So yes, the Supreme Court supremely botched this issue from the beginning. And Thomasson made the biggest botch of all when he decided that scientific and legal standards are more important than religious standards. I quote now the last paragraph of his column: “Doctors and pharmacists who form associations based on religious convictions seem beholden to standards other than science and the care of all patients required by their oath.” Why yes, Mr. Thomasson, they are bound to standards other than science and the Hippocratic oath, higher standards, and this is as it should be, especially since the morning-after pill has nothing to do with saving a mother’s life. It’s not like there’s a woman on the floor bleeding to death and the pharmacist is ignoring her. The morning-after pill amounts to a contraceptive version of elective surgery, and elective surgery is voluntary – it does not involve a life-or-death situation for the patient, therefore the doctor or pharmacist is under no obligation to assist, especially if they have religious or personal convictions regarding that particular situation. Don’t believe me? Read on.

Mr. Thomasson is keen on quoting the Hippocratic oath, declaring that any doctor or pharmacist, because they have taken this oath, is obligated to help any person at any time in any situation, regardless of religious or personal conviction. Well, I’d never read the Hippocratic oath, so I decided to check it out, and this is what I found: There are two versions, the classical and the modern, and both of them serve to shoot down Mr. Thomasson’s arguments.

First, the modern version. It states that “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required” (italics mine). Someone seeking the abortion pill isn’t sick; they have no disease, they have no illness. This version also states: “Above all, I must not play at God.” To me, this means that it’s God’s right, not ours, to determine the beginning and ending of our lives. Of course, Thomasson plays liberal advocate by saying, “When does life begin? No one seems to know for certain. Legal authorities have been arguing this question forever and some standards have been established for judging criminal cases.” Again, Mr. Thomasson has things backwards when determining who is the proper authority and whose standards are the right ones. Here he argues that legal authorities have established some standards, but why do legal authorities rate so high in this situation? They’re specialty is law, not morality, theology or science, which are the three most important factors in this case. That’s why the three-trimester system for determining when abortions are legally OK is wrong – it was instituted by a Supreme Court judge. How bloody foolish is that? And I’ll correct Mr. Thomasson by stating that some of us do know for certain when life begins – at conception. Many disagree with this, but think about it this way: If it takes the union of a sperm and an egg for human life to happen (as all doctors and scientists will confirm), then does it not make sense that life begins when that union takes place? Every auto-racing fan knows that the green flag must drop in order for a race to start, so it would be foolish to say that the dropping of the green flag does not constitute the start of the race. The race certainly doesn’t start before the flag drops, and once the cars have taken off, the race has clearly begun – you can’t begin a race that is already in progress.

So it is with human life. Once the sperm and egg are together, the process has started. It didn’t start before the union of sperm and egg, and to say that it doesn’t start until it’s already been going for six months is just plain foolishness, denying reality. You can’t start something that’s already begun. At that point you can only stop it, and that’s just what abortion does.

Concerning the classical version, things get even worse for Thomasson’s arguments. Listen to this blunt language (which should also strike fear into the hearts of euthanasia advocates): “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”

Wow. Can’t get more direct than that, can you? And to top it all off, both versions speak about a doctor using his best judgment. So if the abortion pill goes against a pharmacist’s or doctor’s best judgment, it is not only his right but his duty to not go against that judgment, for that is what he is swearing.