Two years ago a Massachusetts court required Wal-Mart, the fifth largest pharmaceutical provider in the U.S., to reverse its decision to block access to emergency contraceptives (also called “morning after pills” or “EC’s”). The company said it “chooses not to carry many products for business reasons,” but more likely it was because of a moral judgment by the retail giant’s leadership. (A former Wal-Mart exec was quoted as saying “[T]he basis of our decisions was the values of Scripture” in Christianity Today.)
Here in Washington state, the battle rages on. A federal judge recently ruled that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for EC’s on the basis of their religious beliefs. This ruling was rendered ineffective when EC’s were subsequently made available as over the counter medications to anyone 18 or older.
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that the same pharmacists who vehemently object to dispensing EC’s on “moral grounds” seem to have no qualms about filling scrips for the erectile-dysfunction (“ED”) drugs Viagra and Cialis. I’m pretty sure women can’t get pregnant on their own. I’m also confident that more than a few men who take ED’s to have sex (whether they actually need them or not) are unmarried. Because Christians frown on pre-marital sex, shouldn’t these same pharmacists also refuse to dispense ED’s?
In a related vein, why do we see numerous commercials for Viagra or Cialis but none for birth control (EC or otherwise)? These suggestive ads, always narrated by attractive younger women, invariably depict how a man can reclaim his youthful vigor and make hours-long love by simply “asking his doctor for a free trial dose.”
The sexism couldn’t be more apparent. No wonder feminists are pissed.