practicing medicine without a license? And isn't that a crime?

It's hard for me to believe there are women who actually have no problem with having the duties of "devotion," "continual care and concern" and "unselfishness" hoist upon them. What's worse, they don't think the rest of us should have a choice as to whether we want to spend our entire lives doing this "in our behalf" (not sure who "our" is, but I'm sure whoever it is deserves to be catered to in every way by me simply because I have a womb.)

They are a business refusing to stock a product. They may be on the borderline with their claim that the pill is "dangerous," but all too many drugs have dangerous side effects, some much worse that the pill.

What I hope the people of Great Falls who are prochoice will remember is that, in addition to not filling other prescriptions at the this pharmacy, if they do not go there the pharmacy will not profit from selling the myriad of other things that are not drugs: cosmetics, tampons, tissues, razors, greeting cards, and so on.

People could also do a bit of doctor shopping and find out what doctors are calling in prescriptions to that pharmacy or recommending it. I see the potential for lots of interesting activism.

Just pointing out that some pharmacists are starting to do this raises women's awareness that we must be vigilant about our right to reproductive freedom.

Most pharmacies are part of insurance networks, at least they are where I live. If this were me, and I'd received a note like this, I'd kick and scream all the way up the food chain at my health care insurance.

If I were a corporate bean-counter with Blue Cross or Cigna or Aetna or whoever, and discovered that one of my in-network pharmacies was refusing to serve my clients on religious grounds, I'd drop them from my network faster than you can say "breach of contract."

Just a thought.

I'm sure they still stock drugs like Propecia which can cause birth defects if pregnant women touch it, as well as all of the other drugs with infinitely more severe side effects than birth control. Awesome.

"The sanctity of human life has always been one of our most cherished heritages"

I wonder if they sell cigarettes or rat poison or cleaning liquids? Most of these are not safe for living people, as well as the "unborn".

Are we sure that these pharmacy owners are actually pharmacists themselves? Many, if not most, pharmacy owners are actually NOT pharmacists.

The world just gets scarier and scarier. I am sure these same people voted for Bush and the war in Iraq. So they are implying death and injury is okay with them. This behavior and actions gets me so mad but what can one individual do about it....I can't believe this is 2007 and people with attitudes like this exist and they have the power to affect other people's lives.....This is just horrible and ridiculous...

The world just gets scarier and scarier. I am sure these same people voted for Bush and the war in Iraq. So they are implying death and injury is okay with them. This behavior and actions gets me so mad but what can one individual do about it....I can't believe this is 2007 and people with attitudes like this exist and they have the power to affect other people's lives.....This is just horrible and ridiculous...

I would bet a hundred bucks that this pharmacy is an independent one, or it would have been shut down by any corporate honcho.

In most states it is illegal for a pharmacy to deny a prescription for a drug unless there is a compelling legal, moral or religious reason that the pharmacist can give; that is the litmus test.

If the pharmacist has a religious or moral reason to deny the prescription, they may do so, but I wouldn't want to be that pharmacist up against the Board of Pharmacy in that state.

Sounds like these people are religious whack jobs who don't have a clue. They should be reported to the Board of Pharmacy in that state posthaste by Planned Parenthood. They can be denied the license to operate a pharmacy.

But not necessarily for religious reasons. I'm thinking strictly in economic terms. It seems that HMO's would much rather pay a portion of the cost of contraceptives than paying for a pregnancy. I don't know about anyone else, but my insurance covered the full cost of my pregnancies and subsequent births (2). The catch was that I ended up having two cesaereans. The first one was an emergency C and the second one was planned. I think my insurance company was way happier to pay that subsidy for my BC pills than to pay for the doctor visits and hospital stays that I would have needed to give birth a third time. Believe me, if a pharmacy wants to play this game especially what appears to be an independent pharmacy ( I don't recall seeing any name like CVS or Walgreens associated with this story) then the insurance companies would probably not hestitate to drop them as a provider. Then even if patients wanted to continue shopping there for prescriptions, they would be doing so completely on their own dime.

Hey principles ain't cheap.

there isn't anything which will appease these people so as a matter of BOTH principle and practical politics it is necessary to stand for the absolute right of the individual competent adult to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Y'know, as much as I find the Bible and the study of the Bible fascinating in almost all its permutations, there are times – such as when I'm reading an item like this - that I wish every human being back in 3,000 B.C. through the Fourth Century C.E. had been thoroughly and irretrievably illiterate. I'm getting so sick and tired of these people who make decisions for themselves, and try to make them for others, based on one collection of ancient and, for our times, obsolete writings.