Cosmo Thinks Women’s Rights Means Forcing Pharmacists to be Involved in Abortions

Opinion   |   Liberty Pike   |   Aug 17, 2015   |   7:11PM   |   Washington, DC

Last week, Cosmopolitan published a 2,174 word article in which Haley Potiker complains from beginning to end that pharmacists (at least for now) still have the right to morally object to participating in her abortion.

In fact, in this particular instance, the pharmacist wasn’t even objecting to her actual abortion. She wanted to get in contact with Haley’s doctor before giving her the second half of her chemical abortion pills. (Raise your hand if your pharmacist has ever wanted to talk to your doctor before giving you medication that has serious potential side effects and repercussions.)

Haley had already been given methotrexate by her OBYGYN Monday of that week. That drug would stop folic acid from reaching her developing child, which would prevent cells from dividing and growth from occurring. Five days after that, she was supposed to take misoprostol to complete the abortion. (Methotrexate alone is 20% less “successful” than taking both drugs.) Four days after receiving her prescription, she dropped it off at a CVS pharmacy. When she returned, the pharmacist told her she would not give Haley the drugs without speaking to her doctor first. Since her doctor takes up to 24 hours to respond to calls, it would likely be the entire weekend before Haley would get the misoprostol.

Haley says in the article that her major concern was that she may have some complications (presumably from the decaying baby inside her body) or that the methotrexate would fail (i.e., the baby wasn’t killed) and she would have to have a surgical abortion.

Ultimately, Haley took her prescription from the first pharmacist and drove to a nearby pharmacy where another pharmacist gave her the misoprostol within 30 minutes, no doctor input needed.

Haley went home and, ostensibly after completing the abortion of her child, began contacting drugstores to find out which had the audacity to allow their pharmacists to morally object to participating in abortions by physically handing her the medication that would kill her child. She found that the U.S. Constitution, surprisingly to her, still protects the rights of nongovernmental organizations, like private pharmacies, and of their employees to morally object to certain things. On a state level, unless a state has specifically outlawed freedom to object, companies can make their own policies. She spoke to the major drugstore chains in America about their employees’ rights to refuse to fill Misoprostol or contraceptive prescriptions under moral grounds.

She said: “Unfortunately, but somewhat predictably, the impression I got from having these conversations is that major drugstores, as a rule, are more concerned with accommodating their pharmacists’ possible religious and moral sensitivities than they are ensuring their customers have access to the medications their doctors prescribe them. “

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

It is not surprising Haley is shocked that in this age of moral relativity some people might still object to participating in the death of an unborn child. The mainstream media has presented abortion rights as such a foregone conclusion: “OF COURSE women deserve the right to choose!” College campuses are staffed with professors who teach that whatever is right for you is right, that there isn’t any outside morality you are obligated to.

I won’t be surprised if pharmacists are the next profession to be targeted by today’s morality police. The abortion rights movement, like so many other liberal movements today, does subscribe to a kind of moral law: if they have decided something is right (or is a right), anyone who disagrees should lose their rights. Feminists have no problem saying their rights override someone else’s rights. But if someone dares to suggest they have rights too and interfere with feminists’ rights, they are (give me a moment to say all the names I’ve been called for doing this) misogynistic, hateful, selfish, dangerous, cruel, persecutory, intolerant, fanatical, chauvinistic, etc., etc., etc.

I applaud CVS, Walmart, Walgreens and any other drugstore that recognizes America was built for the express purpose of protecting personal expression and beliefs. Haley may believe she has a right to kill her children, but many (a growing majority even) disagree with her. Their voices should not be silenced because she has a soapbox (here’s looking at you, Cosmo) and a big stick (now I’m looking at you, ACLU) to brandish at her detractors.

This article is dedicated to the sweet little baby who lost its life for the sake of Haley’s convenience. It is also dedicated to the 1.2 million babies who will be killed this year because nine men decided on January 22, 1973 that their rights were lesser.

Abortion…the biggest stick of all.