[On the subject of cute WB shows, Gilmore Girls was actually good today, even though it largely concerned two characters that annoy me. Not great or anything, but a pleasant episode. Even Paris was not too much to take, which is hard since she has been so overplayed by now. I would add, fans will recognize this, the Paris/Rory relationship has such a comfort level by now it is striking.]
Before re-touching a past issue, let me comment on the latest episode of Related (WB Mon). After starting with another one too many romantic twist (back and forth ... except for the married one with the annoying voice), it went in a suprising serious direction -- the pregnant mom lost her baby. I fear when light entertainment tackles serious things, since it sometimes does not have the moral weight to take it. But, Related has shown some maturity among its standard fare, even if I wish the women were a bit more deep in certain ways. And, the episode was handled well, including the different ways the mom and dad handled things.
The episode also threw in another matter and did so in a nice low key way. The therapist sister goes in to try to "reach" the mom who drew within herself to be numb and we find out the sister had an abortion (the word was never used). The mom just could not take her being there at the moment (she had a choice, etc.), even though she admits that the choice was the right one for the sister. I simply do not know the last time the subject was handled with one of the main characters involved and it was said to be the "right" choice. A complication was that she had it at the beginning of her relationship with her boyfriend, so never told him. [She also is Catholic.]
This was hard for her, but again, it is not like (unlike the women in Sex in the City) she thought the abortion itself was simply horrible. Millions of women have had abortions. Apparently, the entertainment industry is ridiculously liberal. No taboos. Well, not quite. Ah, one should toss in Degrassi, but that is a Canadian show ... I had to ask someone to download the abortion episode, since it was not made available by the U.S. distributor.
Thanks Related ... as with the episode remembering the sisters' mom who died years earlier, you have some special moments and do them well. And, the sisters' father also shined in his few moments, while the dad who lost his child also was good. "Bob" is not a great name to our family, but he is a good one.
---
As to the pharmacist issue, one thing that stood out upon reflection is that we let stores not supply any number of non-prescription items, both health and non-health required. Sometimes, when they do not supply them (certain literature, including unedited for content or somehow controversial), we are upset. But, we do not think they have legal obligations to submit. And, some of these things are fundamental -- certain over the counter items are necessary for our health while other items are necessary for our well-being. Certain groups find this to be the case when they read certain information about their bodies or people like themselves.
So, I am not sure why certain types of prescriptions should be singled out -- and requiring all is even worse, since many are less useful than over the counter items, just more dangerous. Consider certain prescription diet pills ... often not much different than the non-prescription, but you are telling me pharmacies should be required to supply one, not the other? Or, is it because we do not like the beliefs the people involved, some who oppose use of RU-486 on first trimester pregnancies clearly for non-theraputic abortions. Abortions clearly secured by law and necessary to the well being of many women, but clearly not free of moral implications. Morning after pills are less morally complicated, in fact, probably less so than many things sold over the counter. Why should the fact something is prescribed be the test?
My middle ground: a law that give individual employees special rights in this area is too messy -- a consistent conscience regime (one that just simply is not supplied, especially in this area) would be too complicated, even if employers should try to accomodate when possible -- but employers should have the option. The exception is when access to important drugs (and in some states, line drawing is a factor) would be threatened when this occurs. In rural areas, where Walmart is favored, this will sometimes be a factor. But, in many cases, it simply will not be. And, this might not only affect pharmacists ... those important non-prescription drug items, you know.
Some might not trust some of these areas to truly protect access. But, again, pharmacists only are part of the problem. And, a basic interest is at stake here: an evenhanded respect for conscience, one that guides many who are demanding access too. They too are making conscientious choices, choices that the other side might not respect. But, the law currently does (except, of course, when its doesn't -- such as funding issues), and we must point this out.
Consistent moral respect is a fundamental interest in society ... one that just might hit you in its absence. And, it is not a free lunch deal. Freedoms have some cost. Dealing with Walmart in some cases just might be one of them.