A musician was left feeling “humiliated and disgusted” after being refused the morning after pill twice.
Tiffany Berton, a 28-year-old singer songwriter went to two different Boots stores in Ealing to get the pill as a extra precaution.
But both times she was refused the contraceptive, which costs £25 to buy over the counter, on moral and religious grounds.
She said: “I went to the Boots store next to Ealing Broadway station, but was told they did not stock it on religious grounds and was sent to the other Boots shop in Ealing Broadway.
“When I got there I was made to fill out a form, then the assistant showed it to the pharmacist, before coming back and telling me I could not have the pill.
“It made me feel like I was being judged and branded an amoral woman, even though I was being responsible.
Miss Berton, who lives in South Ealing Road, continued: “I was furious, but also humiliated and disgusted.
“I'm on low income and on housing benefits, and now is not the right time for me to bring a child into the world.
“Yet the way these people were acting it was as if they were saying your either single and celibate or married.”
She said she now intends to mount a campaign to stop pharmacists being able to refuse treatments on religious and moral grounds.
I expect it's those Christians again, with their idiotic ideas about celibacy and marriage. Honestly, it's getting as bad as America.
7 comments:
Quite right. There is no more somber enemy of good jazz/soul/funk than the pram in the hall.
I thought if they refused (as is their legal right, they had yo tell you where the nearest place that would dispense it was. Yet:" Helen Watkinson, a spokesman for Boots, said...a pharmacist should ensure they direct the patient to another pharmacist for an alternative supply if appropriate."
'If appropriate'...?
What, exactly, does that mean?
JuliaM
"If appropriate...?
"What, exactly, does that mean?"
Oh dear me JuliaM, do you not know? Appropriate means "that of which I (the person making up the rules) approve."
All else is "inappropriate." And therefore beyond the pale of civilised modern thought. :-(
If the only religious objection to abortion/MAP had come from Christians, New Labour would have forced them to comply on pain of losing their jobs.
Aside from that, I find this story curious. When I joined the pro-life movement a few years ago, palpably absent were Muslims. When I asked why, I was told that "they don't consider abortion their problem".
"now is not the right time for me to bring a child into the world"
And of course, the only possible way to avoid said outcome is to use the "morning-after" pill.
Oh liberals, what have you wrought?
Sure sounds like those stinking Muslim pharmacists are at it again, alright. Anything to screw with white Christians.
Evidently Julia M doesn't have a clue about pharmacy,
Pharmacists do not have the right just to sell the MAP they must do in appropriate circumstances. I.e we have protocols to follow - there are medical reasons why it shouldnt be given.
As to "the issue" - some woman, it would seem, is starting a campaign because she doesn't like Christians.
Whether people like it or not, life is sacrosanct, Christians use this as an opportunity to voice this with the MAP as one of it's mechanisms of action seems to be after fertilisation. I.E. that it stops the fertilized egg implanting in the womb.
They are not passing judgement on anyone's sex life, God is the Judge of that, and the Judge of all the earth.
Post a Comment