:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

:: Friday, February 06, 2004 ::

First, I would like to express my sincere disappointment and sorrow regarding the conclusion of the case of Carlie Brucia, the eleven-year-old girl who was abducted and murdered this week. Like everyone, I had hoped for a much different outcome, and I am so sad thinking of not only what she must have gone through but what her parents will go through for the rest of their lives. No healthy parent ever gets over the loss of their child, and a "bad death" makes grief all the more complicated. They will have to live with this forever.

(Anyone find it appropriate to invite them to a weekend "healing" retreat?)

If you would like more information on how to prevent your child's abduction or how to help a child escape an abductor please order the Escape School Abduction video. I have it, and it helped me to prevent my own child's abduction at a park where a woman was trying to remove him from a swing and get him into her car. Scary stuff, but I had recently seen the video, and it encouraged me to stay hyper-alert constantly. It paid off big time and is well worth the measly six bucks.

We now return you to today's scheduled blog...

It has come to the media's attention that an Eckerds pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a pill that can act to prevent or abort a pregnancy. The drug is commonly referred to as the "Morning After Pill". If you're having trouble with the link manually type in:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news
8/stories/wfaa040202_am_pharmacy.79625125.html

The pill works to prevent conception, which is called "birth control", and to prevent an already living human being from implanting in the womb, which is called abortion. In the case of this pill, the woman doesn't actually know if she is pregnant or not, but the drug doesn't require that she does. The pill acts, and the swallower has to wonder for the rest of her life if she actually killed her child or just prevented a pregnancy. In the same way, the pharmacist has to wonder if s/he contributed to the death of a child. Some folks don't like to take chances with the lives of children.

When the pharmacist refused to take part in a possible abortion several "pro-choice" advocates protested the pharmacist's personal, private choice not to be an accessory, which just goes to show "pro-choicers" are only "pro-choice" when it comes to doling out abortion.

This case reminds me of the thing in New York where "pro-choicers" made sure med students no longer had a choice of whether or not they wanted to learn how to abort children but instead made abortion techniques required study. Why? Because not enough students freely chose to be involved in abortion. This worried the "pro-choicers", who decided to remedy the problem by invading peoples' privacy and rights and forcing them to study abortion. Their obvious duality invalidates such clever, overused slogans as "If you are against abortion don't have one." The bumper sticker should go on to say... "but if you are a med student or a doctor or a pharmacist, you had better participate whether you like it or not... or else."

The things I love most about the media report are the quotes. Media bias is fun if you're looking. It's like "Where's Waldo?" for adults. In this report Waldo can be seen quoting the pharmacist. The quote does not actually come from the pharmacist, it comes from a friend of the girl who spoke to the pharmacist (she said she said s/he said). So the pharmacist is represented by a comment the pharmacist may or may not have made.

I tend to think the pharmacist, who has a degree, probably understands the drug enough to relate that it is designed to prevent pregnancy and to abort a pregnancy. Unfortunately, the pharmacist is painted as a misinformed idiot who incorrectly assesses and informs others of the drug's action. Just like a pesky "pro-lifer", huh.

Now for the cream filling...

One of the protesters is quoted as saying:
"Pharmacists aren't supposed to play God."

Yummy!

First of all, "playing God" is just what the pharmacist does NOT want to do. That is the whole point. S/he is trying to stay out of the very natural process of a possible pregnancy. If the Eckerd's customer has become pregnant then a natural process will take place if not interferred with. Interference, however can effectively end the life of the growing child and THAT, my friends, is "playing God."

Pop Quiz:
Which of the following better illustrates the concept of "playing God?"

A) Person wants to force another person to participate in an activity that will possibly end a child's life.
-OR-
B) Person refuses to participate in an event that will possibly take a child's life.
-OR-
C) Person disagrees with Planned Parenthood and is not "pro-choice".

If you said A, then you understand the concept of "playing God". If you said B or C, congratulations! You are "pro-choice" and don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. The media wants to talk to you!

The same lovely protester went on to say:
"If you need the medicine, they should give it to you."

The first thing that comes to mind is that the protestor does not understand the difference between want and need. The second thing I wonder is if insurance paid for the pill. All I know is that when I had a tube sticking in my arm, wrapped internally around my shoulder, stuck into my chest and lying juuuuust outside the opening of my heart delivering life-sustaining fluids to my body tissues, I had a heck of a time convincing the insurance company to grant the pump prescribed by the IV techs who installed my peripherally inserted central line. I NEEDED a pump; a gravity drip would not do. My insurance said "Too bad for you," and denied me the NEEDED pump. Because of this denial, my life was put in danger and my health (and my growing child's health) declined significantly due to severe dehydration. This caused other problems and finally, my insurance gave in when faced with the possibility of legal action.

My pump was NEEDED. If I had gone without the pump (for as long as I turned out needing it) I would have probably died. Without the "Morning After Pill" the probablility is that the woman wouldn't have died but instead may or may not have had a baby. Let's put "life-sustaining treatment" and "lifestyle-sustaining treatment" on the balance and see which one weighs in at necessity. For women who conceive in rape it goes much deeper than a mere lifestyle issue. Even so, "I can't carry a baby conceived in rape" and "I don't want to carry a baby conceived in rape" are two different things.

Another protester's comments:

"After being raped and assaulted, to come into a pharmacy to get a prescription that is stocked there - an FDA-approved drug - and to be shut down, that's a second assault."

Killing a child is more of a second rape-related assault than being told, "Hey, I don't want to potentially contribute to a child's death." Even if the rape victim isn't pregnant, there will always be a question of "Did I or did I not kill my child?" That can be a second assault emotionally. Rape involves lots of secondary assaults whether you become pregnant or not.

A friend says people tended to blame her for the rape. That's a secondary assault. Memories still assault her when she and her husband are intimate. Etc. Rape is rape; it's horrible. You can't take a pill or have a surgical procedure and make it go away. Why kill or possibly kill someone trying?

This is my second favorite comment because it comes from the boneheads at Planned Parenthood:

"To be faced with a pharmacist who moralizes to her, we find outrageous."

Teehee! Since when is refusing to be involved in a possible abortion moralizing to someone else? Using the same logic, couldn't we say that by requesting the potential abortion drug, the customer is moralizing to the pharmacist that it's OK to abort the littlest, tiniest baby? That might be offensive to the pharmacist.

"Will you hit me in the head with a hammer?"
("No.")
"How dare you moralize to me!"

Roe v Wade is the biggest moralizer of all. It says that all these pregnant mommies who are patting their bellies and playing Mozart through their navels are a bunch of idiots because they've got nothing inside. It's wrong for them to think they have babies in there. It's wrong of doctors and pregnancy books to refer to the products of conception as "babies". It's wrong of women to grieve if they suffer a miscarriage or a stillbirth. After all, Roe v. Wade says those things that came out of their bodies were nothings. We who respect the lives of growing children are all, all wrong! And not only wrong, but BAD! Roe v. Wade, the biggest moralizer of all!

It's ridiculous. The customer asked the pharmacist to be involved in a potential abortion and the pharmacist said, "I don't feel comfortable with personally being involved in that." Sounds like these two are both making personal choices. But Planned Parenthood doesn't like it, because one's personal choice affects the other's personal choice. (They can't see that, day in and day out, that is what abortion is all about.) Now, are you jotting the rules down?

Rule number one: You are allowed to make your own personal choices as long as you agree with Planned Parenthood and abortion. If you disagree, you will be bullied, manipulated, insulted and misrepresented.

More from the PP protester:
"This is not a chemical abortion; this is a large dose of birth control pills to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

Hitler: "This is not a gas chamber, it's a relocation facility."

This is where I stop laughing. Deception never gives me the giggles. A friend of mine wrote just last week to ask about the "Morning After Pill". She went to dear old PP who told her exactly what the lying PP protester claims (and what the media printed) above. This friend was ready to down this pill, but she had suffered the loss of one child through abortion, and the resulting emotional pain is at times unbearable for her.

Something nagged at her regarding the pill. It nagged enough that she wanted to confirm that the pill could not cause an abortion. When she found out that it CAN act as an abortion, she was disappointed obviously, because she really didn't want to be pregnant. But she was also angry that she had been lied to by PP and relieved that she got accurate information before she had taken the pill.

By giving out false information, PP is making sure women do NOT have the right to make choices. If someone lies to you and says you could not be aborting your child when you could be, then you have not chosen potential abortion; they have chosen it for you. For some, the potential is more than they are willing to accept. My friend almost TOOK this pill because PP lied to her!!

In the media report, Eckerds, at least leaning "pro-choice" by the very stocking of the drug, reassures the public that the naughty pharmacist has been reprimanded for choosing not to be involved in the potential abortion. How comforting it is to the "pro-choice" movement that certain people are not allowed to make personal choices with their own bodies without punishment.

You've got to love those wacky, wacky "pro-choicers" for the vast amount of entertainment they provide if nothing else.

The bottom line in this debate is hey, if I don't want to help you kill someone then by golly I shouldn't have to. And if I'm not sure whether or not I am helping you to kill someone then I should have the right to err on the side of caution.

Confound it, folks! If people have the right to kill people then people ought to have the right NOT to kill people.

End of story.

:: ashli 8:44 AM # ::
...