Reply #103: No, because they are used for more than just birth control.

[Lyric]

They are the primary treatment for conditions like endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Without violating a woman's medical privacy, how can a pharmacist know WHY she's taking them? And if a pharmacist is permitted to refuse to fill a prescription that MIGHT cause a miscarriage, well there are literally thousands of medications for thousands of conditions that could potentially cause a miscarriage. Shall we permit them to refuse to dispense misoprostol to female gastric ulcer patients, for example, just because it can cause a miscarriage of a pregnancy? Because a pharmacist is not automatically privileged to know WHY a patient is taking a medication, and because birth control pills are used treat medical disorders that have nothing to do with preventing conception, permitting them to refuse to dispense these pills is logically no different than permitting them to refuse to dispense ANY medication that MIGHT cause a miscarriage.

Even though I agree with the moral arguments given by others above, they are not my primary rationalization when I am making an argument to lawmakers. My primary argument is the one I just stated. It would be harmful to women if pharmacists were permitted to refuse them all medications that might interfere with a pregnancy, and pharmacists have no way of knowing whether a woman wants to prevent conception or whether she's a patient with endometriosis who needs the medication in order to control pain and bleeding. Therefore such refusals should not be permitted--ever.