I don’t often read the guest editorials that appear in The Herald, but I am glad I did Wednesday. The editorial, from the Hutchinson News, was about the recently closed Kansas legislative session.

I think it is ironic the article’s headline read, “Lawmakers adjourn with badly conceived legislation,” because a portion of the report was about pregnancy-altering drugs.

Toward the end of the piece, it was reported the governor signed a law allowing pharmacists to deny a patient a physician-ordered prescription if the pharmacist thinks it “might end a pregnancy, including birth control drugs.”

This means “the pill.”

I think this is akin to the “We have the right to refuse service to anyone” mantra frequently used in restaurants when I was a kid in Oklahoma. Those were the days when blacks were sent running or were fed out back or in the kitchen. It was discrimination. No argument — outright discrimination.

Billions of dollars have been spent, lives have been lost or deranged, all in the desire to end discrimination. So, here we are in the 21st century legislating discrimination. Shame, shame on you ... our governor and legislators.

While I am here, let me provide a bit of information about the birth control pill. Its original purpose was to treat women whose menses was irregular or who had trouble conceiving. Any number of women suffer from irregular menses, and/or excessive bleeding during menses. The pill is intended to treat those cases. It regulates the menstrual cycle.

I am deeply troubled by this trend to second-guess the physician. It has been going on for a number of years now by the insurance companies who question or deny a medical procedure. This new legislation opens the door for another group to override a physician’s order. Both groups, the insurance bean counters and the pharmacists, do not have the information, much less the training and experience a physician has. Nor do they know anything about the patient, their medical history or their presenting problem.

As I understand the new law, the pharmacist has the right to not fill a prescription for the pill. The decision is left up to the pharmacist. It is their option.

This brings about a number of “what ifs?” What if a patient suffers from excessive bleeding, has complications, or bleeds to death, all of which could have been prevented with the pill? What if the patient is on a medication (such as chemotherapy) that would harm the embryo if she has a pregnancy that could have been prevented with the pill. Now, who is responsible?

And our omnipotent elected officials allow themselves to be involved?

You know, I have been on this earth for a little more than seven decades. I still am amazed at how supposedly smart people cannot get their head out of their — ah, sorry — their head out of the sand.

  — Richard Warren, Ottawa