by Matt Barr

Willing buyer, willing seller

There are so many layers of nonsense to the story of the Chicago area pharmacist who refused to dispense morning after pills to two customers, telling them they could come back later and ask for another pharmacist, that it's good to see Steve Chapman and the Dale Franks write it up.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich:

[O]n Friday, Blagojevich, surrounded by abortion-rights supporters from around the country, said his reading of the conscience clause was that only physicians, not pharmacists, can invoke it.

Blagojevich said he was taking a stand against a growing national trend of anti-abortion pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives. His order has the power of law unless reversed by a state panel.

Blagojevich, through his Financial and Professional Regulation Department, also filed an administrative complaint against Osco on Friday, charging the pharmacy with "failure to provide pharmaceutical care" and "unprofessional conduct" for refusing to dispense contraceptives to the two women in February. The state could fine or even ultimately close the store.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy is not allowed to discriminate who they sell it to and who they don't," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures. Just fill the prescription."

In weasel mode:

A bishop lectured Gov. Blagojevich Sunday night.

It came during a service of mourning for Pope John Paul II at St. Hyacinth's Basilica. Bishop Thomas Paprocki appealed to Blagojevich to rescind his order compelling pharmacists to sell contraceptives, even if they believe the drugs kill the unborn.

"Mr. Governor, out of respect for John Paul II, please respect his wishes,'' Paprocki said. "Please rescind your order. Let our pharmacists be free to follow their faith."

Blagojevich was seated near the front of the church. After mass, Paprocki and Blagojevich shook hands as the governor said: "I understand, I understand."

The default position in Illinois is that pharmacists must dispense prescribed medicine. As Chapman points out, this is just the kind of compulsion Blagojevich decries:

But "pro-choice" groups think pharmacists have no right to choose. "The role of a pharmacist is to dispense medicine, not morality," says Tracy Fischman, vice president for public policy at the Chicago office of Planned Parenthood....

The New York Times, which defends the right of women to control their own bodies by ending their pregnancies, thinks pharmacists have no right to control their own bodies by refusing to dispense certain pills. It editorialized, "This is an intolerable abuse of authority by pharmacists who have no business forcing their own moral or ethical views onto customers who may not share them." By this logic, however, customers are entitled to force their moral or ethical views onto pharmacists who may not share them.

So there's a health care "conscience clause," allowing health care providers to decline to give medical care that violates their conscience. You could get rid of a couple laws in one fell swoop if you codified the non-radical proposition that willing sellers -- or providers of a service -- should be allowed (and not forced) to transact business with willing buyers. That setup works wherever it's tried. Chapman:

In a free society, writers are allowed to write, and publishers to publish, material that others find dangerous, immoral or offensive. But neither they nor readers have a right to insist that bookstores carry what they produce. They are obliged to find others who are prepared to cooperate with them. And if that means their work goes unsold and unread, so be it.

The same principle of voluntary cooperation should govern this dispute. As long as morning-after pills are legal, women are entitled to buy them from willing sellers. But that shouldn't allow them to force transactions on sellers who are not willing.

He notes that doctors can't be compelled to write the prescriptions in the first place. What's more of a "hassle," governor, having to go visit another doctor or having to go down the street to another pharmacy, or come back to the same one later? Whatever you think of "conscience clauses," you can't think this disparity makes any sense.

Another layer of nonsense: Pharmacies are not allowed to discriminate in the hiring of pharmacists based on whether they are willing or not to dispense certain medicines. Willing employer, willing worker works wherever it's tried, too. Let businesses employ employees who are willing or aren't to provide a certain service. Whatever problems all these laws and regulations are meant to solve, it doesn't seem to be working.

Put your money on the pharmacists in this, by the way. They're unionized in Illinois.

Browse books from Amazon.com: