In a part of this country very close to where I was last week,

"pro-life" pharmacies-- that is, pharmacies that refuse to sell any kind of contraceptive (including condoms and Plan B). There is a dilemma here. We feel constitutionally obligated to protect the right of these pharmacists not to act in a way they consider immoral. But where do we draw the line? A pharmacy might be a private business, but it's health care, and health care institutions have sensitive expectations held of them. But what about when contraceptive is a time-sensitive thing (as in the case of emergency contraception)? This just becomes, for me, another argument in favor of universal health care.
And, of course, you can't ignore the fact that for many of these pharmacists who refuse to fill BC prescriptions, their argument is based upon fallacy. Birth control (and emergency contraception, which is just a double dose of birth control) does not terminate a pregnancy; it merely prevents one from occurring. No egg is fertilized.

Basically, we have 3 groups of these refusal-pharmacists:
A. Those who simply misunderstand the science of birth control, or those who are prone to sway to the opinions of people/neighborhoods/customers that misunderstand it;
B. Those who understand the science of birth control but still oppose it on the grounds that sex should be solely for reproduction; and
C. Those who understand the science of birth control but believe that, despite all medical evidence proving the contrary, there remains a slim chance that the egg of a woman using hormonal contraceptive could still become fertilized. Because of the hormonal effects of BC, so the claim goes, this egg might then be unable to implant in the uterus. No one has ever proven that this has ever occurred. It is just maybe possible, and God Forbid we grant woman an incredibly beneficial pharmaceutical with a one in sex trillion chance of ending a life that is 1, arguably not a life at all, and 2, clearly not wanted.

Geez!