The city council of Austin, TX has ruled that as of September, 1, 2005 all Walgreens pharmacies within that city must fill prescriptions for "morning after" emergency contraception pills for women who receive aid from Austin's Medical Assistance Program.

This measure is the result of the refusal by many pharmacists on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for birth control and for the "morning after" pill, which is designed to prevent (or abort) pregnancy caused by recent sexual activity. Walgreens is that city's pharmaceutical contractor.

There are several sides to this story...

First, as Austin's pharmaceutical contractor, Walgreens has agreed to provide prescription drugs to all patients participating in Austin's Medical Assistance Program. It would clearly be a breach of contract for Walgreens to allow its pharmacists to pick and choose what prescriptions were filled. When cast in this light, the Austin city council made the right decision by requiring Walgreens to uphold its end of the bargain.

By creating the program, Austin obligated itself to provide certain services to that program's participants. By signing on as a contractor, Walgreens obligated itself to act on the city's behalf as a service provider. As employees of Walgreens, the pharmacists are therefore obligated to obey the terms of the contract. Seems simple enough to me.

What about the rights of the pharmacists?
Many pharmacists around the nation feel that the so-called "morning after pill" is morally wrong because it can possibly end a pregnancy and as such constitutes a form of abortion. They're correct. If conception has occurred, ending the pregnancy by any means except childbirth constitutes the death of a child; even if that child is an hours-old lump of cells.

However, that does not absolve the pharmacists of their responsibility to both their employer and to the city of Austin. No one is forcing them to remain at Walgreens. If they feel that they are being forced to violate their morals or religious beliefs then they should seek other employment. It's important to note that only Austin-area Walgreens stores are affected by this ruling. With the serious nationwide shortage of pharmacists it should be a simple matter for any of them to remain gainfully employed at a pharmacy that will respect their beliefs.

That of course opens yet another can of worms: What about the rights of the patients?
In this case, "patients" refers to women who seek to use the morning-after pill to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Let's face it... the morning-after pill is legal. If it's legal, then no pharmacy should have a legal right to deny it to any competent adult. To allow our religious beliefs to dominate public policy is the first step toward a theocracy. Those who believe a theocracy is a good idea need only to visit Afghanistan to see how wrong they are.

One must also consider the possibility that a woman may have been a rape victim, or that she may have legitimate medical issues which leave her vulnerable to injury or even death if she becomes pregnant. Does a pharmacist have the moral authority to tell this girl that she can't save her own life? I don't think so.

I'm adamantly pro-life, but in this case I'm afraid I must side with the city of Austin. I will salute any of the pharmacists who leave Walgreens so as to not compromise their beliefs. However, those who remain do so with the knowledge that they are expected to obey a legally binding agreement. To violate such an agreement is a violation of trust, and they will have earned whatever consequences are visited upon them.

How does this affect the "Big Picture?"
Planned Parenthood of course applauds Austin's decision since they see it as being beneficial to their pro-abortion agenda. In my opinion, it's a small victory if a victory at all. Austin includes contraceptives in its assistance program. Walgreens is the contractor charged with dispensing prescription drugs to recipients under that program. This is therefore not a victory for the liberal agenda. It's merely a case of a city enforcing a contract.

One could argue that this could signify the start of a dangerous trend, but I don't believe that such a thing could extend beyond liberal cities like Austin. America is by and large a conservative nation and those who serve on the thousands of city councils around the country tend to know what measures would adversely affect their chances at reelection. If a similar issue arises in your hometown, a bit of old-fashion grassroots campaigning in front of City Hall should be sufficient to stop it in its tracks.

The real issue here is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to fund what amounts to an abortion pill. Such an issue should always be put to a vote by the citizens, not by the city council. If the people vote in favor of it, then so be it. Otherwise, those citizens who are for whatever reason less fortunate than others should be expected to buy their own birth control.

And please ladies... tell me why you're allowing yourself to be put in such a situation? Have you forgotten that condoms, properly used, are ninety-nine percent effective? Have you forgotten that abstinence is one hundred percent effective? If your guy is unwilling to slide into a condom, then put him a pillow and blanket on the couch. Trust me... he'll take the hint and head to Walgreens to buy a pack of Trojans.

Alan Burkhart is a freelance political writer. You can contact him via e-mail at alan@alanburkhart.com or by visiting http://www.alanburkhart.com.