So much for "privacy"

From the Houston Chronicle:

The city of Austin, Texas not only pays for the "morning after pill" for the clients/patients who use its city health clinics, it forces the pharmacies with which it contracts to

to fill prescriptions for patients on Austin's medical assistance program "in-store, without discrimination or delay," even if an individual pharmacist declines to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs.

How is it that this is such a private decision and activity that the rights of so many other people - in large groups, as thought they give up their individual identities and rights - must be restricted in advance and by laws and regulations?

Granted, Walgreens as a corporation has decided to contract with the city, and evidently agrees with this new provision that the city has added. So, there is no infringement on the right to property of the individuals in the corporation.

However, as the article points out, Planned Parenthood (why isn't this corporation dispensing their own poison?) believes the city's actions could be a model for other cities and for larger venues.

I'm not sure of the exact action of Plan B or Preven. No one is: as far as I know, the studies have not been done with the proper methods - using serial ultrasound on ovulating women. There's no money in proving one way or the other whether or not the protocols act as abortifacients.

But, I know that even a morally neutral action is unethical if it is done with an immoral intent - such as when these pills are intended to kill any child that might come to exist.

Or, as in the case of PP and the city council of Austin, Texas, to further champion a world where the smallest human beings routinely have their ultimate right - the right not to be killed - infringed upon.