This is enough to make a woman anxious, if not downright angry.

I respect pharmacists. They're careful, they take the time to answer questions and they do the best they can to help their customers. Often they catch on that there's the possibility of a dangerous drug interaction before the doctor does, and they are quick to let everyone involved know. The ones who dispense at the CVS we use have gone to bat for us with the insurance company and called us to keep us informed whether things went well or not. I truly appreciate this, as dealing with Aetna has been horrible from the get-go.

This isn't about pharmacists in general. This is about the one who use their tender religious sensibilities as a reason to not do the job for which they are being paid.

Just the emotional trauma rape causes is enough to allow a woman the morning after pill ('Plan B'). I know that after mine I was neither emotionally or psychologically capable of handling the stress of a pregnancy. It took a long time before I could even think about sex again without feeling nauseous and dirty. Being given Plan B must be such a comfort to a woman or young girl who has been attacked. In the midst of all of this trauma and suffering, she'll have one less thing to worry about. Imagine a 12 year-old rape victim being refused Plan B - even if she has her mother's permission to use it - because it was refused to her by a person to whom she has no familial connection and indeed has most likely not even met, yet this person feels confident that he or she can make decisions on the child's behalf. He feels perfectly comfortable stepping in to mentor the child spiritually without parental or doctor consent.

Think about that.

A pharmacist has no more right to do this to a grown woman regardless of her reasons for using birth control. If she has been raped and needs Plan B, it is his/her job to dispense it. Whether she is married or single, if she needs to take birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy it is his/her job to dispense it. If a woman has a physical condition that responds to treament with birth control pills, it is his/her job to dispense them.

His or her job. Employment for which payment is received.

I used to be a vegetarian. I wouldn't have gotten a job in a meat processing plant and then refused to handle the meat because it went against my values. That's ridiculous and I'd have deserved to be fired for it.

It's common sense.

If you hate kids you don't go to work in a day care center. If you're allergic to or just generally dislike animals you don't get a job in a kennel. If you can't stand the sight of blood you don't become a nurse. And I dare say most Pagans wouldn't want to get a job with a christian organization that would require them to distribute tracts or go door-to-door.

See? Common sense. If you can't dedicate yourself to doing the entire job, even parts you don't like, GO WORK ELSEWHERE. Don't expect special treatment, don't change the laws so you can keep drawing a paycheck while refusing to do the job.

WORK ELSEWHERE. Simple.

It's not just about a woman's right to decide whether she is or isn't ready to have a baby, though that's definitely all the reason she needs. If she doesn't want a baby no pharmacist has the right to judge her or refuse her the means to prevent pregnancy from happening. It's also about women like myself who have a condition that is treatable with the hormones in birth control.

Adenomyosis is like endometriosis, only instead of depositing the menstrual tissue that should be shed during a woman's period on the outside of the uterus, it is deposited on an inner wall, inside the uterine muscle. The result is heavy, uncontrolled, bleeding and pain. Lots of intense pain. It also causes severe anemia. My blood iron was so low my doctor wanted to put me into the hospital for blood transfusions. I was dizzy, weak and tired and always felt freezing cold (in July and August on the east coast, no less) because I had temporarily lost the ability to control my body temperature. It took six months for the bleeding to stop completely and it only did after three months of treatment with birth control pills. My energy levels are continuing to go up, I am no longer constantly cold and my overall health is continuing to improve.

All that will change if I am refused my birth control pills.

After reading the article I posted above, I did a little research to see if Maryland has any laws which would protect a pharmacist who denied me my meds. Turns out there isn't a written law that directly gives anyone that right, but we do have what is known as a conscience clause. The conscience clause states that a person who finds that a specific part of his or her job compromises their religious or moral convictions it is acceptable to refuse to do it on those grounds.

So it would be perfectly legal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill my prescription if his or her christian sensibilities were offended. If that was the end of it I suppose that wouldn't be the end of the world because theoretically it can be taken somewhere else, but another degree of difficulty is added when the pharmacist refuses to pass the prescription along to another pharmacist to be filled, or hand the prescription back to the customer. I'd be frantic. I would literally be frantic after all I have been through with this condition and the length of time it took to get it under control. I haven't bled in over three weeks, which is the longest break I've gotten since last July. The (nearly) constant pain is under control as well and my body is healing. I can not go back to feeling that way and dealing with the anemia, which according to my doctor was so advanced it was life-threatening.

And why should I? For what purpose? To satisfy the conscience of someone I don't even know, whose job is (ironically) to dispense medicine, not moral judgements? Would it even make a difference to such a person if I explained that my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 and there's not the slightest chance of me becoming pregnant ever again anyway? Why should I have to do that in the first place? Isn't that issue supposed to be between myself, my husband and my doctor?

I'd like to ask those who support the pharmacists on this issue, why is that okay? Why is it that everyone else who is employed in any other field is expected to actually perform the task for which they are receiving payment, but these sanctimonious pharmacists get the privilege of potentially ruining someone's health by refusing to give a woman the medicine she needs while claiming moral objection? Even if all she wants is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, how dare anyone interfere with that? She is taking responsibility for her own life and body. It is not part of the job description of any pharmacist to pass a moral judgement upon her, whether she is married or not, then act on that judgement by refusing to dispense her meds.

Do the job. Dispense the medicine and leave the moral and religious objections a the door, or find another field to work in. Theorizing about at what point life begins, whether or not preventing a pregnancy is equal to abortion, or what type of morality the customer is engaging in is NOT part of the description.

It has been suggested by several people online recently that pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control should be made financially responsible for the babies that result from their interference. I think that's a great idea, but it's a little too idealogical to actually put into practice. People who are anti-abortion actually seem to care very little for the resulting baby and child. They'll scream at women and harrass them at abortion clinics, yet not a single one of these protesters is willing to contribute to the care, feeding and education of the baby once it arrives. They've done their part by convincing you to have it. What to do with it afterward is your problem.

So now they're willing to go a step further by imposing their religious ideals upon a woman as she is trying to act responsibly or do something to protect her own health? What gives them the right to do that?

People who stupidly support these pharmacists need to think about this. It is not the job of the religious right to babysit the rest of us. Being christian does not make you superior to all others nor does it give you the right to act as another adult's parent, guardian or advisor. It does not make your judgement correct or superior, regardless of your belief that it endows you with rights and responsibilities over the lives of others.

And it does not give you the right to do something that threatens my health or anyone else's. Nor does it absolve you of responsibility when someone is harmed.

The christian god does not care if a woman is harmed by such a pharmacist, but I can guarantee that any one of them who refuses to dispense my meds will when he or she hears from my attorney. I bet after that they'll never do it again, even if they're still allowed to practice, which I doubt they will be. I will prosecute. My case will not be about simply preventing a pregnancy. It will be about protecting my health, and it will send a clear message to the religious right that screwing with a person's health is not acceptable nor will it be tolerated.

As I said before, check your tender religious sensibilities at the door and do your job.

Or find yourself another door. It's that simple.