Activists on both sides of the issue say one Swartz Creek pharmacist's refusal to dispense the "morning-after pill" could eventually affect women's access to the controversial birth control method all across the nation.

Some say it could even impact the way people view conventional birth control pills, and shape far-reaching changes in employer/employee and doctor/patient relationships.

Brian Bundy is suing Target in federal court on claims he was fired from the company's Burton store for his stance against handing out a drug that can prevent pregnancy if taken up to 72 hours following unprotected sex.

He claims his Christian beliefs don't allow him to dispense the pills and says that Target knew that when they hired him.

When he refused to dispense it over the counter last year, Bundy said he was fired. Bundy filed his federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit on 30 Nov.

"This elevates this issue on a national basis which is where it should be," said Fenton Township resident Judy Zabik, director of Right to Life Lifespan of Livingston County. "The impact of these chemicals that terminate pregnancy are going to be discussed nationally and that's a tremendous education opportunity to help women understand the full impact of the drug."

Abortion rights activists are also watching the case with eyes wide open.

"Absolutely we should all pay very close attention to any kinds of efforts that the extremists are using to impose their religious beliefs over the beliefs of others and this is one of those cases," said Jim Richardson, executive director of Planned Parenthood of East Central Michigan.

Richardson said the case isn't just about birth control: it could have far-reaching effects on an employer's rights to enforce policies for workers, he said. 

If Bundy is successful, he warned, it could also set a dangerous federal precedent for allowing pharmacists to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.

Richardson does not believe pharmacists should block a woman's access to contraception and said the morning-after pill is a contraceptive.

"It does not cause an abortion," said Richardson.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to give out the pill, Richardson said he or she should give the prescription to another pharmacist.

"Pharmacists should not stand in the way of a woman having access to medications that are prescribed," he said.

The argument could be expanded to conventional birth control pills or any kind of treatment, he warned.

That's an argument that has split even staunch anti-abortion camps.

Both Flint Right to Life and Right to Life Lifespan oppose the morning-after pill and want the state constitution amended to declare that life begins at conception.

The Michigan and national Right to Life organizations remain neutral on the topic.

Zabik said the federal case could fan the flames of that divide, sparking renewed discussion of conventional birth control pills by re-igniting the controversy over when life truly begins. Both types of pill "make the womb a hostile environment," said Zabik.

"I hope this case does change and totally open the dialogue on the birth control pill because one is nothing more than a double dose of the other," said Zabik. "It's all very political. Some of the other groups don't want to have to deal with it because they know many, many women consider themselves pro-life who are using birth control pills. We're trying to stay true to the message of life." 

Flint Right to Life Director Judy Climer agreed, saying Target was trying to force Bundy into participating in an abortion by ordering him to hand out morning-after pills. 

"He has the right to object to that," Climer said. "The morning-after pill is clearly an abortion pill. If it's not an abortion pill, why do you take it the morning after?" 

States have also split on the issue since the Food and Drug Administration authorized in August 2006 the sale of the drug without a prescription to women and men over the age of 18. 

Several states have enacted legislation requiring all pharmacies to carry emergency contraception. New York is considering a law that would make it illegal for any pharmacy to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. 

Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota have laws that give pharmacists the right to refuse requests for emergency contraception. 

Bundy's is the first case involving a refusal to dispense that will be decided by a federal appeals court. 

A state lawmaker has introduced legislation that would protect Bundy and other druggists with similar beliefs by labeling them "healthcare conscientious objectors," said Climer. 

A Target spokesman has said the store values the religious beliefs of its pharmacists but has an obligation to customers. 

Bundy has declined comment on the case and his attorney, Jeanmarie Miller, could not be reached for comment.

Source: Flint Journal (Michigan), 8 Jan 2008