I certainly believe that people are entitled to their own opinion on the question of Abortion. While I remain officially "pro choice," I mean just that.
I remember a bit of a kerfuffle at the end of the Bush presidency regarding pharmacists who didn't want to provide the morning after pill (or was it all contraception) because it violated their religious beliefs. Perhaps someone with some research skills could link to that for me, as I'm not inclined to go searching for it tonight. My response to that was basically "if you don't want to sell birth control, then don't work in a profession that involves selling birth control." It seems to me akin to a Luddite apprenticing as an Electrical Engineer.
I also remember some discussion on the FDA appointments made by President Bush being premised on this topic (again, links are welcome).
The reason I bring this up is because I was reading this article by Professor Friedman at Religion Clause Blogspot that discusses a Court case (Tummino v. Torti, ED NY Mar, 2009) wherein the Judge ordered the FDA to reconsider its restriction on Plan B ("The Abortion Pill"). The reasoning, as Professor Friedman notes, is that the Judge felt that the FDA's position was premised on political motives, rather than "good faith agency decision making" (from Professor Friedman's article).
What I find interesting about this is the Family Research Council's response - "This ruling jeopardizes girls' health and the ability of parents to care for their daughters' physical and emotional well-being." I'm not entirely sure I follow that logic, as, if the child finds herself in a situation where she needs the medication, then isn't it entirely possible that she found herself in that situation particularly because of her parent's inability or unwillingness to care for her physical and emotional well-being? I leave the answer to you.