There is some debate over SB 164 which is designed to force pharmacists to distribute contraception even if they have moral objections. The argument for the bill, one presumes, is that access to contraception is so central to human freedom (the bill calls it a "protectable interest") that not only must contraception be legal, but that the public should provide it (as we do through copious public subsidization of Planned Parenthood) and pharmacists must be compelled to provide this product. If they have moral objections to contraception they must be compelled by the state to violate their conscience or get out of the pharmacy game altogether. Pharmacists who refuse to distribute contraception due to moral conviction are not to be tolerated.
A thought experiment. We certainly have a fundamental liberty right to use our minds and talents as we see fit. This is the meaning of "liberty," a natural right listed in the Declaration of Independence. I have the right to express my ideas as I see fit and to put into my mind what I see fit. Of course there are some limits on this freedom, such as the time, space and manner restrictions on speech. But the general principle holds. So the question is this: if I have the desire to buy a particular book, one of some controversy, say, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, is the bookstore compelled to sell it to me? One could imagine a particular bookstore owner who refuses to sell this book. If one follows Goldberg's book blog, apparently such stores exist. Bookstores are necessary instruments for my desire to exercise my right, thus should they be forced to sell me the book I want?
Of course the answer to this, "No." The bookstore owner has his liberty right as well. He has the right to use his talents as he sees fit. So perhaps he runs a "progressive" bookstore which only carries left-wing books. He has every right, indeed both a constitutional and natural right, to do so. But, it may be claimed, some towns in South Dakota may only have one pharmacy, so if that one pharmacist refuses to sell contraception that places a burden on the person seeking contraception. First, this assumes that the government must not only grant a space for us to use our rights, but it must actually guarantee us the ability to fulfill our rights with minimal burden. Second, I point out that I live in a town with only one bookstore that sells new books. That bookstore is small and does not carry many titles I want. Indeed, when I wanted to buy Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons, which was on the New York Times Best Seller list at the time, I couldn't find it in that store. If I want most books I desire I must take on a burden: either going elsewhere to buy the book or ordering the book and paying extra shipping fees. I certainly can't get the books immediately, again placing a burden on me. But still we say that even though I face obstacles getting the books I want, I can still get them and the government has no duty to compel the violation of anyone's freedom of conscience for me to get those books. Indeed, we'd call it an abuse of government power if the government did.
Of course books aren't contraception. The fact that some may favor government compulsion in the provision of contraception but not in books only reveals how freedom of the body now trumps freedom of the mind. SB 164 suggests that sexual freedom without the consequences of pregnancy is so fundamental to human happiness that it compels violating the integrity of the pharmacist's mind. Perhaps the right to contraception is that fundamental. I leave it to the reader to consider the implications of that mindset.
Update: Mr. Ehrisman demonstrates the limits of "liberal" tolerance. Mr. Ehrisman believes there is nothing wrong with contraception, certainly a respectable view. But more than that he is so certain of his rightness that he believes any moral objection to contraception must be founded in irrationality. That is very convenient for him as it spares him the effort of having to grapple seriously with the the ethics of science as it pertains to human reproduction. He can just dismiss those who disagree with him as "wacky" and be done with it. And apparently he thinks the arm of the state must be used to force people to accept his view of morality. No doubt he will rest easy tonight, comforted by the belief that unlike those on the wacky right he is open minded and does not impose his values on others.
Recent Comments