Catch this paragraph from an editorial in the Seattle Times. The esteemed editors of the paper are ticked off at federal judge Judge Ronald B. Leighton for blocking the state from forcing pharmacists to dispense the "morning after pill." And their anger has obviously affected their reason.The move should not stand as a value of Washington state, that a pharmacist can interfere in a medical decision already made between a doctor and a patient. Judge Ronald B. Leighton issued the injunction in a lawsuit brought by Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia and pharmacists who do not want to be forced to dispense the drug often referred to as "Plan B." When taken within 72 hours of intercourse, the medication can prevent ovulation or fertilization but it also can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That does not meet a legal definition of abortion except in the minds of some pharmacists.
Good grief.
A couple of points here: 1) The conscientious pharmacist in question here isn't "interfering" in a medical decision. He is an indispensable part of it! It is he who must administer the poisonous drug. Thus, his part in the "medical decision" is critical. And he must, therefore, act credibly, honorably and according to the best information he has.
In their eagerness to champion abortion, the editors of the Seattle Times have lost their heads, suggesting that an individual doctor's decision is binding on everybody else. But, of course, it isn't. Nurses, hospital administrators, technicians, other doctors, and yes, pharmacists, who are involved in "medical decisions" must serve a higher goal than one doctor's will. They too are health professionals whose ultimate responsibility is the patient's well-being.
2) The last sentence of the paragraph is particularly goofy and again shows how a zealous dedication to abortion warps rationality. For instance, what on earth is a "legal definition of abortion?" Obviously the editors here are trying to suggest that an action that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg isn't really an abortion. But it certainly is. Such an action is post-conception and therefore is abortifacient. The science is clear and unequivocal.
And the editors of the Seattle Times know it.
But they don't want their readers to know it.
Thus the obfuscation, the sloppy writing, and the smokescreen about a non-existent "legal definition" of abortion which exists only in the "minds of some pharmacists." Like some people see fairies.
No, what is in the minds of conscientious pro-life pharmacists are simple facts of science, basic rules of morality, and a healthy respect for historic medical values; i. e. "First, do no harm."
But, like so many in the mainstream media whose passions for abortion distort their reason and make them act irresponsibly, the editors here at the Seattle Times would rather twist the truth than report it.
