If Leonard Pitts has his way, pharmacists will be replaced by automatic pill dispensing machines. Just punch in your numbers and out comes your morning after fix. What need have we of a highly-trained professional, especially one with ethics that don't match Pitts' ideas of ethics? Should pharmacists park their professionalism and personal beliefs when that interferes with business as usual?
Pitts implies that no pharmacist is qualified to practice who doesn't share his own secular humanist beliefs. That's the religion that holds that it's perfectly OK to kill your own kids. You just have to get a doctor do the dasterdly deed for you before your child is old enough to make it out of the womb. Then, you cover up the atrocity by calling it "choice" or "a family decision."
Pitts has waxed eloquently about the importance of First Amendment rights when the subject is protecting a reporter's sources. Unfortunately, he just doesn't get the importance of the clause of the First Amendment having to do with "religion and the free exercise thereof" -- even for pharmacists.
Mary Ann Chimera