Topics

Birth control
The Associated Press

Protected, for now.

Featured Topic | Posted 1 week 2 days ago

Do women have a right to birth control?

More than 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a right to privacy protected the right of married couples to purchase and use birth control. But the last battle has not been fought: Last week, a federal appeals court said the State of Washington cannot yet enforce a law that requires pharmacies to dispense contraceptives over the objections of pro-life pharmacists.

Read More

Ben likes: The myth of a right to privacy

Rich Lowry/National Review

The mischief began 40 years ago in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, when the Court struck down a prohibition on contraceptives on the basis of a "right to marital privacy." The bit about "marital" was quickly dropped, and the new discovery became a general right to privacy.

In Griswold, the Court suggested the right might be found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and/or Ninth Amendments. In other words, it must be there somewhere, anywhere. But since the right to privacy is nowhere mentioned, the Court had to contend that it resides in "penumbras formed by emanations." In layman's terms, that means in partial shadows formed by emissions, which it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to conclude sounds pretty vaporous.

If Connecticut's contraceptive law was outdated and purposeless, the answer was simple: for voters to overturn it. Both the dissenters in the case, Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart noted that they opposed the Connecticut policy, but that didn't make it unconstitutional.

Read More

Joel likes: Public triumphs, private rights

Ms. Magazine

Although the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not explicitly guarantee privacy rights to individuals, such rights are implicit within the documents. The landmark ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 Supreme Court decision that extended these same privacy protections — and thus the right to obtain birth control — to unmarried women. It opened the door the following year to the historic ruling in Roe v. Wade, which expanded the privacy doctrine to abortion, granting women and their doctors the legal right not just to prevent, but also to terminate, unwanted early pregnancies.

Before birth control and abortion were legally and readily available, the average woman would become pregnant between 12 and 15 times in her lifetime. Even today in the United States, nearly half of all pregnancies remain unintended, and nearly half of those result in abortion. This is why polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the extremism of a determined minority and do not want the Supreme Court decisions that protect their private decisions to be overturned. Doctrines of privacy and equality for women are simply not separable: Eroding one imperils the other.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Emergency Contraception pill pack
The Associated Press

Controversial things come in small packages.

Featured Topic | Posted 7 weeks 2 days ago

Should pharmacists be penalized for refusing to sell birth control?

A Wisconsin state appeals court upheld sanctions Tuesday against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a woman and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere. The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen did not violate his state constitutional rights, specifically his "right of conscience" to religiously oppose birth control.

Read More

Ben likes: Pharmacists and compulsion

David Freddoso/National Review Online

At the core of the debate is the notion of government compulsion, always a worse form of tyranny than mere prohibition. Compulsion is an extremely dangerous thing that should be avoided whenever possible, even when it could reasonably be considered legitimate. An example: We hate the military draft in this country, and rightly so. Even when the draft is in effect, we let draftees attain status as conscientious objectors.

So why, then, on arguably the most contentious political issue in America (abortion), would we even consider compelling people on either side to actively violate their consciences? Even if the nearest pharmacist is on Mars, why would we use such a horrible tool as compulsion for the sake of a completely imaginary "right" to purchase a particular product? Even when there is no conscience aspect involved, can we ever compel sales of any particular product without trampling on fundamental personal rights? 

Read More

Joel likes: Pharmacists and conscience

Katherine Hancock Ragsdale/via DakotaWomen

But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences -- that others pay the price for their principles.

This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them!

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

Ads by Google