Everyone deserves a decision
By Nate Hays
Barbara Boxer is eroding the rights of millions of Americans.
The California Democratic Senator is trying to pass a bill that would force pharmacists to fill a birth control prescription -- even if that pharmacist has moral objections to the use of birth control.
The question is not about the morality of birth control; it's whether people who claim to be pro-choice will honor the right of Americans to choose, instead of only supporting those with whom they agree.
By forcing pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions, Boxer seeks to elevate a "woman's right to choose" above every other liberty. If she succeeds, a "woman's right to choose" will turn into a pro-choice woman's right to impose her will upon others.
Pharmacists deserve to be able to observe their personal views of morality regardless of how "extreme" they may appear.
Conscientious objectors are able to avoid military service because of personal views regarding war. Isn't this the same argument? An individual's ability to follow his own principles of morality is one of the great liberties that we enjoy in the United States. Why would a legislator who professes to honor choice want to erode the right of the individual to choose?
I don't think that Boxer would object to a gun store owner refusing to sell handguns because he believes they contribute to crime, or raise an objection to a university refusing to allow military recruiters on campus because the administration believes that the war in Iraq is unjust. It should not be the responsibility of the individual pharmacist to provide birth control; that is a matter that should be left to a woman and her doctor.
Choice should not be weighed down by restrictions in this country. It is unjust for Boxer to support legislation that endorses one form of choice over another. The First Amendment, which guarantees a person "free exercise" of his or her religious beliefs, should not be steamrolled by Boxer's attempt to make a "woman's right to choose" the only valid form of choice in this country.
Is it reasonable to force people against their will to fill a birth control prescription? Or for a 12-year-old to have an abortion without parental consent? The answer to both questions is "no."
The age at which people in the United States are deemed capable of making serious life decisions is 18. A 12-year-old boy cannot purchase an issue of Playboy, but a 12-year-old girl can receive an abortion without parental consent.
Perhaps rational thinking can be the remedy to the political divide in this country.
* Contact Nate Hays at nthays@scu.edu.