6/03/2007

Snyder Drug-Part 2: The Rights of the Right

(Note: Part 1 can be found here.)

A "twenty-something graduate student studying English literature" has this to say about "reproductive choice" and the Snyder Drug 'controversy': "[O]ne of the reasons that the issue is important to me is that for pro-lifers/anti-choicers, abortion is only a place to start. They seem to want to control everyone’s sexual and reproductive lives and choices, and are in fact actively to work to limit access to birth control, sex ed, etc."

If that statement were re-written by the proprietors of Snyder Drug, it might say: "[O]ne of the reasons that the issue is important to me is that for pro-choicers, abortion is only a place to start. They seem to want to control everyone’s moral and religious lives and choices, and are in fact actively to work to limit the ability to practice one's deeply held beliefs."

Some rights do not present a zero-sum game. Voting, for example, is not zero-sum. In other words, my exercise of my right to vote does not impair or limit your ability to exercise your right to vote.

Some rights, though, can be zero-sum, in this case the 'right' to purchase oral contraceptives at any pharmacy open to the public. (Obviously, there is no legal 'right' to do so, but if we don't even try to elevate this to the status of a right, then the left's arguments here are even weaker.) In other words, if we are to recognize a right to purchase oral contraceptives, then we have to use the threat of government force (economic or physical) to require Snyder Drug to sell these prescriptions. This, then, necessarily imposes limits on the owners' ability to freely exercise their religion and follow their religious beliefs. In other words, when one gains, the other loses.

Given that fact, then, what right should prevail? The right of religious freedom, the very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (and some might argue the fundamental right that led to the founding of our nation) or some new right created by a majority of elected legislators?

"Since when does a pharmacist have the right to decide whether or not to fill your prescription and interfere in the doctor-patient relationship?" Um, since always.

Some complain, too, that their moral beliefs should be free from judgment by the owners of Snyder Drug. So, let me get this straight. You walk onto someone else's property, where they pay the heat bill, the light bill, and the phone bill, and you have the right to insist that they disregard their moral beliefs because there is a product you want. And yet you think your moral beliefs should be free from judgment by them? I cannot believe I am the only one who sees the disconnect here.

(Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I disagree with Snyder Drug's policy. I believe oral contraceptives play a legitimate role in adult, sexual decision making.)

UPDATE: The second quote is from Allyson Hagan, and not "kcbennett," a twenty-something graduate student who is "an ex-resident of Great Falls (and unlikely to return there, or to Snyder Drug, any time soon)"

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You should clarify that the second quote is Allyson Hagen's and not mine. And I should clarify for you that I am an ex-resident of Great Falls (and unlikely to return there, or to Snyder Drug, any time soon). -kcbennett

Treasure State Jew said...

It seems to me that the question is whether or not to patronize the store. I have seen quite a bit of the email flying around Great Falls during the past two weeks here; most of the messages from Great Falls people emphasize that Snyder's can do what they want with their property. Most of those emails have suggested patronizing a different drugstore.

It is mainly (not 100%, but mostly) out-of-the-area people that our proposing some new "right."

Anonymous said...

While I fully defend a small business owner's right to make decisions for their business, I find it interesting that their moral beliefs only kick in when their inventory is depleted.

GeeGuy said...

Why?

Anonymous said...

I must agree with anon; it seems a little selective to make a 'moral' decision only when the inventory is depleted.

Now if it is a 'business' decision to not carry a product with a low return, then by all means one would sell off the existing inventory, and then not order more.

By the way...I will defend Snyder Drug to the end in this decision. It is their business to do with what they like. In fact I respect them for their conviction.

However, for some in the fray it should be made clear that oral-contraceptive pills (OCP's) are not always used to abort a fetus.

My wife has taken an OCP's for nearly two decades now. She suffers from painful ovarian cysts. She even underwent surgery in the 1980's related to this problem.

Since that time her monthly episodes of pain have been controlled with medication. We stopped OCP's in the late 1990's in order to have children, after which time she resumed the medication.

I suspect she will remain on OCP's until she completes menopause.

WolfPack said...

"I find it interesting that their moral beliefs only kick in when their inventory is depleted. "

Could it be that by depleting inventory they are giving existing customers a reasonable amount of time to make other arrangements? This seems like a responsible way to enact a change of this sort. They get their drugs at wholesale cost so I doubt a few hundred dollars in stock verses thousands in lost revenue from the policy change even entered into the equation. I find it disturbing that people are so willing to suspend the rules of logic in order to demonize people who have done nothing but refuse to engage in an act that's against their beliefs. No one other than hypothetical people have been harmed so what’s the big deal unless this is just an easy opportunity for some to engage in the last form of acceptable public bigotry, Christian Right bashing. I would venture to say that the controversy would have been cut by more than half had the pharmacists been Hindu, Muslim, Native American or possibly even Jew.