Todd has a post on John Thune's opposition to a bill intended to force pharmacists to sell contraceptives even if they have moral objections. Todd sees this as hypocrisy. Why is Thune for choice for pharmacists but opposed to choice for women regarding abortion?
This question makes sense if our only concern is about maximizing choice rather than concerning ourselves with what is being chosen. The pharmacist in question chooses not to sell a product which offends him morally. The woman and the abortionist chose to end a life (whether is is a human life with rights is a matter of some dispute, but it is indisputably a life). The question whether either of these choices is so grave as to demand a public response through the law.
Let's use Pepsi and Coke to illustrate the point. Some are Pepsi fans while others enjoy Coke. Those of us who prefer Coke do not think ourselves morally superior to those who prefer Pepsi. Nor do we attempt to use the law to punish those who are Pepsi drinkers. Why? Because the choice between Pepsi and Coke is literally a matter of taste. It is a choice in which the public has no interest. It is a matter of indifference.
John Thune, as a pro-life individual, does not think the choice whether to end life by means of abortion is a matter of public indifference. This is not the time to argue whether Thune has correctly assessed the moral implications of abortion, but he seems to have sincerely decided that the life ended in abortion is a life with enough moral status for the public to grant it some significant protection. Thus the public has the right to intrude upon this choice. Whether a women chooses abortion or life is not the same as choosing Pepsi or Coke. That's why the public might be interested in the former choice but not the latter.
I take from the tone of Todd's post (he does not say so explicitly) that he thinks the ready availability of contraception is so important that pharmacists should be forced to sell contraceptives whether they want to or not. The moral necessity of easy access to contraceptives is so great that the public has the right to intrude on the pharmacist's choice regarding what he will and won't sell. Yet Todd apparently thinks that the abortion choice is a matter of sufficient indifference that to even suggest a public interest in protecting that unborn life makes one morally suspect and worthy of the kind of contempt he heaps upon Sen. Thune and Gov. Rounds.
Both Todd and Sen. Thune are anti-choice. They are "anti" choices that they think do grave harm to the public. Todd and Sen. Thune differently assess the moral implications of the choices discussed above. I leave it to the reader who have reasoned better.
Update: Contra the implication of Anna's post, I have never taken a public position regarding a pharmacist's right to refuse to honor a prescription for contraception.
Recent Comments