The Controversy

The Links
Goldstein
The Unpopulist
Balloon Juice (more)
Horologium

The Quick Summary
Smalltown, U.S.A., a pharmacist doesn't want to fill prescriptions for morning after pills, because of moral objections to their use. The controversy is whether the pharmacist's conscience trumps some duty to dispense the drug regardless of his personal feelings. We've got conservative against different-kind-of-conservative in a no holds barred match-up.

The Best Line So Far
Goldstein: "Not to be outdone, The unPOPULIST straps on his Ayn Rand codpiece and sallies forth into the fray." The mental image involved there is simply beyond priceless. When reading that last sentence, try not to think about my recent declaration that Ann Coulter isn't that hot.

The Crocodile's Wisdom
The question turns on the use of force. The outcome depends on the types of force you think are tolerable, under what circumstances, and who is allowed to use that force. Assuming a deadlock of persuasion - wherein neither party can convince the other to yield - the pharmacist uses his property rights in the drug (assuming he stocks them, which according to the story he does not) to force the customer to go somewhere else. Under those circumstances, can the customer use a different kind of force - that of the government's police power - to overrule the pharmacist's decision? Balloon Juice's John Cole thinks so. He therefore favors government use of force to resolve this private dispute. The Unpopulist disagrees, and therefore favors private use of force by virtue of nothing more outrageous than control of private property.

Phrased that way, I think there's only one logical conclusion for a conservative. The use of government force to achieve supposedly egalitarian aims to override individual property rights or moral decisions is precisely what conservatives accuse liberals of doing to screw up the country. Remember last year when Hillary Clinton had the brazen balls to state in a public place that government needs to take our money for the general good? Remember how conservatives howled for blood? How much more so should we howl when one of "our own" calls for the use of government force to deprive an individual of private property rights for some greater good?

But Goldstein hits upon an important point: "Similarly, I’d say this was a nice place for a competing business to open its doors..." Indeed it is, and no conservative principle needs to be violated in the process - certainly not the principle of entrepreneurship.

Man, those Ayn Rand codpieces are snug, aren't they?

"I'm sorry the ointment didn't help your Cenobite problem, Mrs. Sanders, but I just don't know if I can fill this prescription for The Lament Configuration in good conscience..."

Update: I do have one caveat I should add. In some cases, not only does the pharmacist choose not to fill the prescription, he refuses to give the prescription back to the patient, so she can't take it to a different pharmacist. I can't countenance that behavior, again based on principles of property and the use of force. The pharmacist has no property right in the prescription, and just as he cannot be forced to violate his conscience, he cannot use force to deny others their legitimate property rights.