Should Morals and Medicine mix?

Ahh, after a long break, I finally feel compelled to write. I am actually using this blog as a 'brainstorm' for my Medical Ethics term paper due in one week, and which I haven't started. No worries, as long as I have found a subject in which I can become passionate about, the words flow quite nicely.
I have a list of topics in which to choose the subject of my paper. I ended up choosing "Whether Pharmacists have the right to deny prescriptions on the grounds of moral conscience?" The main focus in this article involves the rapid increase in availability in drugs preventing unplanned pregnancy, such as Plan B or the "morning after pill", as well as abortion drugs, such as "RU-486". While RU-486 is only available through and for use in medical facilities such as clinics, hospitals, and doctors offices, Plan B is available behind the pharmacy counter, and in many states, including Ohio, do not require a prescription, so long as the patient is over the age of seventeen. Many pharmacists are blocking patients from acquiring that drug, due to their moral beliefs.
Quick background: Plan B is basically a mix of hormones found in everyday oral birth control pills. These are meant to be taken if the women was not on any type of contraceptives and has unprotected sex. Basically, its just taking birth control for two days. This is not considered abortion in the medical field. RU-486 is an drug that can be taken up to 49 days post conception, and will either prevent implantation, or disrupt an already implanted embryo. (Side note: "86" is a common term for 'killing' or 'destruction'.. thus some outrage has occured with the name of this drug, for if you manipulate it as so, you literally can interpret it as: aRe yoU for(4) 86'ing babies... whether that was the intent, the verdicts still out.)
Now, I work in a pharmacy, and Plan B is in high demand. It's not unlikely to see at least one or two patients a week coming in to buy this--and this is only when I'm at work.. not counting all other operating hours. I haven't encountered a pharmacist that has denied the sale of it to a patient, but there is a fellow technician who won't take any part in the dispensing process. How do I feel, you ask? Well, I am personally not for abortion, and I take oral contraceptives to ensure that I don't have a child a year.. not in my best interests. However, I feel that this decision is a personal one and I have no right to interfere with another person's situation. There may be extenuating circumstances of which I am not aware, nor at liberty to force the patient to divulge such information in order to recieve a medication that they are legally allowed to require on their own accord. I wouldn't jump in front of someone buying Tylenol.. this is, in technical terms, no difference in the availability of either drug.
So, while I DO support the open availability of the emergency contraception, I do not support the dispensing of RU-486 at any pharmacy. This drug has a higher risk of complications, it is an actual early abortion of an embryo. I also believe that it should be taken under the supervision of a physician, and a follow-up appointment should be warranted to ensure that... I don't know how to say this, but I guess that everything that should have happened did, and everything that shouldn't of.. didn't.
Some people do not see the difference in the morning after pill and RU-486. I believe that the morning after pill is nearly identical to what women take as everyday oral contraceptives, and thus, preventing a pregnancy through this method is no different than one prevented through birth control. There are those who argue that you could be preventing a fertilized egg to implant, and this is killing, but then you must also take a moral stand against birth control.. because there are two methods to birth control: 1). preventing release of an egg, and 2). should an egg be released and fertilized, preventing implantation in the uterus.
In my eyes, I believe that preventing a patient from getting the morning after pill is not ethical. Another way to argue this point, other than morally, would include: the patient now will not have to endure an emotional, and possible harmful abortion. This has to be seen as some kind of benefit, yes? Also, cost and availibility are important, especially to lower-income and uninsured women who cannot afford an abortion, medical care, or in the end, a child!
Bah! I'm cashed out already. Hopefully, this will give me some better ideas/arguments for/against this topic. Wish.me.luck.