Physicans write prescirption for legal drugs that have a purpose. A pharmacist, in every state, has what is legally called a “scope of practice”.  The scope of practice of pharmacist is NOT to practice medicien.  the scope of practice of a pharmacist is dispense pharmaceuticals. A pharmacist is NOT there to deny care, to indicated by refusal to dipsense that his/her religious tradition is to be involuntarily imposed upon a patient in need of medication.

Anita, we are talking about morality not law. From the very beginning of our founding we have recognized the RIGHT to disobey. Disobedience was the foundation of Gandhi’s leadership in India and Martin Luther Kings in Alabama.

Birth control unless used for another purpose is not medication. It is not even remotely dealing with a disease or condition if it is used to prevent conception for social reasons. Until the law reverses itself, no patient today is denied the ability to purchase these products – from other pharmacies.   

Howard,

The right to disobey does NOT a pharmacist the right to subsitute his/her judgement for that of a phsycisan and patient.  Neither you, nor the RCC, nor a pharmacist has the right to tell a woman that she cannot have medication presciribed by her physician because you, the RCC or a pharmacist thinks that the rules of the RCC need to be imposed upon every woman in every pharmacy.

If someone is opposed, on religious grounds, to dispensing any medication ordered by a physcian, that person should not be a pharmacist.  It is not the role of a pharmacist to impose his/her beliefs upon other people.

Lisa, it is the role of each person to affirm the sanctity of life. It is a benefit to us and our children.

A pharmacist is a job that just happens to be filled by a person. Our first duty is to our fellow human beings. You are merely reiterating the CURRENT desire of the industry.

If a person has the understanding of what he/she is getting in to, I would agree that it would not be prudent. I do not agree that it is not a right to object when the laws and understandings unfold. A decision to leave the job may be right for some, a decision to fight for the right to conscience might be right for some. I do not think that you should dictate to others what their conscience should provide.

Lisa ..listen to Howard, thereis a great deal of Wisdom in what he has to say. If you are interested in , th right to refusE,  please Google   Rev. Martn Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He summarizes the ethics of Thoreau, Emerson and Gandh iMay I also invite you to wave your arms above your head as we Chant/Sing :
“ALL WE ARE ASKING IS….............LET THE CHILD LIVE!”

Howard,

Again, it is NOT the right os pharmacist to decide what is right for a patient.  That is the role of a physcian.  It is not the palce or right of a pharmacist to impose his/her beliefs upon unwilling people.  The RCC does NOT know best for patients.  Physicians know best.  And yes, pharmacists should not be dictationg to patients what that patient’s conscience should be.  The physicians -patient relationship is what governs, NOT the RCC. 

Raymon,

No, Howard is not right on this.  The pharmacist has NO right to infere with the physician-patient realtionship, or to impose his.her beleifs on other people.  The RCC is NOT the arbiter of who gets what medications.  If you object to artifical contraception, don’t take it.  But you , nor any pharmacist ahs the right to impose that idea upon someone else.  The phhyscians and patient know best.  NOT the RCC nor the pharmacist.

Lisa, we are in a rut here.

A Physician prescribes what he decides that the patient can have according to his conscience and training. Refusal to fill and sell that prescription has nothing to do with that individual relationship, the patient still can rely on his doctor if he chooses.
.
The refusal is very clearly not an argument about the BEST chemicals to prescribe. It is very clearly an argument over the moral (and possibly physical) implications of those chemicals. Doctors are no more experts in this area that Mailmen.
.
It is an attempt to hide behind doctors (who do not all agree) patient relationship in order to fulfill a social desire – free sex without the burden of a child. The very few legitimate reasons for using these chemicals is a smoke screen. 

Howard,

If a phtysican writes a prescription, the only way for a patient to get the meds is for a pharmacist to dispense the meds.  When a pharmacist refuses to do so, then the patient is being denied her legitmate access to her medications.  And it is NOT the role of the pharmacist to decide what is best for the patient.  And sorry, you are incorrect about physicans.,  They understand the medications they prescribe.

And it is NOT the role of the pahrmacist to decide if its right for a person to have the medication when a physcian has written the prescription.  Its just not.  It does NOT matter why the patient wants sor need the medications—the pharmacist’s ONLY role is to dipense the medication.  NOT to impose his/her beleifs upon the patient.

Wow, No free sex, huh???  Yes, if women are going to have sex, then by all means, they MUST be “burdened” with children.  Yes, men get to make that decision for women!!  Yes, pharmacists get to make that decision for women!! Yes, the RCC gets to make that decision for ALL women, in every time, place and no mater what!!!  Wow, Howard, you do realize you are not living in the Middle Ages, right???

“When a pharmacist refuses to do so, then the patient is being denied her legitmate access to her medications.”
.
Lisa, if you are going to present a case then you destroy your credibility when you exaggerate so. Again you present an assumed moral right to these chemicals to be dispensed by whomever she chooses. Do you really believe that it is impossible for a woman to obtain these chemicals in the U.S. today – easily?
. 
“Yes, if women are going to have sex, then by all means, they MUST be “burdened” with children.  Yes, men get to make that decision for women!!  Yes, pharmacists get to make that decision for women!!”

It had to come out didn’t it! ABORTION is linked to the birth control mentality isn’t it?  Yes, I realize the age I am living in and weep.

Howard,

No pharmacist gets to decide what medications a woman has access to.  And NO, no man gets to decide that women must be “burdened by children”, no man gets to decide what medications a woman has access to. In case no one has told you—women are human beings, made in the image of God. Women have free will. Women are autonomous-just as men are.  So women get to decide when, where, why they want to have sex., IF they want to have children, etc.  Those decision belong to women.  No man has the right to make decisions for women. 

If you want to make those decisions for women, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Yemen, membership in the taliban are right for you.  You will find a medieval mind set in all these places too.  Sorry you don’t like the 21st century—available food, electricity. clean water, decent housing,central heating/air conditioning, airpalnes, automobiles, readily available clothing, democracy, modern medicine, telephones, computers, television, movies, public libraries, great bookstores, etc.  The Middle Ages were great for dying young of horrible diseases, starving to death, tyranny, being serf, etc.  If you think abortion is a new issue-, you are quite incorrect. Its origns and practice are ancient.  So going back in time would not help you avodi this issue. 

Pharmacists MUST dispense any pharmaceutical prescribed , for ANY reason, by a physician.  Its NOT a matter of being able to go to another pharmacy.  The issue is that NO pharmacist has the right to not fill a prescription for any person,at any time, for any reason (unless there is clear error made by the physician.  If that is the pharmacist feels that is the case, the pharmacist picks up the phone clears it up witht hephysicians and then dispenses the medication).  But NO pharmacist gets to impose his/her weird faith ideas on other people.  And denying contraception on the bsis of the weird teachings of the RCC is WRONG.

Howard,

NO pharamcist gets to decide to deny a woman access to medications when prescribed by a physician.  Its not a matter of going down the street to another pharmacy,.  The issue is that it IS WRONG for paharmacist to impose his/her relgious beliefs on other people.  It IS WRONG for a pharmacist to interfere in the physician-patient relationship.

And in case no one has told you—women are human beings, made in the image of God, with free will. Women are autonmous people—just as men are.  So, women are free to decide when, where, why to have sex and IF they want children.  No man has the right to make those decisions for any woman. 

If you want to make those decisions for women then Iran, Yemen, Saudia Arabia and the taliban are right for you.  You will find a medieval mindset there as well.

The Middle Ages wasa great ime to die young of preventable diseases, a great time to starve to death, freeze to death, lack clean water and sanitation, enjoy being a poor serf, a great time to enjoy the tyranny of kings, a great time to not bathe for months on end, to have only fire or candleight at night, to have no books, no access to information, etc.  So sorry you miss all that in the 21st century.

Lisa, you are just making assertions without presenting any reasoning or support.
.
I find it interesting that you invoke God and free will without also remembering that the incorrect use of that will results in damnation by God.
.
Re the middle ages. It was also a period of Scholasticism. If you travel the world in the present day you will see existing, examples of the physical hardships you list. Hardship has not been vanquished by modern man or woman. A failure? 

You however, Lisa get to impose your beliefs on the Pharmacist. Is that what you are saying? Do we check our morality at the door when we become pharmacist? My previous posting did not appear. We as pharmacist question and correct millions of prescriptions a year. Do you really want us to just fill what the MD wants? I don’t mind dispensing BC’s but I stand by the right of pharmacists who refuse. I hope in your job you never have to be told to check your morals outside.

My posts are getting hung up. I’ll leave the discussion to y’all.

Anita,

Pharmacist enter their profession voluntarily and understand the the scope of it practice (per state statute).  Yes, the profession of the pharmacist is to dispense pahrmaceuticals per the written prescriptions of physcians.  that is the profession, that is the job. Yes, pharmacists question prescriptions (and clear up those questions with the physician) and correct errors (again via consutlation with the physcian).

I am not imposing my morals upon anyone. I simply think that a pharmacist should do the pharmacist’s job—dipense medications per a physcian’s written prescription.  Its pharmacists who are guessing why a woman is prescribed birth control and the pharmacist making assumptions and when the pharmacist refused to dispense as is the job, it the pharmacist who is imposing his/her faith tradition on someone else.  Someone who may not hold the same views.  Why should a woman’s health and choices be held hostage to the faith tradition of the pharmacist???  If someone thinks he/she will have moral issues in the profession—do not enter the proofession or leave the profession.

Anita and Howard,

You are happy to have a pharmacist impose his/her beliefs re birth control pharmaceuticals on women, because you think artifical birth control is wrong.  But what would you think if a a pharmacist who is a member of the Church of Scientology is able to deny you your medications until he/she thinks you are “clear” or because your prescription came from a psychiatrist and they do not believe psychiatry is wrong?  If a Mormon pharmacist denies you your medications unless you agree to the tenets of the Book of Mormon?  What if a Muslim pharmacists has the right to ignore your doctor’s prescription if he/she thinks you might be eating pork and drinking alcohol???  What if a Jewsih pharmacist will not fill your prescription becasue the manufacturing process may not be kosher??  You are fine with Christian/RC pharmacists holding a woman’s birth control medications hostage becasue that agrees with YOUR beliefs But where doe it stop???  Does any faith tradition of every pharmacist get to control whether he/she dispenses medication??  Or are just the beliefs of RC pharmacists honored???  Or just somebody’s version of Christianity???

You will say that YOUR beliefs are correct and right.  But the Jew, Scientologist, the Muslim, the Mormon will say that their beliefs are correct or right.  You will say they are wrong.  They will say you are wrong.

Solution:  Pharmacists just do their jobs—fill the physician prescriptions handed to them/sent to them.  The pharmacist’s job is not to impose some faith tradition on patients.  Their job is to dispense medications per physcian prescription.  Leave the religious beliefs at home.

Well, the problem you are complaining about is that you have no moral beliefs. I am sure that you could find an amoral pharmacist to fill your prescriptions, this is America after all. Your success rate will probably be close to 100%
.
We could also force all restaurants to serve all ethnic foods known to man. At one time we celebrated this kind of individuality and control over our own lives.
.
To keep repeating “force” is just a mantra, your religion perhaps?

Howard,

We are NOT talking about “morality”.  We are talking about the idea that pharmacists are permitted to hold the dispensing of medications hostage to their faith traditions—a very separate issue than morality.

Of course I have moral beliefs.  Your comment that I have “no moral beleifs” is strange, weird, has no basis in fact.  Your issue is that you think I may have diffent beliefs than you—so that for you is the equivalent of having no moral beliefs.  So you are being weird.

And you seem to think that if a pharmacist has differnet beliefs than you, they are a"amoral”  And THAT is the problem.  As I mentioned above—whose beleife system in the pharmacy gets to control the dispensing of medications??? YOUR beliefs??? The tenets of Islam, Mornonism, RCism, Scientology, etc???

And YES, I am talking about control over own lives.  The ability to have one’s prescriptions filled without the tyranny of some pharmacist’s belief system being shoved down one’s throat.

As I mentioned the. the solution is to have pharmacists just do their jobs:  fill the prescriptions they are given to fill.  Period.

You miss the point. If you had moral beliefs you would understand then when others actually act on them. Not weird at all. Separating morality from the rest of your life when you leave your house or church is weird.
.
Period.

Rather than ducking the question Howard, why not address how you would react if your local pharmacist denied you a prescription because of his religious beliefs?

Ducking! I would go somewhere else. I don’t expect others to deny their convictions for my convienence. Then, I would know where to go the next time.
.
This is America, after all.

Thanks. So you’d go find what you’d call an “amoral” pharmacist. Sounds sensible, unless of course you happen to live in any of the thousands of small towns with only one pharmacy. I doubt the average person’s tolerance for other faiths would be enhanced by such a situation, but overall, I agree with you. The owner of a business should have the right to choose how they operate.
-
Another great thing about America, after all, is the entrepreneurial spirit. So an opportunistic person could open a pharmacy across the street to dispense those items that the Catholic pharmacist refuses to. And should they employ an assistant who refuses to dispense them (or pork or porn or alcohol or whatever), there should be no barriers to firing them.
-
Just curious - what do you (and any other readers here not already bored by this topic and have moved on) think of the suggestion made by a current governor (Jindal I think?) that we simply make the pill available over-the-counter? It is a position supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and it would seem to solve at least some of these problems, including a major objection to the HHS mandate?

Howard,

Many faith traditions do not see artificial contraception as immoral.  My point is that pharmacists should leave their faith tradition at home and just dispense the drugs that physcians prescribe.

Zeke,

Over the counter artificial birth control is a super idea.  It would solve Howard’s objections.  There would be pharmacies who would refuse to sell it.  So we go back tot he same issue that some faith traditions (th RCC in particular) think they can and must control women and their sexulaity.  That women must have no choice in whether they bear children.  Howard calls children a “burden” that results from sex.  In other words, “let’s punish women who think they are free just to have sex!”

Wow, great discussion.  Too bad that so many are blind to their own prejudices.  They don’t want pharmacists to shove their beliefs down their throats, but they have no problem shoving their beliefs down the throats of said pharmacists.  As a physician, I am often helped by discussions with other professionals, especially pharmacists, in deciding what is the best thing to prescribe.  They are highly trained professionals, not pill dispensing machines.  If they see that a medication may cause harm to a patient with no medical benefit (as hormonal contraceptives do when used for contraception) of course they should have the right to act in the best interests of the patient and refuse to dispense.  In the same way, if they have a good reason to believe a patient is hooked on narcotics I support their right to refuse to dispense narcotics.  Physicians are not omniscient, they can all use help. and maybe a pharmacist refusing to dispense something they prescribe (and yes, most physicians never think about the side effects of hormonal contraceptives) it might be a wake up call that they should think twice about prescribing that medication.

I think Jindal’s idea is horrible.  Let’s take a potent steroid that completely alters the physiology of a woman’s body and increases her risk for stroke, heart attack, breast cancer, etc.  Lets make that available to all women over the counter so they can take it with no medical supervision.  Great idea.

OK, I was going to try not to be sarcastic, but in this entire discussion I have not seen one medical benefit mentioned for hormonal contraceptives used for contraception.  The only benefit is to avoid being “burdened by children”.  There are other ways to do that without altering physiology, using a class 1 carcinogen, etc.  Please try to be objective.  Where is the good that comes from contraception?  What good comes from it?  Please tell me.

Thank you Dr. Williams

Dr. Williams,
To answer your last question, I believe it’s the same good that comes from using NFP. Married couples can decide to have sex without being “burdened by children” as you say. What’s wrong with that? Perhaps you and your spouse have a lifestyle and the means to raise dozens of children, but of course that’s totally up to you. Many others don’t, or have any number of valid reasons to limit the size of their family.
-
I find it incredible that you, a medical doctor, with full knowledge of a patient’s medical condition and history, condone a pharmacist denying your patient the medication you prescribe. I’d love to listen in to your phone call to the pharmacist when your patient calls you and tells you about his unsuccessful trip to the pharmacy. Or is this acceptable behaviour from a pharmacist only when a different doctor prescribes the pill?
-
It is abundantly clear that these pharmacists are refusing to dispense the pill because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not for so-called concerns about side effects. They probably fill hundreds of prescriptions weekly for drugs with vastly more harmful side effects or potential for abuse. To suggest that medical doctors today are somehow unaware of the side effects of the pill, or infer that those who prescribe it (as well the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) are willfully negligent, comes across sounding like someone with an agenda. If a new form of the pill was developed with absolutely no detrimental side effects, do we have any reason to doubt you would still argue against prescribing them?
-
Finally, when you say that they have no problem “shoving their beliefs down the throats of said pharmacists”, just who are “they” and what beliefs are you referring to? The crazy belief that a person can walk into a pharmacy with a drug prescription from their doctor and expect to have it filled?

Zeke, Years ago when my wife had her many surgeries at a well known teaching hospital, a team came around after her doctor and examined the medications he ordered. We were told it was something new they were instituting to double check his medication orders. A need still exists to educate doctors on the effects and use of drugs and have them remember it, and try and wean some of them from just taking the Drug company reps word for it. It is folly to think that a professional pharmacist is just a pill counter.

Regarding the moral issues. Lisa and others have advocated that moral values not be allowed in the workplace. The only reason for this objection is to make a RESONABLE SOUNDING objection to a very particular moral value. But, the trouble with this approach is that it disguises the real reason – an objection to a PARTICULAR VALUE.
.
The values of no THEFT of drugs and HONESTY of the pill count are expected to be brought with you to work. So, when there is this kind of gross exaggeration of truth your objections fail miserably. Argue the value you don’t like, leave the clever dictatorial subterfuges at home - or with politicians.

Before the American Civil War an argument for slavery was that the economy of the South was dependant on it. There was no substitute for human labor at the time and freeing the slaves would unduly harm the plantation owners. 
.
The whole point of a moral objection is that the evil being objected to has precedence over real or perceived harm to the ones perpetrating it. Whether the evil is recognized and condoned or done innocently by those persons.
.
For a person to recognize the evils of contraception and their effects, chemical and social and psychological and to passively resist, is a noble thing to do. 

Zeke,

It is clear that Howard and Dr. Williams are fine with a pharmacist impsing his/her religous beliefs on a patient as long as those beleifs agree with their beliefs. Theri tune would be different if a Muslim or Mormon pahrmacist tried to impose their beliefs on others at the pharmacy counter.

Its not up to a pharmacist to decide whether its a “social good” to fill a prescription for birth control. Its not the job of the pahramcist to impose religious beliefs on a customer. The decision was made by the patient and physcian.  The pharmacist’s job is to fill the prescription.

Lisa, reading comprehension can be a problem. You keep saying IMPOSE. The elections are over. People should have recognized this objection for what it is, nonsense.
.
Passive resistance is not imposing anything. Creating a law is.
.
Is a boycott imposing your beliefs? MLK day last monday.
.
Is withdrawing your labor from an employer, imposing your beliefs? Labor unions fought hard. 
.
These things express your beliefs in a traditional American way. This is America, after all. 

Howard,

A pharmacist denying lawfully prescribed medications to a patient is NOT passive anything.  Its an affirmative step—its making a patient involuntariy accept the pharmacist’s belief system.

Yes, this IS America—pharmacists should be filling llawfully written prescriptions.  If pharmacists want to live in a theocarcy, Americas is NOT the place.

So, yes in not doing their jobs, in refusing to fill alwfully writtne prescriptions, some pharmacists ARE imposing their beleifs on patients.  And that is a fact.  Sorry oif you do not like the reality of theat or cannot accept the facts.

I suppose I agree with both Lisa and Howard to some extent. On Howard’s side, if a pharmacist who owns the business has moral objections to dispensing certain drugs, he should have the right to do so (and he does). He also has the right to go out of business if his customers find themselves inconvenienced or think he’s a fool and take their business elsewhere.
-
However, if said pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy, he has no such right. As the owner of the pharmacy, I should be able to fire him for refusing to do his job. This seems to be the current law, since the article describes the situation of Nevada pharmacist Michael who “in his more than 40 years as a pharmacist, his pro-life position has caused him to be asked to leave several pharmacy positions….Since then, he has been unable to find employment in his field despite the fact that he has an active pharmacy license in three states.” Hey good for you Mike, standing by your convictions. But if you want to be a preachy Catholic and turn your nose up at heretics trying to get a prescription filled, good luck with that next job. Life’s hard, buy a helmet.
-
As Lisa correctly observes, this is plainly imposing one’s beliefs on others. Filling a prescription for the pill and advising the customer that there are side effects that perhaps they were unaware of, is fine. It’s not imposing beliefs, it’s actually an important part of the pharmacists job. The side effects are well-known, documented, and scientifically researched. It’s not a belief, it’s factual. Refusing to do so because your particular Church ensures you that only they have correctly interpreted ancient scribblings of superstitious, bronze-age, desert dwellers, and thus have concluded that God thinks birth control is evil, has no place in science or medicine.

“A pharmacist denying lawfully prescribed medications to a patient is NOT passive anything.  Its an affirmative step—its making a patient involuntariy accept the pharmacist’s belief system.”
.
So, not doing something is actually doing something, besides making a statement. What?
.
I think there are many psychologists that would be interested in your theory about how you can make a person believe something against their will, just by telling them they can’t buy something. You don’t think that there has to be some change of mind on the part of that person? Or is it like mind control in the movies?

Howard,

You obviously missed the point.  The pharmacist who is deny lawfully prescribed medication to apatient is NOT making the patient believe anything.  Wow, talk about a lack of reading comprehension on your part, Howard!  But because of the pharmacist’s beliefs the pharmacist is denying a lawful service to the patient, is causing the patient harm, is denying the patient needed medical care as dtermined by a physcian.  All of bcause of what the pharmacist believes vis a vis a particular faith tradition. Something that has nothing to do with science, chemistry, logic.  But bcause the pharmacist’s church thinks that women should not b allowed to amke their own reproductive chosices.  So yes, there are consequences imposed the patient because of a pharmacist’s religion.

And again, Howard, would you be so enthusiastic about this of a Muslim pahrmacist denied you your prescription because that pharmacist believes that your prescribed medication allows you to eat pork?  If the Muslim pharmacist denied your medication becasue that pharmacist thought you should bear some health burdens of eating pork???

What if the pharamcist refused to fill your lawful presctiption for antibiotics, becasue that pharmacist’s faith tradition says its God’s will that you, the patient, are ill with some disease??? 

Its OK for ANY pharmacist for ANY reasons of religion to deny ANY patient any medication that the phamracist’s faith tradition says its immoral to have???

Or is it only the privilege of “RC” or “Christian” pharmacists to deny medications to patient, to interfer with a woman’s physician-patient realtionship???  To make judgments about women, to impose upon her some whchadoodle belief that women MUST bear children and that women are not true human beings free to make their own choices???  Its OK for the pharmacist to try to deny her choices????

If a pharmacist cannot, for moral/religious reasons, dispense a particular drug, the pharmacist is only saying “I cannot do this, please, go to another pharmacist or to another pharmacy.”  He/she is not denying anyone anything, he/she is only suggesting that the customer go elsewhere.

Lisa You are the one not getting the point. I am out.

I’ll try one more time, then I am out also.
.
Lisa you very clearly said, “involuntariy accept the pharmacist’s belief system”
.
“Accept beliefs”
.
No customer can expect a pharmacy to be built or created to supply his requests anymore than a customer can demand that a McDonalds be built. If these businesses are not directed by law in some way, either to come into existence or provide what the customer demands, you are out of luck. We are talking about a free market. If laws exists we are talking about civil disobedience.
.
The relationship between an individual pharmacist and his employer is not something you can control either as a customer, you can try. I have not here suggested that an employee has any rights beyond his employment contract or employment laws local and federal. I have refused on moral grounds to do a task that I was directed to do and my objection was honored. There are other employees to fill, other pharmacies, and mail order. If not you are out of luck. The drugs we are talking about are ubiquitous and more like Botox than anything needed for health.
.
The source of anyone’s moral values cannot be discounted unless you are willing to give that person the opportunity to discount someone else’s – in this case secular lack of values, or amorality. 

Mary,

The pharmacist is doing a lot more than just “suggesting” something.  The pharmacist is not doing his/her job.  The pharmacist is denying medication to someone based, not on science, not logic, not on professional ehtic, but SOLEY upon the pharmacist’s own belief system. And that IS wrong. The pharmacist has no right to interfer int he patient-physician relationship. 

And in places where there may be only one pharmacy—such a pharmacist is truly denying lawfully prewcribed medication to a patient.

If a someone as a pharmacist thinks some mediation is “immoral” then person should leave the profession or not enter it in the first place.

And how far should such a pahrmacist go??  Should such a pharmacist even work in a pharmacy that stocks birth control pahrmaceuticals???  Should such a pharmacist destroy the supply of these pharmaceuticals in his/her workplace??? 

Is such apostion the privilge only of RC or Christian pharmacists???  Is it OK for a Muslim or Mormon or Jevovah Witness pharmacist to deny medications, any medication, to someone based upon that pharmacist’s belief??  Where does that leave patients??? 

When someone walks into a pharmacy does he/she have to alsways wonder if the pharmacist is going to fill the prescription or not based upon the pharmacist’s religious affiliation???  Do patients have to guess if the pharmacist on duty at a particular time , in a particualr place is going to hold a prescription hostage to his/her religious beliefs???  Why MUST a patient have to contend with the religious beliefs of someone who is supposed to be providing lawfully prewcribed medications????? 

NO pharmacist has the right to substitute his/her religious belief for the medical judgment of a physician treating a patient.

Howard,

People who want to make moral judgements abourt medicatiosn do not belong in the pharmacy profession.  If soemone tryly objects to dispensing birth control pharmaceuticals, then why is he/she even working in a pahrmacy that stocks such items???  Would it be OK for that pharmacist to destroy the pharmacy’s upplies of thse ites—becasue it “civil disobedience” and “saving a life” and making sure that woman who are gasp, having sex, are “burdened” with children???

And you keep failing to answer my question—where does this all stop?? 

Is such a position the privilge only of RC or Christian pharmacists???  Is it OK for a Muslim or Mormon or Jevovah Witness pharmacist to deny medications, any medication, to someone based upon that pharmacist’s belief??  Where does that leave patients??? 

When someone walks into a pharmacy does he/she have to alsways wonder if the pharmacist is going to fill the prescription or not based upon the pharmacist’s religious affiliation???  Do patients have to guess if the pharmacist on duty at a particular time , in a particualr place is going to hold a prescription hostage to his/her religious beliefs???  Why MUST a patient have to contend with the religious beliefs of someone who is supposed to be providing lawfully prescribed medications????? 

Would it be OK for you if a pahrmacist denied you your medications based upon the tenets of Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Hinudism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism???  Or is all this denial of medication stuff OK, only when it comes to the version of Christianity you agree with???

The problem is not with the pharmacist, but with Catholic women who take the pill without a valid medical reason.  I once took low dose birth control pills for two months as I had been advised by my recruiter that 49 out of 50 women stop getting their period during basic training and the 50th bleeds like mad during the whole time.  His advise keep me among the 49 women, of which I was glad.  There was no possibility of sex in basic training as it is against is against the uniform code of military justice. So my devout Catholic doctor had no problem with writing me the prescription, the pharmacist filled the prescription(religion unknown), as it should be, and my devout Catholic self took them without qualms.  Other than the conditions mentioned by the MD here there is one point I have never heard anyone point out.  The fattening of America started with the advent of the birth control pill.  It is not just diet, gaming and TV that has caused Americans to be so fat, it is the pill!  NFP is the only safe way to go!!! But their are legitimate reasons to take the pill in low doses for a short periods of time.  I had cysts as a woman(very painful) but my doctor gave me pain pills for three days of each month. I think a lot of you are really full of self righteous delusions.

OK, this will be my last post on this.  Let’s step back just for a second and think about the purpose of birth control.  It is to allow people to have sex without having babies.  This seems like a good idea on the surface, but if you think about people as social animals, part of what makes us social is having babies (no babies, no people, no society).  So it is not surprising that using birth control to sterilize sex will have a social impact.  And it does, with the divorce rate ~50% for people (including Catholics) who contracept, but <5% for those who use NFP.  Divorce is clearly not a good thing as children born in an intact family clearly outperform those who do not have an intact family (father and mother).  Why this association between contraception and divorce?  This is easily explained by the fact that contraception changes the dynamic of the relationship and makes it much more likely that men will view women purely as sex objects and not as potential wives/mothers.  So women, like Lisa, who think it is so important that they have free access to cancer-causing, physiology altering hormones so they can engage in sterile sex are actually making it much easier for men to view and treat them as sex objects, and not as the absolutely beautiful and wonderful people they are. That is the medieval archaic Catholic mindset that she refers to.  Yes, guilty as charged, I insist that women be treated with respect and that they not be viewed as sex objects, and I know in the depth of my male heart that contraception makes it much easier for men to objectify women.

Why is NFP fundamentally different that contraception?  Because it forces the spouses to value the entire person of their spouse (including their fertility).  This is know as the gift of self, that in marriage the husband and wife are to make a complete gift of themselves to each other holding nothing back.  Using NFP requires that the spouses value the entire person and use self-sacrifice if they want to postpone pregnancy, avoiding the objectification that happens with sterilized sex.  That accounts for the difference in divorce rate as NFP increases the respect each spouse has for the other as they realize this awesome potential they have to create new life. 

In terms of the conscience issues, I don’t expect Lisa or Zeke to understand this, but if someone has a moral issue of course I would support their right to follow their consciences, whether they be Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or whatever.  Even if it inconvenienced me more than a little.  That is because I respect other people and their freedom to do what they believe is right.  So if my doctor prescribed me pork pills, and a Muslim pharmacist would not dispense them because they are not halal, I would just go somewhere else.  Even if it meant going to another small town because the Muslim pharmacy was the only one in my small town. That is a small price for freedom.

I still am amazed that Lisa and Zeke insist (over and over and over again) that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense their birth control pills is imposing their views on others but don’t see that forcing a pharmacist to dispense a harmful carcinogen that treats no disease and facilitates the objectification of women is the patient imposing their views on the pharmacist.  Why does the “freedom” to have sterile sex trump the right of the pharmacist to follow their conscience?

And I am still waiting for someone to come up with at least one medical benefit for hormonal contraceptives when used for contraception. Is it beneficial to sterilize sex to make it easier to treat women as sex objects?  Is it beneficial to make it easier to have multiple partners?  Note that before hormonal contraceptives became widely available there were 5 venereal diseases.  Now there are more than 50 and nearly 20 million new cases of STD’s are reported in the U.S. every year, of which half infect 15 – 24 yr olds.  But that is OK, it is more important to have this great benefit of sterile sex and to force pharmacists to dispense these carcinogenic, pro-thrombotic hormones.

I will pray for all of you, especially you ardent anti-Catholics.

William,
Asked and answered. Same benefit as NFP. Couples want to avoid pregnancy. Are you really unable to think of a medical benefit to using the pill for contraception? There are countless situations where a doctor would advise a woman that she should avoid pregnancy for a particular period of time due to her health. It’s also frequently prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons, so how is a zealous pharmacist to make that distinction? Rant all you want about side effects and STD’s, this has nothing to do with the Church prohibition of artificial contraception. This is plainly obvious since condoms or sterilization have none of these dangers. You should also note that I agreed with you that the pharmacist has the right to follow his conscience, regardless of whatever ridiculous beliefs they hold.
-
Spare us the silly stats from one small, non-random, poorly designed and biased survey from a pro-NFP group. NFP users have a <5% divorce rate? Should we conclude that abandoning the pill for NFP will decrease the likelihood of divorce? Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? All we can conclude from this is that ultra-pious Catholics divorce less. And there were only 5 venereal diseases a few decades ago, but now there are 50+ brand-new diseases that sprang into existence because of contraception? Thanks for the stats, “doctor” Bill.

RE pharmacists filling prescriptions:  It does NOT matter what the RCC thinks about birth control pharmaceuticals, it does NOT matter what the pharmacist thinks about birth control pharmacetucials.  It does not matter what bizarre ideas the RCC, the pharmacist, or William have about women having sex.

Here is the ONLY thing that matters:  A physician has prescribed medication for a patient, in consultation with that patient.  The pharmacist has NO right to interfer in the patient-physician relationship.  The pharmacist has NO right to decide that a woman is to be prevented from making her own choices about her body, her healthcare.  The pharmacist has NO right to make decisions for a woman or for any patient, especially when such a decision is not based on science, but based only on the pharmacist’s opinion about women and sex and the pharmacist’s faith tradition.  The pharamacist’s job, the pharmacist’s ONLY job is to fill the prescription.

Zeke,
Glad you agree on the conscience issue.  I think I outlined the other reasons why contraception is harmful, especially to women and relationships, regardless of the means chosen. In terms of the non-contraceptive reasons, I mentioned earlier that these are a valid reason to prescribe, but account for a tiny proportion of scripts.  If a women needs to avoid pregnancy for other reasons (such as women on a teratogenic drug) I would advise that they abstain.  None of the methods are 100% effective, and if their method fails they are in a bad situation which can be avoided by abstinence.  You will probably say I have no right to tell people what to do with their bodies, and in a way that is true, but I have the right and obligation to advise them what I think is best for them.  Hormonal contraceptives are not what I would advise.

In terms of the silly stats, please show me the stats that show that contracepting helps relationships.  One small underpowered study against nothing still wins.  Thanks also for the insult about the “ultra-pious” Catholics.  When you have no argument, throw an insult, it will hide your lack of data. 

For the STD data, you may be right, there were more than 5 STDs before the pill, but the era that it brought in of free sex has given us wonderful things like HIV, herpes, hepatitis C, throat infections with chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis, HPV, etc.  The number of cases of genital herpes has increased from 19,000 in 1966 to over 300,000 by 2009, and genital warts has increased from 56,000 in 1966 to over 350,000 in 2009 (see http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/surv2010.pdf).  While the incidence of things like syphilis and gonorrhea have remained stable, probably because of effective antibiotic treatment, chalmydia has also skyrocketed. 

Please send me your references that show the wonderful benefits of oral contraceptives.  I am still waiting for them.

Lisa, please stop copying and pasting your same comment over and over again.  You are better than that.

God Bless!

William,

I am not copying and pasting anything.  Its hard to beleive you area physcian if you think HIV, gonorrhea, et al are caused by ” the era of free sex”. STDs are caused by bacteria and viruses and many of them are of ancient origin.

Contraceptives do not harm relationships.  There is no science to that idea,  Who makes this stuff up?? The RCC and others who fear intelligent and independent women??  Those who who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant???  God gave us brains so we can responsibily control our reproduction.  Artificial birth control is part of that.  Women are human beings, and not chattel, not brood mares.  We are free to say no to pregnancy at any time for any reason. 

The RCC’s postion on artificial birth control is just a reflections of its medieval, illogical, irrational, unhealthy and immature attitudes toward women and and toward sex/sexuality.  The hierarchy of the RCC certainly ahs no credibility to talk about sex/sexuality or women.  The RCC hiearchy is just a bunch of old guys who shield pedophiles (becasue yes, its fine to sexually abuse children, but keep away from women!!) and who have a total disconnect toward any healthy or mature sexuality.

In this dicussion, the bottonm linse is that a pharmacist has no right to interfer in the patient-physcian relationship because of the pharmacist’s views on women, sex, sexuality or religion.

William V. Williams, M.D,
Thank you for mentioning the immune suppression effect of oral contraceptives which allow STD’s, including HIV, to spread more easily.

Kathleen,

There are a number of drugs for a number of conditions that suppress the immune system. When such drugs are prescribed by a physician for a a patient, pharmacists talk to the patients about this, but do not refuse to dispense the drug.  IF, contraceptive have such an effect, it is does not justify a pharmacist refusing to dispense the medication.

Lisa,
Sorry, but I wasn’t referring to the original issue of the article, just expressing appreciation for Dr. Williams post.

William,
I agree you have the right and obligation to advise patients what you think is best for them. In fact I’d say it’s a primary part of a doctor’s job description. Telling a married woman about the dangers of the pill fits that description well. On the other hand, telling her that a newly fertilized egg has a soul, and that the pill may interfere with implantation and developing past a small mass of cells and thus is effectively abortion, is not. Probably even grounds for malpractice. But this is of course besides the point. You are a doctor. It is not the job for a pharmacist to second-guess a doctor’s advice, and I doubt you’d be quite so accommodating if it happened to you. If a pharmacist suspects that a doctor is prescribing any drugs to patients without being aware of the side-effects, he should probably call the doctor to double check before denying the prescription. And please note that I am referring to the rights of a pharmacist who owns the pharmacy. If the pharmacist is an employee, I still support his right to object on conscience, but he should have no protection from being fired on the spot.
-
It seems each answer to your question is not acknowledge but merely rephrased. First it was “Where is the good that comes from contraception?” You ignored that answer and changed it to “I am still waiting for someone to come up with at least one medical benefit for hormonal contraceptives when used for contraception.” Now we’re at requiring “your references that show the wonderful benefits of oral contraceptives.  I am still waiting for them.” Once again “doc”, the benefits are the same as NFP. Having some undesirable side-effects doesn’t change the benefits. After all, what are the benefits of NFP, other than to avoid pregnancy? Are there other medical uses for NFP besides avoiding pregnancy?
-
No, I think ultra-pious is accurate, as any survey that measures Catholic women’s use of the pill shows. Birth control is birth control, artificial or not. As Mencken noted, Catholics may avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though they are still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. The health effects or increased incidence of STD’s is a red herring and is referenced nowhere in Church teaching. Are you really concerned that happily married, faithful Catholic couples are going to turn into swingers if they use the pill (or condoms, or sterilization) to achieve the same effect as NFP? Big Pharma might one day invent a birth control pill that is 100% effective and also whitens your teeth, increases your IQ, and makes us love one another more. But you’d still steer patients away from it for reasons of medieval dogma stemming from those like Augustine, who wasn’t even all that comfortable with sex between married couples, but an unpleasant requirement to propagate more guilt-ridden little Catholics.

Dear Lisa,
Thank-you for being so engaged.  Yes, STDs are caused by bacteria and viruses but are transmitted by sexual contact, especially with multiple partners.  Let’s face it, if the Catholic ideal of monogamous relationships was followed, there would be virtually no STDs.  Now let’s look at those “medieval, illogical, irrational, unhealthy and immature attitudes toward women and and toward sex/sexuality”.
1. Sex (as designed) can cause babies
2. Babies, as human persons made in the image and likeness of God deserve to be loved and cared for in the best way possible.
3. The best way possible (as proven by multiple studies) is in a stable family with 1 father and 1 mother.
4. Therefore, sex should occur in a stable, monogamous relationship where the spouses are committed to staying together.
5. Sex which is removed from the possibility of making babies (as in contraception) will result in men exploiting women as sex objects.
6. Women, also made in the image and likeness of God, should never be treated this way. 
7. Therefore, contraception, even in a stable married relationship, is wrong as it harms women.

Please tell me, in all of this, which part is medieval, illogical, irrational, unhealthy and immature.  Please do this by addressing a specific step in the logical sequence. Please respond to logic with logic, not with insults.

God bless!

William, 

First you discount the idea that many married couple use contraception, cinlcuing many, many married RCs.  Looked at the size of most RC families today?  Not 6-10 children.  Maybe 1-4 children.

Monogamy happens with gay people and many gay people and couples are parents of biological children.  Your"studies” are just biased findings by biased researchers who have an agenda.  The cRCC talks about the harm same-sex marriage and parenthood will cause to strigth marriage.  That is just a blanket assetion without any evidence to back it up.  The RCC cannot articulate the supposed “harm"o f same-sex marriage, because there is none.  It will have no effect on stright people or on the children of gay parents.  Lots and lots and lots of gay people are currently biological parents.  I am an old attorny who did a lot of representing of dependent, neglected and abused children.  The parents who abused, neglected and put their children in a dependent state were, 100%, stright people. 

Now we are all human beings.  None of us is perfect.  No adult is a perfect parent.  But if it come to harming children, the people who should be allowed to have children are stright people.  And if you want to see that in action go to the juvenile court in your county and attend the docket where cases of child abuse, child neglect and child dependency are heard.  Ther you will see case after case after case of straight parents doing egregious harm to children.  What you will NOT see is gay parents in those courtrooms.

Your items 5, 6,7 are just palin silly, an opinion, not fact, biased, patently false. Just plan the opinion of old men who have no clue—whose agenda is both patronizing and patriarchial.  Ideas by men who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, who think women are brood mares and chattel. Ideas by men who do not want to acknowledge that God’s gift of sexuality has been given to women, that women enjoy sex, and that women are free to decide for themselves if they want to have children or not. Ideas by men who are only comfortable with women as “madonna”. not as full, independent human beings. Sorry, your are not convincing, you are just plain wrong.

Your items-5-7 are illogical, immature, unhealth,irrational.  Women are autonomous human beings whose sole purpose on earth is NOT to bear babies. God gave us brains, and we use them to control our reproduction and our health.  Men trying to say that sex without the possibility of babies is wrong is just ridculous.  I am glad your kind of attitude is literally dying out

William,

First of you apparently not acknowledging the fact that many many married couples use contraception.  Including many mnay RC married couplse.  Notice the size of RC families these days?? Not 6-10 children, but 1-4.  The evidence is in tha th RCs have rejected Paul VI’s idea that artifical birth control is wrong. 

Your item 3 is just palin wrong. Ther are no reputable studies to prove your point.  There are studies by biased researchers, reaching biased conclusions to push ther bigoted agenda.  Currently there are many many gay people who have biological children who are doing a fine job as parents in their relationships.  The rCC’s notion that sme-sex amrriage and same-sex couple are harmful to amrriage and to children is just a blbigoted and blank assertion without any evidence to back it up.  The rCC cannot articulate the supposed “harm”  of same-sex marriage or of gay people being parents, becasue there is none.

I am an old attorney, who in my time practicing law represented many depedent, nglected and abused children.  Without excpetion, the people who abused, and neglected and placed their children in a state of dependency(which menas parents failed to properly care for their children), were 100% straight people.  I urge you to go to your county courthouse and attend the docket where cases of child abuse, neglect and dependency are heard.  What you will see is a parade of pathethic straigth people who cause egregious harm to their children.  What you will NOT see are gay parents.

We are all human, none of is perfect.  No adult is the perfect parent, no couple raises their child perfectly.  But there is no call to deny marriage to these strigth people or any call to deny them parenthood.

Your itme 5-7 are illogical, immature, unhealthy and without any shred of proof.  These are the ideas of men who whose agenda is both patronizing and patriarchial.  Who cannot deal with the fact that women are autonomous human beings whose sole purpose on earth is NOT to be baby-making machines.  Thesae are ideas of men who will not acknowledge that women are not chattel, not boord mares, that women have choices re their reproduction.  Thes are the immature and unhealthy ideas of men who cannt deal with the fact that God gve women the the gift of sexuality, the ability to enjoy sex for its own sake, the ideas of men who are only comfortable with women as “madonnas”, men, who like Ronald Reagan, call their wives, “mommy”.

Attitudes like yours are the attitudes of the taliban, of religious extremists and fanatics.  The ideas set out in your items 5-7 are not scriptural—they are the ideas of the immature and unhealthy and corrupt RC hierarchy who ae pedophiles and who shield pedophiles.

William,

First of you apparently not acknowledging the fact that many many married couples use contraception.  Including many mnay RC married couplse.  Notice the size of RC families these days?? Not 6-10 children, but 1-4. 

Your item 3 is just plain wrong. Ther are no reputable studies to prove your point.  There are studies by biased researchers, reaching biased conclusions to push ther bigoted agenda.  Currently there are many many gay people who have biological children who are doing a fine job as parents in their relationships.  The rCC’s notion that sme-sex amrriage and same-sex couple are harmful to amrriage and to children is just a blbigoted and blank assertion without any evidence to back it up.  The rCC cannot articulate the supposed “harm”  of same-sex marriage or of gay people being parents, becasue there is none.

I am an old attorney, who in my time practicing law represented many depedent, nglected and abused children.  Without excpetion, the people who abused, and neglected and placed their children in a state of dependency(which menas parents failed to properly care for their children), were 100% straight people.  I urge you to go to your county courthouse and attend the docket where cases of child abuse, neglect and dependency are heard.  What you will see is a parade of pathethic straigth people who cause egregious harm to their children.  What you will NOT see are gay parents.

We are all human, none of is perfect.  No adult is the perfect parent, no couple raises their child perfectly.  But there is no call to deny marriage to these strigth people or any call to deny them parenthood.

Your itme 5-7 are illogical, immature, unhealthy and without any shred of proof.  These are the ideas of men who whose agenda is both patronizing and patriarchial.  Who cannot deal with the fact that women are autonomous human beings whose sole purpose on earth is NOT to be baby-making machines.  Thesae are ideas of men who will not acknowledge that women are not chattel, not boord mares, that women have choices re their reproduction.  Thes are the immature and unhealthy ideas of men who cannt deal with the fact that God gve women the the gift of sexuality, the ability to enjoy sex for its own sake, the ideas of men who are only comfortable with women as “madonnas”, men, who like Ronald Reagan, call their wives, “mommy”.

Attitudes like yours are the attitudes of the taliban, of religious extremists and fanatics.  The ideas set out in your items 5-7 are not scriptural—they are the ideas of the immature and unhealthy and corrupt RC hierarchy who ae pedophiles and who shield pedophiles.

OK, Lisa, a few well-placed barbs are interesting, but pure insults do not further the conversation. Peace, we’re better than that.
-
William, you went off the rails and into the land of woo early there. Aristotelean logic doesn’t appear to be your strong suit. Statements like “sex (as designed) can cause babies” betrays a fundamental understanding of evolution and biology. But then to assert that “sex which is removed from the possibility of making babies (as in contraception) will result in men exploiting women as sex objects” is, well, hard to take seriously. I am an atheist. My only wife of 23 years and I have 4 children. After our last daughter was born, we decided that 4 was just right for us, and I had a vasectomy. I assure you that this did not result in my treatment of my wife as a sex object, despite the fact that unless 3 wise men appear from the east, there is no possibility of more children. If contraception has harmed my wife, I’m sure she would be quite surprised to learn that.
-
However, perhaps there is a learning opportunity for you that most other Catholics are already aware. Be cautious of taking sex and marriage advice from pious old men in a cult of celibacy, none of whom have known the touch of a woman. They have no idea. I also have no idea what would possess a faithful Catholic on these comboxes to masquerade as a “doctor”. Sorry Lisa, couldn’t resist. Cheers.

Lisa,
Of course I know that many Catholic families use contraception (see my comment above about the divorce rate of those who do).  And I am a convert, formerly pro-choice, but now pro-life because the hard data shows that abortion and contraception hurt women, and of course hurt the poorest and weakest among us, the unborn.  Item 3 is definitely correct, here is the link to one study from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf
If you think the CDC is bigoted and biased, please write to President Obama, he is their boss.
Of course, any child abuse is a horrible crime, and of course the vast majority of cases occur in families with a father and mother, as that is the vast majority of families.  All the credible research by unbiased organizations attests to the superiority of the nuclear family for raising children.  It is the truth.  Deny it all you like, it is still true.

2 gay people can no more get married that I can have a baby.  It is not biologically possible for a same sex couple to have intercourse and conceive a child so they can not form a nuclear family without the help of technology.

I am saddened that you think women have to deny part of themselves (their fertility) to be “autonomous human beings”.  Shouldn’t they be able to command respect from men without the allure of sterilized sex? Women have been sold a bill of goods that makes them think you have equality when in fact they have been denigrated.  I also appreciate all the insults and invective you hurl with no logic or evidence.  Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae made several predictions about a contraceptive culture. He predicted increased infidelity and moral decline, loss of respect for women (eg the Playboy culture), and abuse of power by governments (eg, the Chinese 1 child policy).  All of these have come true, so maybe those white haired guys are on to something?

Zeke- As an atheist, you must have great faith as the odds of the universe from the time of the big bang to just develop so as to allow conditions for life is less that 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 180th.  See this website if you really want to think about whether there is a God:
http://www.magisreasonfaith.org
In terms of sex removed from the potential to have babies causing men to view women as sex objects, let’s do a simple thought experiment.  You are fertile and you meet an attractive woman in a bar (before you were married).  You have a few drinks, a few laughs, and she invites you to her apartment.  When you get there she says she is on the pill.  What are the odds you will have sex?  If you have sex, what are the chances of respecting her as the wonderful woman she is?  Or do you think she is just an easy and convenient sex partner? What are the odds you will have a meaningful relationship and make a commitment to be with her the rest of your life?  Now lets say that in her apartment she says that she is fertile, and is likely to conceive as she knows her cycle. Now what are the odds of having sex?  Of treating her as a one night stand or “friends with benefits”? 

This is Lorraine, Bill’s wife.  I agree with everything he said.  I used to believe just as you believe but have come to see a different way.  Here are a few quotes for you to think about, not from “pious old men in a cult of celibacy” but from a woman.

“Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.”
~ Bl. Mother Teresa ~

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
~ Blessed Mother Teresa ~

“Abortion kills twice. It kills the body of the baby and it kills the conscience of the mother. Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.”
~ Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta ~

Hilarious.
Attractive woman: “Hi, young single fertile Zeke. Boy, these drinks are going to my head and you seem like a nice guy. How about we get out of here and head back to my place?”
YSFZ: “Hubba, hubba.”
AW: (at apartment) “By the way, I’m fertile,  and only will have sex with the potential to have babies!”
YSFZ: “Um, you probably should have mentioned that before you invited me here….”
-
Why dwell on silly pick-up bar scenarios when millions of faithful, married couples use artificial contraception to the same effect as Pope-sanctioned NFP? How has my vasectomy harmed me, my wife, or family? How is this in any way different that a zealous Catholic couple having sex if one of them is naturally infertile? Since contraception is never 100% effective, are pill users not more “open to life” than they are?

Just to add to the conversation, all pharmacists which now graduate are required to finish with a PharmD.  It has been this way for a long time.  Some pharmacists even complete YEARS of residencies and fellow-ships.  This stands for DOCTOR of pharmacy, no we are not just pill counters and robots.  We are very highly educated, professional, individuals.  We carry liability insurance just like other doctors in case we get sued and we have a lot of shared responsibility in patient care.  We take out jobs very seriously.  Unfortunately, society and even some medical professionals are oblivious to this.

Zeke,
I know you are an atheist and won’t believe this, but it ones your relationship with God that a vasectomy or contraception also hurts.  God has given us a gift of fertility, to be used wisely.  If we decide not to use it at some times when there is a good reason, that would require self control and responsibility, both of which are virtues.  People who use NFP become more virtuous for it, more self-disciplined and responsible, being able to regulate their urges and desires.  Contraception and sterilization say to God, no thanks for your gift, I am taking matters into my own hands.  There is no growth in virtue from using these means to avoid pregnancy.  So they are very different.

Pharmacist - great comment, I agree and have the greatest respect for PharmDs.  I hope the profession prospers and becomes more respected.

William,
Well, I believe that you believe it, and of course have no problem with that. So where does this leave us on this topic? We all seem to agree that the pharmacist has the right (and perhaps obligation) to make customers aware of the side-effects of prescription drugs, just as doctors should. That’s where the agreement ends. After much discussion, it is quite clear that you object to artificial contraception in general, not just the pill, as evidenced by opposition to other means of contraception that have none of the pill’s side effects. On the other hand, I think advocating that using NFP for the same purpose is merely splitting hairs, and can only be justified by Catholic dogma.
-
You feel that yours is a reasonable and compelling argument, and as such, advising a patient that every form of artificial contraception is harmful to them is perfectly acceptable behavior, regardless of their beliefs or a shred of medical evidence to support it. Even faithful, evangelizing, married Christian couples are wrong to use contraception, regardless of how many children they have, because they have sadly misinterpreted what God wants. Somehow, regulating their “urges and desires” in a lifelong committed relationship, despite also being God-given, is something He approves. We can’t even find this is the Bible, except perhaps of course for the ravings of Augustine, whose views on sex and women are beyond shame and credulity.
-
Is there any mystery why even only a small percentage of Catholics believe this? It’s because old men who pore over the Bible, who are commanded to celibacy, who deny their own gift of fertility and sexual urges (well, most of them…) and have absolutely no concept of love for a spouse or sex, tell you this is so.
-
Religious beliefs are a private matter, and should not have negative consequences for others in our pluralistic society. Do you not sense at least a trace of arrogance to assert that you have the truest bead on what God really wants, and thus the other billions of people on the planet have got it painfully wrong? I should note that on this point of theology, you are just as atheist as I am in most regards to all other religions, past and present. I just disbelieve in one more than you do.

Lisa “wrote”: “Attitudes like yours [Dr Williams] are the attitudes of the taliban, of religious extremists and fanatics.  The ideas set out in your items 5-7 are not scriptural—they are the ideas of the immature and unhealthy and corrupt RC hierarchy who a[r]e pedophiles and who shield pedophiles.”

This is a guilt-by-association, as well as an ad hominem and a genetic fallacy. It is also just pointedly stupid.

I don’t think the Taliban are well-known for putting forth arguments, whether good or bad, in seven bullet points. They tend to prefer straight-up bullets. What’s next? Comparing doctors and pharmacists who don’t want to inhibit a patient’s body to Hitler?

Ok, fine. I’ll admit it. Yes, of course. We want to control women’s bodies (I’m trying to create an easy-to-implant microchip), destroy women’s shoe lines, and guarantee that all women are pregnant at all points in time. There is just nothing us Catholic men love more than ensuring that women of childbearing age are perpetually in a state in which we must wait on them hand and foot and do our OWN cooking and laundry, not to mention how much we enjoy hearing them retch from morning sickness. Yes, we absolutely love inducing female suffering and utterly destroying their independence however possible. Plus, it’s great seeing women in a condition in which they are too sick to have sex. Men, of course, love any excuse to get out of sex.

Do you see how ridiculous that really sounds? If there were someone out there that actually DID correspond to your rhetoric, and if he were honest, this is exactly what he would say. I am not out to degrade women nor to degrade pregnancy in either its beauty or its trials, but I AM saying that there is absolutely no logical motive for anyone to literally “want women to be barefoot and pregnant” at all times.

In fact, if we were really as evil and selfish as you make us out to be, it would be in our best interest to ensure that women have access to contraception frequently: selfish men are definitely not willing to do the work of two, and would do their best to avoid it. Selfish men, of course, would do everything possible to keep women continually available for sexual enjoyment, as well.

Simply put: the owners of pharmaceutical companies producing contraception, Planned Parenthood, Playboy, and every pimp and sex trafficker in the world are the ones who benefit from free contraception, and you’re saying *our* side is so corrupt as to have no voice worth hearing? There is no logical way to fleece women from denying them contraception; there are plenty of ways to fleece women by providing them with it. If you want to start questioning motives, perhaps you should do the logical thing and start questioning those who actually stand to materially benefit from this and therefore have a logical motive for exploitation.

Zeke,
Thanks for leaving out most of the invective.  I once believed as you do, and understand your point of view.  I think I have set forth lots of evidence why the Catholic teaching on contraception is correct.  I have cited several papers. Here is a good summary article you could look at:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

I think Janet Smith summarizes it well when she notes:

What are the bad consequences of contraception?
It facilitates sex outside of marriage.
It increases the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
It leads to unwanted pregnancy and single parenthood.
It causes and leads to abortion.
It contributes to divorce and it contributes to social chaos.
Does anybody think there might be a reason to rethink our enthusiasm for contraception?

Religious beliefs are not a private matter.  They form the basis of our morality and form our consciences.  The myth of religion being private was manufactured for political reasons, it is not so. 

In terms of the arrogance of asserting that Catholicism is right and other religions wrong, oddly the Catholic teaching is that all religions have elements of truth in them and is very respectful of other religions.  However, as a convert I can assert that Catholicism is true based on the evidence, not on blind faith.  The reasoning follows:

There is more historical evidence for the Bible being written and transmitted correctly than any other book of antiquity, bar none.  So from the perspective of an atheistic historian, the text itself has been faithfully transmitted.  Within that text Jesus claims He is God and then proves it by rising from the dead, another historical fact if you accept normal, academic historical proof.  He also establishes a Church (“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” Mt 16:18).  In so saying He established an infallible Church that would safeguard the truth Jesus revealed.  In the Acts of the Apostles we see apostolic succession, and we know historically that Peter was the first Pope and we know that this office was handed on faithfully to the present time (see the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example).  We also see that the Church would be proven true by miracles and other signs.  Any truly objective look at the lives of the saints, and the miracles wrought after their death, shows that these miracles and signs have indeed continued to the present day.  Here are a few examples:

Guadelupe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe
Fatima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima
St. Padre Pio: http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm
A compendium: http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com

There are thousands, too many to list here, but any objective look at the actual data attests to miracles worked through the intercession of the saints.  All this together points to the Catholic Church as being established by God (Jesus), guided by the Holy Spirit, and worthy of trust.

I hope you actually read some of the accounts in these links.  I ask you to do an experiment.  Try praying, just talking to God as if He is really there.  See what happens.  Ask Him for something, but remember, He gets to chooses yes or no, so try to ask wisely.

I once believed as you do, but the weight of evidence is difficult to dismiss if it is examined objectively.

In response to Kevin Rahe, yes.

I found this on reddit subpage…

amateur homemade
http://www.reddit.com/r/amateurhomemade

Well I certainly enjoyed reading it. This post procured by you is very constructive for proper planning. backlink http://fiverr.com/twnseobacklink

In reply to Kevin Rahe… If it were not for birth control, my wife would have developed cervical/uterine cancer. I am sorry to tell you, but after 12 years of working in the healthcare industry, I can confidently tell you that bc is prescribed for many treatments other than stopping pregnancy.