SITE NAVIGATION
Home/Latest News
PFLI Store
Search for Items on this Site
Contact Us
Links
Join Us

 

INFORMATION
About Us
Our Locations
Laws/Statutes/Regs
Employer Positions on Rights of Conscience
Resources for you
Put PFLI in Your Will
Anticonceptivos post-coito: en Espanol
Human Right to Conscience Project

 

FAQs
ella INFO FOR PHARMACISTS
Plan B "Emergency" Abortion
Abortifacients
Conscience Clause
Natural Family Planning
How To Set up A Student Affiliate of PFLI

 

ARCHIVES
News Archives
Beginnings Newsletter
Stupid Sayings/Hate Mail
Barrie's Abortoholic Record

 

SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Conscience Clause
Kemikal Killing
Fetal Tissue/Infanticide
Carnegie Stages of Embryology

 

PAPERS
Model Pharmacist CC
Declar. of Physicians
Scholarly Papers

 

FIND
Site Search Engine
Find Pro-Life Pharmacies(ists)
Officers & Directors
Find Pro-Life Physician

 

BLOGS
Down on the Pharm
EastSideHunky's Klobasa Klub
Conscience and Health Care
Positive Pharmacy Ireland
Dispel The Illusion
Pharmacy Improvement Association
The Patriot's Eponym
Jill Stanek, RN
Abortion State
Pro-Life Pharmacy's Facebook

 

 




© Pharmacists For Life Intl








ORDER THIS IMAGE AS A STICKER YOU CAN USE DAILY IN MANY PRACTICAL WAYS...



ASK YOUR PHARMACIST TO NOT STOCK ELLA...

e-Check



 

Introduction

Welcome to pfli.org, the only website serving the profession of pharmacy as a totally 100% pro-life philosophy! All the pro-life pharmacy news and information that is fit to print and that the "drive-by" pharmacy media choose to ignore or misreport.

"The Pharmacists for Life International site, for example, in addition to having an incredibly sophisticated web design...." --radically bigoted and intolerant abortoholic website, "Feministing", accessed 16 Jun 2008 AD...thanks, girls!

Support PFLI and do something nice for someone! Order fresh flowers from Pro-Life Flowers, a division of PFLI, for that special someone on that special occasion. A portion of proceeds goes to PFLI. Just click here to place an order today!

Donate and Sign Conscience PetitionToday


Enroll for PharmFacts E-News <--- or ---> Search

Subscribe to the FREE PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update
GoodSearch logo

Web This Site



308,000,000 estimated deaths since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton
Estimated killed by all means: chemical, mechanical and surgical abortion since 1973

ExceptionsCalculator...see how exceptions kill preborn babies
            "It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..." -- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, 29 Oct 2007 AD        || "Conscience has rights because it has duties..." --John Cardinal Henry Newman..        || Embryology of the new human being confirms humanity of the preborn....        || Basic primer on genetics, cloning and other manipulations of molecular genetics....        || Told ya so: FDA & Plan B manufacturer Barr admit it's an abortifacient....        || From the Clinton Library & Massage Parlor: Mifepristone [Mifeprex] approval was paramount for Der Schlieckmeister and his admin as payback to the Abortion Industrial Complex....        || PP's Racism in Action with LA Advocate's expose' videos...        || Klan Parenthood's Report: $1+ Bill in revenues, $114 Mill PROFIT....290,000 killed by surgery....1.4+ Mill killed by chemical abortion        || PFLI exclusive expose of FDA MedWatch program failures, deaths from abortifacient OCs (9.4Mb)        || Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence        || JAMA article: patients' own stem cells provide diabetes treatment, no patients KILLED!...        || Hippocratic Oath makes a comeback; register now...        || Pres. Barrie Hussein's record against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act        || Pres. Barrie Hussein's abortoholic record since assuming office 1/20/09...        || Women have the right to know there are two breast cancer risks associated with abortion. All experts recognize first risk- that abortion denies women an opportunity to reduce their risk for breast cancer through childbearing. Scientists only debate the second risk - known as the "independent link."...        || Eight medical organizations and a bioethics journal recognize the independent link - that abortion leaves a woman with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she became pregnant. An additional medical group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has called for "full disclosure" of a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and the disease...        || Overwhelming evidence of a cause-effect relationship is supported by... 1. A biological explanation which scientists have been unable to disprove and do not challenge. 2. A study on rats. 3. Epidemiological research...        || Scientists began extensive research on the abortion-breast cancer link in 1957. Why didnít the government and cancer fundraising businesses want women to know about the existence of this research? If they cared about womenís health, they would have revealed their research to the public...        || According to the "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer (1973-1998)," published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2001, only the youngest of three generations - the Roe v. Wade generation - suffered a more than 40% increase in breast cancer cases since the mid-1980s. These were women young enough to have had access to legal abortions starting in 1973. The increase in breast cancer rates didnít take place among women from the two older generations that couldnít obtain legal abortions...        || The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collaborated on the report. Two of the reportís authors had conducted earlier research showing that abortion increases breast cancer risk, but that research and the word "abortion" were omitted from the report. The reportís authors expressed no interest whatsoever in preventing breast cancer. [Howe et al. Jrnl Natl Cancer Inst (June 6, 2001) Vol. 93, No. 11, Figure 3]...        || Two American women have succeeded in prosecuting their medical malpractice lawsuits against abortion doctors, who failed to warn them about the risks of breast cancer and emotional damage. Neither of the women has yet developed breast cancer...        || Post-abortive women are being deprived of a window of opportunity to adopt strategies to reduce their risk for breast cancer, seek early detection, and join clinical trials. Theyíre denying abortion-bound adolescents and young women their rights to make informed choices about their health care... ||


News and Content



Why a Conscience Clause is a must... NOW!

Recent events in the medical world point to the overwhelming need for a Pharmacist's Conscience Clause (CC) as a must immediately. One pharmacist in California was reprimanded, but not fired, for refusing to dispense the abortifacient so-called "morning after pill" (MAP). Several others have been fired or essentially forced to resign by firms such as K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Increasing pressures from chains, hospitals and anti-life minded executives bears negatively on those pharmacists who have a semblance of scruples to protect the lives of their preborn clients and the health of the latter's moms.

In this article, PFLI will attempt to pose some frequently asked questions (FAQs for those who are Internet conversant) on the issue.

Q. Why do pharmacists need a conscience clause (CC)?

A. Pharmacists are increasingly under demands and pressures in our contracepting/aborting society to "go along" in dispensing chemicals and devices which they know will be used to destroying a nascent human life at its earliest stages. While a random assortment of employment laws and regulations exist in various localities and states, they do not specifically address the unique situation of pharmacists to refuse to cooperate knowingly with the evils of contraception, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, among others, in violation of their sincerely held religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

Q. How will a CC be put into effect?

A. PFLI and other concerned parties are initiating CC action at the level of policy making in trade associations and at the state legislative levels.

Q. What is the status of the CC?

A. The CC has been passed in the US in Louisiana, Puerto Rico and California and in the Canadian province of Alberta by pharmacy associations. Several local associations have passed resolutions supporting the CC. It is being considered in about a dozen other states. On the legislative level, the CC has been introduced in WI with almost 30 co-sponsors. Several other states are exploring introducing the CC in similar form. Clearly, the landscape with respect to interest in the CC has changed dramatically since PFLI started the ball rolling for a CC 10 years ago.

Q. What prompted PFLI to pro-actively initiate the CC?

A. Two pharmacists working for Safeway in Longview, WA were dismissed from their jobs for refusing to dispense OCs knowing they act as abortifacients are various percentage rates. PFLI went to their defense publicly although the two were not members. In 1991, another pharmacist was forced to resign from the University of Florida for refusing to dispense the MAP to college girls at the university dispensary. After the 1987 incident, PFLI took the leadership initiative to have a universal CC passed to preserve the rights of conscience for pharmacists who refuse to violate their conscience. Doctors and nurses have had specific national and state protections for their rights of conscience. A universal CC would only give parity to pharmacy.

Q. Are pharmacy associations supportive of the CC?

A. In some states, such as those which passed the CC, state leaders have had the vision to see this is a pressing work issue which must be addressed to protect pharmacists and, ultimately, their clients. In some states, such as Ohio, the state leadership has actively obstructed democratic efforts to have pharmacists debate and vote on a CC. Groups such as the National Association of Employee Pharmacists have indicated a favorable stance towards the CC. As more pharmacists move to become employees rather than employers, the need for a CC is more apparent. In any event, the CC is a pharmacist professional judgment issue and not simply a "pro-life" issue. Pharmacy as a profession needs to decide are pharmacists critically thinking individuals who integrate their values into their work life or are they "mind-numbed" robots that are glorified order-takers for physicians.

Q. Can't the CC be abused by pharmacists as an "out" for refusing work or medically bona fide prescriptions?

A. While any law or regulation can be abused by a small minority, experience thus far shows that pharmacists who invoke the CC do so for sincerely held convictions and after much thought and negotiations with their superiors. Some have actually worked out inventive mechanisms for not violating their beliefs while attending to clients' genuine medical needs. In fact, the bill now pending in WI has a clause whereby the pharmacist must inform his employer in advance in writing of any objections and that employers are protected from liability in honoring such objections.

Q. Isn't "liberty or freedom of conscience" subject to abuse or too broad a phrase?

A. Liberty or freedom of conscience must be defined for what it is and what it is not given the vague implications it has been given by moral relativists. True freedom of conscience is the person's inherent right to know, love and serve God without hindrance, the right to practice his religion, and to see that the laws of his country (including association codes of ethics) defend and uphold it. Conversely, the moral liberal erroneously thinks that freedom of conscience is the complete independence of every man with regard to religion, the freedom to believe what he likes or nothing at all; the right to be in intellectual and moral error, and that it is his right to require that the laws of his country take into account his skepticism and his unbelief.

Q. If a pharmacist objects to dispensing, say, an OC/MAP he knows is abortifacient, is he obliged to refer that client to someone else?

A. A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health.

Material cooperation with such an evil can never be licit even if it may be lawful, as it is in today's society. In fact, pharmacists aware of the evil nature of such a scenario would have a duty as a pharmacist and a person not to cooperate in such an evil even under pain of serious adverse ramifications. Some authors, hiding their publicly stated support for any and all baby killing, have erroneously stated shameful opinions which equivocate on the rights of conscience and thus claim a pharmacist may have a right of conscience, but if all else fails, he must cooperate with the evil in our example. Such thinking shows the irrational absurdity and confusion in the minds of those who adhere to such ideas.

Q. Isn't the pharmacist who declines to dispense such chemicals "imposing" his morality on his client?

A. The pharmacist who declines to dispense drugs or counseling which he knows to violate his conscience, properly understood, is resisting an objective evil and, in fact, is doing his client a favor. On the contrary, those who wish to mandate dispensing of drugs under any and all conditions or whims are really the ones imposing a false, relativistic, secular and humanistic morality on the pharmacist who understands that he cannot cooperate in something objectively wrong or evil. Pharmacists are under no obligation, even if written in the positive law, to violate the Divine Law. This would include, but not be limited to any mandate to dispense or counsel for contraception, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is a grave error, which has arisen especially over the past 500 years, that a person may do as he pleases without negative consequences in both the temporal and eternal spheres.

Q. Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for:
  • Mifepristone (RU 486) type prescriptions
  • Plan B type prescriptions
  • Any birth control pill used as a so-called “contracpetive” (for either married or unmarried women)
  • Any birth control pill for any reason
  • Barrier method birth control (e.g. diaphragm)

A. In the past, pharmacists have been able to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs which are not profitable to stock, for drugs which might harm the patient, for drugs being sought for abuse, and for drugs which operate to harm or kill humans. Only recently have some drugs been declared "sacred" by some government entities so that businesses and individuals are being forced to dispense them. The current issue of controversy is that a large number of pharmacists wish not to dispense drugs which may operate by ending human life.

Q. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription based on moral reasons, should the pharmacist have to return the prescription to the patient?

A. All  clinical decisions of a health care professional are based upon moral grounds.   If you study morality, you will come to understand that it involves all actions of a person, and the determination of  whether the actions are right or wrong.    Morality extends beyond sex restrictions, despite what the drive-by media, Planned Parenthood and their fellow travelers teach.

In the past it has been considered wrong to dispense a drug with abuse potential to a person who is abusing.   It has also been considered wrong to give back  prescriptions presented by an abuser to obtain the drugs for abuse purposes.
Although killing or harming  humans is an abuse of drugs, it is has become customary, and sometimes legally required to allow a person seeking such drugs to retain their prescription.

Q. Should pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions have to transfer the prescription to another pharmacist or pharmacy? If no, why not?

A. They should not have to transfer a prescription for a drug which operates by killing humans, since killing humans is an abuse of drugs.   However it is a legal requirement to transfer prescriptions in some areas, but certainly not all areas.    It  was Not a part of Wisconsin pharmacy regulations, for example, but a Wisconsin judge has seen fit to write, and unilaterally pass  law on this matter.

Q. How do you balance the rights and needs of the patient with those of the pharmacist?

A. It is not the right of one human to enslave another human for the purpose of  killing a third human.   It is also not the right of one human to demand that another human provide any product or service.   Such demands constitute enslavement. Killing humans, or harming humans is not a legitimate part of  any health care practice.

Q. Is there a limit to what pharmacists can refuse to fill based on moral grounds?

A. Refer above to the statements concerning morality, and that it extends beyond  sex restrictions, and related issues.
It is the duty of any health care professional to refuse to harm or kill any human.

Q. How do you view the role of the pharmacist in the overall health care system in the United States?

Pharmacists are the last checkpoint for patient safety  with respect to the use of drugs.  The function of pharmacists has been so rapid and seamless as to be hidden from the average person who fills a prescription.     Patients who are under the care of more than one doctor,  who have been treated for HIV, or cancer, or on complex drug regimens are more likely to understand the life saving services pharmacists provide along with drug dispensing. There is currently a pharmacist shortage which will be exacerbated by the trend to require pharmacists to dispense drugs which harm or kill humans, in violation of their sincerely held Conscience and principles, and in violation of the Hippocratic Oath.   The elderly and the chronically ill people will pay a  large  price for the  effort to remove  pharmacists' clinical  authority which traditionally governed  dispensing of medications.   This is a health care tragedy.

Q. Where can I get more information on the CC?

A. PFLI remains the premier promoter and supplier of information regarding the CC, seeking its enactment by associations and legislatures. PFLI has also given consulting and legal support to pharmacists facing situations in their workplace. One can call, write, phone, fax or e-mail PFLI for information on the CC or by visiting the PFLI web site. Parties interested in the CC and promoting its acceptance in their state should contact PFLI immediately. Assistance, either as donations to our legal/education fund or as a local contact--is needed to introduce the CC at the legislative and association levels.

Pertinent contact info: PFLI, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281, toll free 1-800-227-8359 (US and Canada), (740) 881-5520; fax (570) 521-0892; e-mail: pfli@pfli.org; Internet: Pharmacists For Life International







Pharmacists For Life International, Inc - PFLI.org - ©MCMLXXXIV-MMXIV