On this issue, I’d rather see mandatory advertising. Discreet but clear signs like “This business does/does not sell contraceptives/abortions/morning after pill/whatever.” Or at least providing the police, hospitals and the like that information. Rape victims go through enough hell; they should have some means of being able to get what they need without having a pharmacist judge them.

I do not feel it is the place of government to force the religious views of others on people. That goes both ways. The government should not make a pill illegal because of the religious views of some that it is bad.

It also should not force the religious views of the many on the few by forcing pharmacies to carry those pills against the religious views of the owner, or pharmacists to dispense it against the will of the pharmacist, and the understanding they may have with the owner of said pharmacy.

Our government was founded on the concept of protecting people’s freedoms. This requires that the government act responsibly and thus remind people of the responsibilities that come with those freedoms.

I do not see any problem with legally allowing those people who believe that the morning after pill is morally acceptable to buy it. Thus far, all of the objections to them being able to do so are made on a religious basis, and thus in my opinion, it has no place in the law.

I also do not see any problem with stores deciding not to carry a product, and that decision being legal, as this is just a basic freedom that is taken for granted in all other realms of mercantile ventures.

As for the idea of these signs being mandatory… how many people currently read the little booklets that come with every bottle of pills? Not many, because there’s to much information. Why is there so much information? Because sometime, somewhere, someone decided that every bottle of medicine out there should have a certain kind of information on it. How long before small pharmacies just don’t have enough room for all of the signs if we go down the rout of mandatory signs?

If a person goes into a pharmacy and says “Excuse me, I need the morning after pill.” And the pharmacist says “I’m sorry, but we don’t carry that product.” “Do you know where I can get one?” “I’m sorry, I don’t keep track of what other pharmacies carry.” That should be fine, and that should be the end of it.

If, on the other hand, the pharmacist gets judgmental and makes the experience harder on the person, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the person to go to the manager later, and then for the store to be the target of negative advertisement if nothing is done. Such as word of mouth, etc.

I’m generally in favor of more freedoms, and less legal requirements. This leaves us all freer, makes it more likely people will actually read our laws, and makes it easier to fight legal battles without paying lawyers half your yearly salary.

If the legislative law can’t fit in a single book my grandma can carry around, it’s to big.