Should pharmacists have the right to NOT sell a certain drug?

There's a great debate brewing over a bill being pushed by Representative Tom Loertscher, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee. He wants to ensure that pharmacists can exercise their consciences by not dispensing drugs they find objectionable (i.e. Viagra, Birth Control, RU486).

Right now Idaho law does not prohibit pharmacists from refusing to dispense drugs, but Loertscher wants to codify the right not to.

This smells like a FlashPoll!

Me? This is America, and you have the right to sell or not sell any legal product. Furthermore, with prescription drugs available through the mail, and at competing pharmacies, I don't fully understand why anyone would have a problem with it. Let pharmacists decide what drugs they do or don't offer, then let the chips fall where they will. Does anyone honestly think someone's going to go without birth control or Viagra -- if they truly want it -- simply because a pharmacist decides he doesn't want to sell a certain drug?

This is a similar debate to President Obama wanting to take away a doctor's right to refuse to administer an abortion.

Why is it that the left wants to force professionals to offer services that some consider objectionable?

Does a bookstore have the right to not sell the Bible? Can a grocery store choose to not sell beer and wine? Would it be OK if a restaurant said that they've decided to stop offering Kosher meals?

The answer to all of these questions, definitively, is absolutely.

Birth control, Viagra, RU486 -- last time I checked aren't generally necessary to save a life, and will remain widely available even if some pharmacies decline to offer them. They are largely considered "lifestyle" drugs. So what if a pharmacist decides they don't want to sell them?

Some seem bent on subduing what is clearly our national legacy of freedom and liberty to achieving a social utopian agenda. How sad. They should be ashamed of themselves.