Religious Law versus Civil Law (5/25/2004)

A recent story highlights an expanding battleground. Two pharmacists in Texas, one at an Eckerd pharmacy in Denton and another at a CVS pharmacy in North Richland Hills, refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The first prescription request was from a 32-year-old married woman; the other request was for emergency contraception for a rape victim. The pharmacists’ reason for refusal? They oppose birth control on the basis of their PERSONAL religious beliefs. Their action raises an important question. Should personal religious beliefs override civil law?

To begin with, birth control pills are legally prescribed. Contraception is basic to a woman’s health care. In fact, 85% of all U.S. women use contraception at some point in their lives. The decision between a woman and her doctor to use birth control pills is based on the woman’s health and good medical practice. Furthermore, birth control pills often are prescribed for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. They are used to address specific medical problems such as controlling menstrual cycles during menopause, the prolonged absence of menstrual periods, and persistent abnormal hormonal patterns. Should a pharmacist, because of his or her personal beliefs, be allowed to refuse treatment of these conditions because birth control pills are used? Must a woman explain the prescription’s purpose so a pharmacist can determine if it fits his or her religious beliefs?

Many states have so-called "conscience laws" that allow health providers to refuse to give treatment that violates their personal beliefs. Illinois has such a law (Public Act 86-1324); it prohibits employers from discriminating against any employee who holds such views and protects any health provider from liability who refuses to provide treatment. In checking with my own local pharmacy, which is part of a national chain, I was told that their policy does indeed allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription. In that case another pharmacist is called on to fill the prescription. If another pharmacist is not available, the patient is sent to their nearest store. Since there is no other chain store in my town, a patient would have to find out where the nearest pharmacy is and then drive for hours to fill the prescription.

Health care services, particularly in the area of reproductive choice, are increasingly being eroded. Where will it end? Some religions oppose blood transfusions, organ transplants and inoculations. Yet, these are all legal and medically accepted procedures. Should a health provider who opposes blood transfusions, for example, be allowed to refuse to help a patient on religious grounds? At one time, some religions opposed medication for women in labor and the use of cadavers for medical study.

We have seen how religion, when it becomes THE state law in other countries, has literally justified persecution and killing of those who practice another religion. In America we have always proudly valued our pluralistic society, allowing all of our citizens to practice our beliefs in our churches, synagogues, mosques and meeting halls. But when some demand that their religion be imposed on others, we are headed for a theocracy. When a religious hierarchy demands that elected officials enact laws on the basis of their religion, not the wishes of the electorate, the very foundations of our democracy are at stake. Our U.S. Constitution is clear on its uncompromising secularism. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, states, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" Our country’s heritage has been to free religion from government interference and, equally important, to free government from religious interference. It seems we are losing sight of that.

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home