Across the nation, pharmacists are refusing to give women birth control and emergency contraceptive pills because of personal morals and values. The pill is refused the most is the Emergency Contraception Pill (ECP), also called the morning-after pill.

BBC News tells the story of a New Hampshire single mother who was denied the morning-after pill. The pharmacist said “it would end the fertilization process of the egg in the embryo and, based upon his religious beliefs, it was wrong.” The woman was left without a choice and ended up allowing the 72-hour period to take place, no longer being able to take the pill even if she had access to it later. Fortunately, she was not pregnant.

Although ECPs are very different from pills like RU-486, which can cause an abortion within the first trimester, pharmacists who refuse to give ECPs say they cause a chemical abortion. ECPs are not abortion pills; they have higher doses of the same hormones found in the more recognized birth-control pills in order to prevent fertilization. Although over-the-counter sale is prohibited in the United States, Wikipedia mentions that the pills are available in many European countries as well as Morocco, Israel and South Africa.

The anti-abortion/abortion rights debate has gone too far. Women should be able to make decisions regarding their bodies without having someone else telling them what to do. If a woman knows that she shouldn’t go through with a pregnancy the day after sexual intercourse, why should someone deny an ECP to her? What if she misses the ECP and decides that her best decision would be an abortion?

Would those pharmacists and anti-abortion groups take care of the children of those women if they were born? Would they provide for those children? Maybe adopt the children?

Many say the choice to have a child can be made before intercourse. But if a woman does decide to engage in a sexual relationship, who are you to tell her what to do with her body and with her loved one? Yes, the couple can use protection, but it is not 100 percent effective.

What about a raped woman? Where is her choice? Some might still say she could make the choice of the places she visits and the clothes she wears, but rapes are not always connected to the “wrong side of town” or a woman wearing revealing clothes.

It might be easier to understand anti-abortion groups than pharmacists refusing ECPs, but no one should push government to place a law that limits women’s decisions.

If you wish to educate the public on the dangers of late abortions, you can do it. If you wish to give out brochures with bloody fetus pieces, go ahead — as long as you add a disclaimer for people with weak stomachs.

Still, in this country that has been recognized as the “land of opportunities,” neither the government nor anyone else should be trapping women in terms of their personal decisions. This country is not a theocracy. If these pharmacists’ morals are in the way of accomplishing their job, maybe a new profession would make their lives simpler.

And students, if you think your future jobs might conflict with your morals, don’t try to impose them on others. It might be time to begin searching for a new profession.