Snyder Drug-Part 3: Can we argue the facts?

(Note: Part 1 can be found here.)

In reading the various comments about the Snyder Drug, made-up 'controversy' I am struck by the constant resort to hypothetical arguments.

Don't get me wrong; hypotheticals can be a very effective and legitimate form of argument. A hypothetical can offer simplification of a complex issue or focus an audience on the real issue in the midst of rhetorical 'noise'. Hypotheticals, to be effective, must be based on known (or agreed) facts or premises and should clarify the distinctions between the two contrary viewpoints.

My problem with the hypotheticals I have read so far is that they seem to extend the facts to create make-believe scenarios that are far removed from the present circumstances surrounding Snyder Drug. The farther removed, the less persuasive. Further, in my opinion, the initial resort to hypotheticals in the first resort is entirely unnecessary given the relative simplicity of the underlying issue.

Here's one:

"Now let’s consider the hypothetical case where someone objects to homosexuality so strongly that they refuse to dispense drugs used in the treatment of AIDS. Now, let’s move that pharmacist to a small town in western Montana where the single pharmacy might serve an area the size of New Hampshire. What does that patient do?"

Well, wait a minute. What does a lone pharmacist who doesn't like gay guys have to do with Snyder Drug? (Duh, don't get me wrong, I get "the point." It's just not very persuasive.)

If we're going this far, why not change it to a pharmacist in the middle of the Mojave Desert, with no other drugstores for hundreds of miles? Then, suddenly, a little old lady who once was a prostitute when in her twenties falls from an airplane. The Desert pharmacist knows this, so would he be justified in refusing to sell her Tylenol to soothe her broken bones?

Or how about this one. A liberal pharmacist in Great Falls, Montana, is minding her own business when in walks George W. Bush with an injury from an IED. Would she be justified in refusing to sell him morphine?

I mean, come on, folks. Why the stretch? Did you know that there are lots of different drugs that lots of different pharmacies don't carry for lots of different reasons? Why is it that in this one particular case some must stretch and poke and prod the facts to make "the point" just to hammer a couple of people who make a business decision in line with their personal beliefs?

Is it that important to those of you on the left to be able to control what people can do and can't do?


Anonymous said...

Let's consider the hypothetical case of a city of 70,000+ people with more than 20 private businesses(*) competing in the same market and one small store chooses to not carry a particular kind of product and refer their customer to a competitor that does. Oh, sorry, that's not hypothetical.

(*) source: Yellowpages.com

Wulfgar said...

AHA! Finally!

Forgive please, but it's taken seemingly forever for the Googlopoly to accept my login such that I can comment. Seriously, Gee Guy, I haven't been ignoring you or avoiding you. I apologize for my own incompetence in this manner.

I understand the free market will to diminish the concerns of "the left", just as I understand that the Anderson's have the right to do as wish, just as I understand that there are other pharmacies in Great Falls and people have the power to vote with their dollars.

However, your dealing with other's hypotheticals skirts the point. What if a pharmacy were to refuse to carry the medicines associated with the maladies caused by the sickle cell gene; heart desease, diabetes ... all because of a belief that the condition of being dusky skinned is a result of the mark of Cain? 'Sound far fetched? It was a prominent belief among Southerners and the Mormons until just recently. What if one were to refuse to show or provide real property to one who 'bore such a mark'? I seriously doubt that you or others would make light of such obvious bigotry.

Yet when the moral oppression is directed at women, regardless of color, it seems somehow natural to claim that cries of bigotry are overblown, unrealistic and alarmist. Not in the least, my friend. Yes, there are other places in Great Falls for women to fill their prescriptions, and despite your claim, most Missoulians are well aware of that fact. There are other places for the 'darkies' to buy homes, and the Jews to do business and the wetbacks to get work. But belittling the point doesn't nullify it. If anything, it puts it in stark relief to the way most of us feel we should be in a free society. Women are being descriminated against here, and that itself is enough reason for significant moral outrage.

I am in agreement with those who claim the others shouldn't call for 'the law' to step in and force pharmacists to act against their morality. But I feel somewhat hypocritical in doing so in a society that has laws prohibiting descrimination against minorities for such menial items as housing, health care and employment. It just doesn't make sense to me that half the people of the country aren't worth our consideration concerning their own rights to control their bodies.

GeeGuy said...

AHA! He lives!

And, I should add, AHA, a cogent analogy that makes it harder to ignore.

I'll have to think about this one.

Rooster said...

Wulfgar, I was concerned you had given up on us!

I usually 'lurk' around this blog, and avoid commenting on issues unless I have some insight that I haven't seen otherwise expressed.

Having said that, I do have a few comments about the Snyder Drug brouhaha (I’m sure others have made similar points, but I don’t get out much, and this is about the only corner of the ‘Blogosphere’ I frequent).

First, I defend the right of any private business to sell or provide only goods and services that they desire. Second, I too know the new owners of Snyder Drug. I like them, and respect them for the courage to honor their convictions.

Yet this decision to not offer a product based on its moral implications can be extended ad nauseum. I don’t have a Bible handy, but there are innumerable ‘sins’ that we in medicine treat. I would go so far as to proffer that greater than 25% of the diseases we treat are related to life-style choices, any number of which could be considered a sin.

Someone has already mentioned condoms; will they be pulled from the shelves? How about antibiotics and anti-viral medications for cold-sores, herpes type-I and type-II, urinary tract infections, yeast vaginitis, AIDS, etc.; all potentially sexually-transmitted diseases? Or my favorite, venereal warts?

What about medication to treat erectile dysfunction? Drugs like Viagra are some of the highest grossing products developed by pharmaceutical companies, and very lucrative for their distribution network of local pharmacies. Who knows, these drugs may be used by unmarried couples, or couples who in addition use a contraceptive, or even (gasp) homosexuals!

How about medication to treat the sequela of alcohol abuse? Tobacco abuse? Medication to treat the ravages of narcotic addiction? Pain medication to treat the results of driving without a seat-belt?

A great deal of what we treat is related to a sedentary lifestyle (i.e.; metabolic syndrome). Will drugs for obesity, insulin-resistance/diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and pro-thrombotic/pro-inflammatory states be eliminated?

You see, this circular argument can go on forever. If one were to follow a ‘rigid’ moral code, there wouldn’t be many drugs left on the shelves to sell!

Having re-read the above examples, I can see where each and every one is a flawed analogy in some regard. Yet my primary concern is that this decision to not fill prescriptions for oral-contraceptive pills implies a moral judgment. I guess I (naively) believe that those who chose a career in healthcare should be less judgmental…

GeeGuy said...

Wulfgar (and Rooster), as I considered the various hypotheticals you raised, and tried to distinguish them with a common theme rather than piecemeal, I guess I just came full circle. I think people have the right to sell the products they want to sell.

While I know enough about discrimination law to be dangerous (disparate impact and all that), to me 'true' discrimination requires motive or intent. I don't believe that Snyder Drug refusing to carry oral contraceptives is the same as purposely deciding not to sell to minorities. It is not as though they said we will sell them to men, but not women. (Yes, I see the potential fallacy there, Wulfgar, so you don't have to point it out!)

And, to the extent you can make an argument that this is discrimination due to its impact rather than its motive, I have a hard time allowing the "right" to oral contraceptives to trump the right to freely exercise one's religion.

So, I guess true to my more libertarian roots, if they don't wanna sell 'em, I don't think they should hafta.

And if a real case comes up where there is no alternative source for the product, then I'll reconsider.

WolfPack said...

Geeguy- Wouldn't you also have to define the discriminated class? In this case it would not be women in general but only women who use OCP's for birth control (there is no intent against women using them for health reasons, the pills are just not available). Is this a protected group? In my opinion they are being discriminated against on the basis of their behavior not their sex, race, national origin ...etc.
Rooster- I agree with you there are other drugs used to treat “sin diseases” but the difference here is the involvement of a third party. The other drugs mentioned only affect the patient. I think the differing position here is that the Snyder people consider OCP use to be a form of murder of a third party who is not the patient. You and I may not agree with this position but they do and aiding in a murder is different than aiding in a suicide (resulting from poor life style choices) both of which could be considered sins.

kalidikeds said...

There is a difference between a belief and a fact. Belief does not imply fact; I believed in Santa for many years, but you know what? My belief never made a difference. He just isn't real. You can't simply say that you believe something and let that be enough to dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

Now, you can say that you believe that the pill is akin to abortion, but that is a belief, not a fact. The pill does not cause abortion, and I would think that a pharmacist would know better. The pill works by mimicking pregnancy; the body stops ovulating, hence preventing the fertilization of the egg. It also thickens the cervical mucuous so that, if an egg is released, sperm has difficulty reaching it, again preventing fertilization. If an egg gets fertilized and implants into the uterus, the pill is not going to expell that egg. You will be pregnant. That is the reason why women are warned that they have to take the pill correctly and consistently in order to prevent pregnancy. You miss a pill, you could get pregnant.

That Mr. Anderson is using belief rather than established medical and scientific fact to make decisions to run his pharmacy is just plain wrong. What he is doing may not be illegal, but it is not right. I find it funny that people are applauding this decision, calling it a "moral stand" when it is ethically and morally wrong to deny a woman basic healthcare because you are uncomfortable with it. This entire thing just sickens me.

GeeGuy said...

Kalidikeds, do you consider the proprietors' religious tenets to be "belief" or "fact"?

kalidikeds said...

Well, geeguy, I'd have to say that all religious tenets are a matter of belief rather than fact. You can't exactly prove the validity of any religion, but proof isn't a part of belief, is it?

I was responding to what wolfpack said about Mr. Anderson's belief that the pill is akin to abortion, and therefore is assisting in murder, and therefore would be in violation of his religious and moral beliefs. The way the pill works is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact.

I think people get confused about religious freedom. You may hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, and you may live your life according to said beliefs. When these beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it is a problem. You cannot simply attach religious dogma to an action and expect people to regard it as sacred and impervious.

The main problem I have with this entire thing is the fact that this is a medical facility. This is not the same as choosing to stock Coke products instead of Pepsi or to keep Harry Potter books off your shelves. People have a right to receive basic medical care, and this decision has an impact on people's health. It is not part of a pharmacist's job to decide what medication is appropriate for a patient; that is decided by the doctor and the patient. Women should be able to get their birth control from any pharmacy they want, and they should be able to get it without judgement, shame, or impediment.

GeeGuy said...

Kalidikeds, I do not mean what I am about to say as offensively as you will probably take it, but part of what frustrates me about the 'other side' of this whole argument is the fact that they only seem to be able to argue it from the perspective that their rectitude is a given; the arguments are circular.

You state: "I think people get confused about religious freedom. You may hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, and you may live your life according to said beliefs. When these beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it is a problem." This entire point emanates from your fundamental belief that a woman's right to oral contraceptives is somehow superior to the free exercise of religion. I'm not confused at all. When you propose to require someone to do something he or she otherwise has no legal obligation to do, and what you require conflicts with that person's sincerely held religious beliefs, you are infringing on their right to freely exercise their religion.

Since there is no "right" to purchase oral contraceptives at any licensed pharmacy one chooses, how do you reconcile infringing on the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights in favor of a right that does not exist? In other words, as much as some might sneer at someone's mere "beliefs" or "dogma," these things are in fact constitutionally protected.

Thus, while you obviously feel strongly about your "beliefs," I don't think your arguments are very persuasive. And as much as I have defended my friends at Snyder's, I can see both sides of this issue. Minimizing people's constitutionally protected beliefs does not persuade me at all.

WolfPack said...

“Can you use several birth control pills at once for emergency contraception?
It's possible to use standard estrogen-progestin birth control pills for emergency contraception”

I found this quote on the Mayo Clinic web site (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-pill/WO00098). Sounds like the facts are not settled as Kalidikeds would like us to believe and that regular old birth control pills can be used for a morning after abortion. Will that get the Andersons an apology? I doubt it. I hate arguments like this where I end up defending someone I disagree with. No one in any real sense has been denied basic healthcare so why force the Andersons to do something they feel is against their religious beliefs. There must be hundreds of pharmacological products that the Andersons don’t carry but there is no cry of basic healthcare denial over these medications. Why? Because basic healthcare is not really the issue at the heart of all this. This is a debate over the Andersons abortion views mixed in with some thinly veiled religious intolerance.

kalidikeds said...

I'm not offended. Why should I be offended? As long as you don't call me a stupid poo-poo head, I'll be okay.

I understand that the Andersons are not breaking any laws and that their religious freedoms are protected by the constitution. That still doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. Another issue I have with this has to do with the pharmacy license, which is provided by the government. Now, I am humble enough to admit that I do not know if this has any bearing on what is being argued here, but it seems to me that it's a bit of a conflict when your ability to practice is directly linked to the government, which is supposed to be seperate from the church. Just a thought, don't smack me or anything. I never said that my beliefs are superior to anyone else's, nor did I intend to imply that. BUT, I am entitled to my opinion and my beliefs, and I have every right to get upset if I want to. Neener neener.

If the Andersons do not want to give out birth control because of moral reasons, fine. They should not be using inaccurate information to promote these morals. I said it before and I'll say it again: the pill does not cause abortions. That includes the morning after pill, or Plan B, also known as emergency contraceptives. From the same website wolfgang used

Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse. Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.

The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, progestin (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.

Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.

WolfPack said...

kalidikeds- I have a state issued drivers license do I have to give you a ride where ever you want to go? Geeguy (I assume) has a license to practice law; does he have to represent you for any case you wish? My wife has a state issued teaching license; does she have to educate ;)? The state licensure argument has little value in requiring someone to provide a service. Licensure has more to do with competence for public safety reasons. Again, why is only this one drug a problem? Would we be talking about this if it was Viagra they refused to dispense?

GeeGuy said...

Kalidikeds, I didn't mean to presume you would take offense. I have learned over the years that online 'discussions,' lacking the subtlety of eye contact, facial expressions, etc., can often lead to offense, and I just wanted to ensure this remained a discussion rather than an argument.

I don't think I ever suggested that you have to agree with the actions of Snyder Drug. That would, obviously, be stupid. You stated: "When these beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it is a problem. You cannot simply attach religious dogma to an action and expect people to regard it as sacred and impervious." I think a fair implication of that is that you believe that what Snyder's owners did somehow infringes on the rights of others. I disagree.

Of course you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, as are the owners of Snyder Drug. And you have every right to get upset about their decisions. I don't think I implied otherwise, and if I did I was clearly wrong.

But I think you are backtracking a bit. You approached this discussion from the standpoint that people have some sort of inherent right to be free from what the Andersons do or don't do. I disagreed. Now you are merely asserting you have the right to disagree with them. Of course you do.

I can't debate the science with you. I will only say that Mr. Anderson is someone I know to be a knowledgeable, reliable professional. I don't know you. So as between the two of you and your "facts" or "beliefs" about what oral contraceptives are or are not, the best I can give you is a draw.

You said above that "[p]eople have a right to receive basic medical care..." They do? Based on what?

In any event, as I said in response to Wulfgar, I have come full circle on this whole thing. Regardless of what you believe or the Andersons believe, it all comes down to this: They do, and should, have the right to sell or not sell whatever they choose.

kalidikeds said...

Yes, I would be equally upset if this case involved Viagra instead of the pill. But it doesn't invovle Viagra, and I doubt it ever will. This one little drug is such a problem because it is one little drug that affects women and women alone. Men don't typically take birth control, but I have a feeling that, if they did, there would be no controversy surrounding it.

I worry about this becomming a trend, as it has been happening more often, and not just in privately-owned businesses, but
in large chain stores as well. I worry that it will become more and more difficult for women to access contraceptives,
especially in smaller towns where access would be limited in the first place.

As it turns out, women do have a right to receive contraceptives, and this right is protected by the 14th Ammendment of the
Constitution. In the case of Griswold v Conneticut (1965), it was ruled that "statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates
the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." Later, Eisenstadt v Baird (1972)
deteremined that privacy rights as protected by the 14th Ammendment are guaranteed to individual women and not just married
couples. Now, this may not mean that a woman can demand that a pharmacist give her the pill, but I would think that it means he cannot outright refuse her access to it or in any way block her from getting it. Is Mr. Anderson handing out referals with his notes? Or is he just leaving it to the woman to find her own way to the pill? I know that this is a relatively small town; there are dozens of pharmacies that will fill such a prescription without a problem. But hey, I'm all for the good faith gesture, something to say that this isn't personal, it's just personal to me.

I have to say that I have cooled-off significantly about this whole thing. I still think it's wrong, but I'm not angry anymore. It helps to be able to have an actual discussion with actual intelligent people. Some of the other boards I've seen were just pathetic; people just don't know how to get into these kinds of issues without making it into a personal attack. So, even though I may disagree with you and vice versa, it's nice to be able to do so without resorting to name-calling.

GeeGuy said...

First of all, I agree that it is nice to be able to discuss things. Wulfgar taught me long ago that even leftists can be really good people. (That was a joke.)

While I appreciate your references to Griswald and Eisenstadt, I think your reliance on them is misplaced. In my brief reading of the opinions (I do have a job!), I think they are both referring to state action. This is not a state action case, this is private citizens making a personal decision.

So, while it might be a fine point, a holding that a statute prohibiting birth control to women is unconstitutional is not a holding that anyone who is able to sell drugs must sell oral contraceptives. Do you see a distinction?

I also struggle with the whole discrimination argument. It does not affect "women and women alone" because, if you think about it, women alone cannot get pregnant. There is one tiny little aspect of swimming maleness that is required. I just can't see it as a gender thing, and I really don't think that is what the Snyder Drug folks are doing either.

kalidikeds said...

I'm sorry, but huh? Men can still buy condoms just about anywhere they please, including Snyder drug, if I'm not mistaken. Heck, men can get condoms from restrooms. A man's ability to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is not being compromised here, and I don't think it ever has been. I hear that there is research being done to make a male pill, but hey, we'll see. That would be interesting...

Sorry, I digress. You say that this decision has no link to gender, but it does. The pill is not solely used for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, but it is solely used by women. It is used to treat endometriosis, to help women regulate their periods, to ease the symptoms of menopause, even to help clear up serious acne problems.

And while I see your distinction between a statute and a private citizen, I still think that this is a bit of a unique situation. A pharmacist is in a unique position of power; not just anyone can be a pharmacist, and not just anyone can sell medications. There is quite a bit of education involved, as well as an arduous exam required for licensing. (I'm still trying to find some concrete information as to whether or not pharmacists must take an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath that doctors and nurses take, but I suspect that there is such a thing.) The pharmacist is the last barrier between a patient and their medical treatment. You go to the doctor, get a diagnosis and prescription, the pharmacist fills the prescription and tells you not to mix it with aspirin. Because a pharmacist can deny anyone any medication based on moral issues (if they can do it for birth control, they can do it for other meds), they can directly violate a person's right to privacy. Now, I did mention in my last post that I realize that the cases I sited did not imply a woman's right to demand the pill from any old pharmacy she wants. I just think there should be alternatives offered. Sorry, can't get your pill here, but you can go over there. Then you can't really say that the pharmacist is violating anyone's rights, because he isn't trying to block her access to birth control. He's just trying to uphold his own moral standards, which I don't personally disagree with. Heck, if this were about the abortion pill, I would be defending him, even though I am pro-choice.

And really, there's nothing wrong with the lefties. They just write with a different hand. ;)

GeeGuy said...

Whew. You're wearing me out! :)

Women can't buy condoms? How unfair! Men can get birth control and women can't.

Let me posit one thing. How did Roe v. Wade come to be the law in this country? Did it have anything to do with someone following his or her conscience, rather than the popular mores or the law?

In other words, even if you were to find (or pass) a law that requires pharmacists to sell oral contraceptives, would you not still respect and support their taking a stand for what they believe? This is how the common law is made and I am sure you would not begrudge Jane Roe the freedom to do what she thought was right. Now I am digressing. Sorry.

Anyway, I am pretty sure I am not changing your mind, or you mine.

How do you feel about the coal plant??? :)

WolfPack said...

It’s amusing how this debate at times has a men vs. women tone. The pill has done more to improve the sex life of men in this country than any other invention I know. Yet one could walk away from many of the online discussions, as kalidikeds mentioned, thinking men have no horse in this race. As Geeguy points out, the concept of female or male birth control may be technically accurate it misses the bigger picture. Is one sex really hurt more than the other when different types of birth control are limited? If so end the debate by rolling out free BC pills and banning condoms so us men can shoulder the entire burden and claim credit for helping you gals out.

kalidikeds said...

Sure women can buy condoms, but only the man can wear them, and I hear SO many dudes complaining about that... Still doesn't change the fact that only women take the pill. Condoms do nothing for endometriosis.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with this guy's morals. I like morals. I have many of my own. Morals are good. Taste like chicken. But you know what, you can't start out dismissing my moral stand on this issue by introducing law and rights (or lack thereof) and then get all idealistic when I try to use law to defend my argument. Mr. Anderson is standing up for what he believes in. Well, so am I.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. That's just a pointless endeavor, and though I am ambitious, I am not stupid. (Well, I like to think I'm not stupid.) I just wanted to interject a perspective that I thought was being ignored. Maybe add some dimension to this. Make my voice heard, if you will. Doesn't that deserve some respect??

Oye. Now I have a headache.

Don't even get me started on the coal plant. Why are we even thinking about building more coal plants?

kalidikeds said...

Is one sex really hurt more than the other when different types of birth control are limited?

Yes! Men don't have to carry babies for the better part of a year. Men don't have to go through labor and delivery. Men don't even have to stick around to watch if they don't want to. You limit a woman's options for birth control, you limit the woman much more than you limit the man.

And again, the pill isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's also used to treat a variety of problems that are exclusively female. So you limit the pill, you limit a woman's access to medical treatment.

WolfPack said...

I may be stupid but don't all forms of birth control stop women from carrying babies? So what attribute other than aplication makes one method male and one method female? How did my side get saddled with condoms, I want a revote.

kalidikeds said...

Yes, all forms of birth control help prevent pregnancy, but all forms of birth control are not created equal. The pill happens to be the most universally effective method, aside from straight-up sterilization.

It doesn't matter if the method is considered "male or female." Thanks for bastardizing the point that I was trying to make, which is that only men can wear condoms--the woman's ability to protect herself rests in the hands of the man. If she takes the pill, she has control of her own reproductive destiny. And so help me, if you offer up the female condom as a reasonable or effective alternative to regular condoms, I will only laugh at your naivete.

How on Earth can you say that access to birth control is not an issue that only affects women? It seems so convenient how you like to ignore the fact that the pill is not used only for pregnancy prevention, and it IS only used by women. We are talking about something that affects a woman's body and a woman's health; sperm may be required for fertilization, but the pill has no effect on men.

GeeGuy said...

Well, I was done, but you keep pulling me back in!

"How on Earth can you say that access to birth control is not an issue that only affects women?"

Um, I think you need to take off your pink colored glasses for a minute. Yes, there are two genders, but humans are only one species. In other words, while your gender gets pregnant and has the babies, at any level above protozoa it takes two to tango.

You're a little gender-centric on this one. Access to birth control affects both genders. Not the same way in every couple (or coupling, as the case may be) but the fact is that unless you're talking about artificial insemination there's always a man involved.

kalidikeds said...

And again you ignore the fact that only women take birth control pills, and that the purpose of the pill is not limited to preventing pregnancy. This is a woman's issue.

I am well aware of how babies are made. The fact that it takes two to tango does not reduce a woman's right to decide when to start a family. It's still her body, and it's still her right to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy, and to make the necessary decisions in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

And now I'm done. I'm getting dizzy from all of this.

WolfPack said...

Well, I concede birth control is a female problem. I'll let my wife know. Anyone have room on their couch?