Pharmacists fired for denying 'morning after' pill DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said. Gene Herr said Wednesday he and two co-workers were fired January 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription. He said his own refusal was based on religious grounds. Eckerd has declined to comment on their employment status. Joan Gallagher, the vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd would say only that the company has taken appropriate disciplinary action. Herr, 33, of Denton, said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim, he said. "I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it." The two other pharmacists who were present also declined to fill the prescription. Herr would not name them. The rape victim had the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy. Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons. Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired. "In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he said. Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998. Taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. link
Good news. I also appluad the guy for standing by his principles, which I will immediately withdraw if he sues Eckerds for wrongful termination. However, judging by the article, it doesn't sound like he's gonna do that.
All three should have been reprimanded, seeing that they were ignorant of the rules. Of course, if they openly stated that their behaviour would likely not change if the incident happened again ...
Yeah, I haven't ever read my employment manual either. I wonder how many company policies I've violated (and am I violating one right now by being on this BBS?)?
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking them. I'm sure he was told to read the employee manual and be aware of the rules within. The fact that he chose not to is simply more evidence of his workplace incompetence. Who knows what other Eckard rules he was breaking since he chose not to take the time to read the employee manual and learn the rules of the company. Places I've worked that had employee manuals made me sign a document acknowledging receipt of the manual and noting that I am responsible for knowing the rules and procedures, etc. inside.
So by the same logic, the mayor of San Francisco should also be punished and abhorred by all of you. For some reason I feel he won't be. San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couple Email this Story Feb 12, 2:57 PM (ET) By LISA LEFF SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses. The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch. The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years. Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one.
So, you don't believe the doctor should be fired for breaking the rules of his job? Or you do believe he should've been terminated and feel that the San Francisco mayor marrying two gay people is the same exact situation (when, of course, it's not)? If the by-laws of the city of San Francisco state that if the mayor breaks any law, he should be removed, then yes, he should be removed from office. I doubt it says that though. I applaud both the mayor and the pharmacist for standing up for their principles, regardless of the consequences. Of course, the pharmacist could've possibly hurt someone else in the process while I'm not sure who's affected by two homosexuals in love being married, but that's for a different thread.
No, I was never against the doctor being fired for breaking the laws if thats what the bylaws said. What I didn't like was the way everybody on here called him a hundred thousand different names, pushing his agenda on other people, etc. etc. when the same excact thing is happening. The mayor decided to go against the law as is stated in teh first paragraph and is called an act of civil disobedience. All I'm saying is, don't look at people on here to get as mad at him as they did the pharmacist.
But there's an obvious difference. The pharmacist further traumatized a rape victim. The mayor, in doing this, is hurting no one. I understand why the pharmacist did what he did, but I can understand why people would be more upset at him than the mayor.
... and in the eyes of pro life people, helped to save a baby's life (let's see save a life over going through some pain) I can see where the difference wouldn't be there for someone who wasn't pro-life though so I'll grant you that point.
Uh, believe it or not... the fair city of San Francisco is so far left that half of our town sees Gavin as a right-wing fascist. (He's a left-leaning democrat). Seriously, people egg his house and deface his every campaign poster because... Well, I really don't know why. Because they are insane.
May have, even without the pill, the woman may not have become pregnant. Not every instance of unprotected sex results in a pregnancy. It's a safety net, rather than something that is taken only when the woman is pregnant for certain (unlike surgical abortions where the woman is most certainly pregnant). Personally, I don't think the mayor of San Francisco should be marrying gay couples in defiance of the law, either. To me, the way to fight the battles, if one is going to fight them, is through changing the law (either through the courts or through the Legislature) rather than through a largely symbolic and seemingly meaningless (legally) act, but that's just my opinion. I don't know who has the power to fire the mayor of San Francisco, though, or what the punishment for this act would be in the eyes of the law.
