So, apparently, there is now a substantial group of pharmacists in Illinois and elsewhere that are refusing to fill prescriptions for RU486, the "morning after pill," and even other more conventional oral contraceptives for women.

Gee, the last time I checked, to be a pharmacist requires a state license...like a lawyer, a doctor, or a teacher.
It seems to me that accepting a professional license from the state carries with it certain requirements...like that you will fill any legal prescription that is presented to you. I may think that Viagra is immoral (I don't, but you get my drift) but that doesn't mean I'm free to say "nope" when someone presents a legal prescription.

I know that some folks are crowing about the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. But here's the rub...a pharmacist is, in some sense, an agent of the state....subject to voluminous regulations in order to have the license. Shouldn't that mean that, like teachers especially, some personal moral convictions must be relegated to private expression and not get in the way of fulfilling legal, statutory, public duties?

Why, if a lawyer must agree to accept an assigned pro-bono case (and s/he must) and a doctor must treat any emeregency patient that shows up (and s/he must), can a pharmacist get a free pass from fullfilling his or her legal obligations? Twenty-seven states have laws tht specifically let them do this. Why?

Why do I imagine that if there was a refusal to fill Viagra prescriptions those laws would somehow disappear?

And some suggest that in 2005 we are actually a gender-blind society? I think not.