Wasn’t I just asking if there was even one Republican speaking out on this? Thank you Representative Bill Hinkle! It’s good to know that there’s someone representing us with some sense!
I just have one issue with your statement. Why should a pharmacist who, according to their professional and moral opinion, objects to prescribing certain drugs, even be required to refer to another pharmacist? Can’t he just tell the patient "IT"S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!"? Is a doctor who objects to performing abortions required to refer the patient to a doctor who doesn’t? But anyway, good for you, Representative Hinkle! Maybe you can help the rest of your Republican caucus understand this issue.
I haven’t read Hinkle’s statement but if he is supporting referral he is simply supporting what Planned Parenthood offered as their “compromise” position at the beginning of this debate. As you know, “referral” does not remove the pharmacist from moral responsibility or culpability — Just as a gun shop owner who knows of a customer’s intent to kill and refuses to sell her a gun and instead refer her to another shop owner does not escape culpability in any crime that is eventually committed.
Yes, you’re right. In actuallity, he didn’t really advocate the pro-life position or the position that supports the pharmacist’s conscience. I guess I got excited over nothing. It came from Human Life of Washington website, just a couple of days after I had been lamenting that there was no Republican speaking out on the right side of this issue.
Michelle,
I hope you didn’t read my article as promoting a compromise referal position. I think you both should read again. This issue is the Governor’s handling of a decision that the Pharmacy Board made. I wasn’t advocating what they compromised. The way this was handled by the Governor, should be a scandle, but of course this State’s political elite are so pro abortion that they will trample rights we thought would always be preserved.
You should still be excited. Who else said a thing?
Bill,
Here is what I read from your statement (directly):
“If licensed pharmacists do not have the right to refer Plan B consumers to other pharmacists, then is it a stretch to think that a state-licensed architect would be ordered to draft plans for an abortion clinic if called upon.”
Granted, that’s more than I heard any other Republican politician saying, but it was advocating the referal position. If I’m wrong, please explain. In your comparison with an architect, the comparison would be more fitting if he was merely required to refer the business to one of his co-workers or competitors.
Hi Bill. I went back and read your statement and I see that you did support the first BOP rule which was consistent with conscience. Thank you for that.
I think the stronger argument in favor of the pharmacists AND women is that this is a First Amendment issue. Denying a person their right to conscience — the first right of the 1st Amendment — necessarily results in a denial of their free speech rights and THAT is exactly with PP and NARAL want to do. Speak no evil about abortion or any part of their abortion enterprise.