Since when are we taking our cues from these guys?
This isn’t about the personal religious beliefs of a pharmacist. This is about enforcing a religious code that governs the behavior of individuals. Women who want to avoid pregnancy use Plan B to avoid having to make the choice of abortion later. But that’s not good enough, apparently.
I have heard stories from women who go to the drug store to get Plan B. They tell me that the pharmacist has told them that they’re a “whore,” or that they need to find Jesus. This isn’t about a pharmacist’s personal beliefs governing their own actions. It’s about their personal beliefs governing yours.
Ooh! That eye-patch is teh hott!
It’s more about people trying to shove their personal agenda down your throat. I say “personal agenda,” not “personal beliefs,” because WingNuts (TM) have so frequently proved themselves to be lying hypocrites that it’s clear they don’t believe anything — they have no beliefs. Only an agenda of telling YOU to do what they won’t do themselves. I wonder how many of these lying hypocritical bastards pay for secret abortions for their mistresses and girlfriends? And do their wives know about this? Just wondering.
Please…how stupid!
A pharmacist who exercises his right not to violate his conscience doesn’t equate with planning the murders of thousands.
And that one pharmacist has a potty mouth and is disrespectful to a customer proves only that he’d be right at home among the HA Happy Hooligans, who are blue ribbon in that department!
The court held as long as the customer has options, then the pharmacist is within his or her rights to refuse to sell a product when it violates the pharmacist’s own beliefs.
Is it really the case that the only legitimate POV’s in the world are those held by all you Happy Hooligans? Anything to the contrary is to be derided, mocked, scorned, sworn at, and crapped upon for your amusement and self-aggrandizement?
What shallow and limited lives you lead…
Empty logic with even emptier rhetoric…
The customer has a ka-jillion options when it comes to pharmacies: Bartell’s, Rite-Aide, Walgreen’s, Safeway, Costco, and scores upon scores more. Where is write large that she can require a particular phramacist to go against his conscience so that she can rub the phramacist’s nose in the issue? Totally bogus! But typical…
Narrow mindedness, thy home is HA…
The Piper
Does anyone have any doubt that if Roger Rabbit worked for the post office, he would throw away bags of ballot from Republican districts?
Narrow mindedness? In my opinion, thinking that other people’s bodies are your right to regulate is narrow-minded, Pip. My womb is not your property.
Does everyone who believes that pharmasists should either obey the State, or quit their jobs, also believe that non-Jewish store owners in Nazi Germany should hav e quit selling Jewish-produced products, as decreed by the State, or do you believe the owners should have refused such an order on principle?
@5…Tlazolteotl,,,
Then don’t try making your profligacy with it my responsibility to rectify or my problem generally.
The Piper
@3
A pharmacist who exercises his right not to violate his conscience doesn’t equate with planning the murders of thousands.
It certainly does when you recognize that the primary motivations of those who plan the murders of thousands start with ill-considered notions of not “violating your conscience”. If you can’t draw the line properly about respecting the moral choices of others, anyone who feels that they can “play God” when it comes to their job as a pharmacist is already well along the path to justifying much larger human rights abuses.
A human rights abuse is a human rights abuse. If human rights don’t matter to you, than there’s no reason to expect that you’re not capable of even worse. Comprende?
@4 Yes. You should have a great deal of doubt about that, because I wouldn’t do it. You see, I believe in:
A) democracy
B) fair elections
C) ethical behavior
Just because you guys don’t, doesn’t mean everyone else is like YOU.
As a matter of fact, when I helped the Democrats collect signatures for ballot validations in 2004, we were instructed to get only signatures from Democratic voters, but I didn’t follow those instructions. If a voter told me he voted for Rossi, I offered to turn in his signature anyway, and I would have done it. But guess what. None of the Republican voters I talked to cared enough to sign the forms. So there weren’t any Republican signatures to turn in. But I would have, because I believe in something Republicans don’t believe in — fair play.
Now go fuck yourself and pet the armadillo you rode in on.
@3 “Please…how stupid! A pharmacist who exercises his right not to violate his conscience doesn’t equate with planning the murders of thousands.”
But warmongering and torturing innocents DOES equate with the murder of thousands, which makes Republicans flaming hypocrites.
@7 Since you’re not a pharmacist dispensing Plan B meds is not your problem. And, I might add, since you’re not a lawyer dispensing legal advice isn’t your problem, either.
@11 Although it could become your problem if the Bar Association finds out that an ex-lawyer is advertising “free legal advice” on his business web page.
@6
Does everyone who believes that pharmasists should either obey the State, or quit their jobs, also believe that non-Jewish store owners in Nazi Germany should hav e quit selling Jewish-produced products, as decreed by the State, or do you believe the owners should have refused such an order on principle?
Wow, what a mess. In your Nazi Germany hypothetical, you’re talking about a state’s attempts to deny human rights, whereas in this example, we’re discussing a state’s attempts to UPHOLD human rights. Get your goddamn head out of your ass and understand the difference.
@13…Lee…
In this case, the state, in the form of the Supreme Court, upheld the human rights of the pharmacist. The customer continues to have scores, if not hundreds of options.
Or do you think the customer had the right to dictate her morality to the pharmacist?
What if I run a store but refuse to sell alcohol or tobacco or condoms or porn, all on moral, ethical, or philosophical grounds. Would you, as a customer, have the right to demand of me that I sell that stuff?
You just don’t like the decision, and you’re not willing to open your mind to the possibility that maybe the other guy has some rights, too.
The Piper
@12…RR…
It’s a cartoon, rabbit, and no where on my website is anything “legal” mentioned. I’m also holding a shrunken head in the cartoon, going to make something of that, too?
You really can’t rise above pettiness, can you?
The Piper
“Under Leighton’s order, pharmacists may now refuse to dispense the medication but must refer a patient to “the nearest” or “a nearby” source for the drug”
So what’s the issue here…?
The consumer is able to get what they want without the state tramping on the beleifs of someone else.
I highly doubt that Will has spoken to anyone who was confronted by a pharmacist who called a CUSTOMER a whore or trash….
Heresay fluff to elicit some sort of victim empathy response to an empty argument. What BS.
Unfortunately the Piper is looking at the world through their own narrow experience. As someone who grew up in rural Washington, I can tell you that there are many towns in this state where there is only a single drug store, or often, none at all. Not everyone lives in the greater Seattle metro area. If a pharmacist has moral objections to dispensing legal medicines then that pharmacist should find another profession.
14 OK, suppose I’m a bus driver and there’s a bus stop on my route that happens to be in front of a whorehouse. I may not approve of prostitution, but does that empower me not to let anyone off at that stop?
@17…EWP…
Ever heard of mailorder Rx’s? In addition, the opinion specifically dealt with the availability of options, so your complaint is moot.
The Piper
@18…AF…
The bus stop has nothing to do one way or the other with you being made to endorse, implicitly or otherwise, prostitution. It’s not as if all your passengers are going in and all your new passengers are coming out.
Put yourself in analagous shoes to the pharmacist. Think of something that’s so offensive to you that you might just up and quit a job before doing it. What if a customer came in and demanded that you do it? Then took you to court when you refused? Add further that this all took place in a business you owned. Have you no right to determine what should or shouldn’t be done in your own business?
Whose ox is being gored then?
The Piper
Piper:
You amaze me with your vapid stupidity!
“The court held that as long as..”
First of all – it is a temporary injucntion – which menas the court hasn’t held anything yet.
Second, the pharmacy board of the state of washington has already considered and ruled on this – if someone wants a prescription med. and the pharmacist doesn’t want to write the prescription (as their oath says they must – if they want to preach then don’t become a pharmacist – otherwise give out the drugs people ask for) then they can opt out if there is another pharmacists who will do it – otherwise they must write the prescription.
someone who needs a legal prescription should not have to searching for a pharmacist (or pharmacy) who actually will prescribe it. this isn’t a game of chase – it is a medical practice.
Sorry – this isn’t about the rights or conscience of pharmacists – if a pharmacist really doens’t want to prescribe because it is against their beliefs – then become a lawyer and choose the people you want to represent.
@21…CNR…
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton wrote a 27-page order granting a preliminary injunction (NOT a TRO). In 27-pages, there’s loads of room for judicial meat.
Let’s take the case of a physician who refuses to perform abortions…Could a patient demand the physician perform one?
Or could the State of Washington order a state-employed physician to participate in an execution at Walla Walla?
No court or quasi-judicial agency can lawfully direct a physician to do those actions when the go against the physician’s moral scruples or Hippocratic oath.
Why is a pharmacist different?
The Piper
Here’s the thing about that decision. The Pharmacy Board’s rule was (paraphrasing) that a pharmacist must dispense Plan B if there was no one else at the pharmacy who could do so in their stead. Otherwise they were free to
impose their morals ondeny service to the customer.That seems like an utterly fair compromise, however the American Taliban couldn’t leave it at that and took it to court because
they are shitheelsthey felt their rights were being infringed somehow.So these people essentially went out of their way to fuck with the system to make a political point. Yep, that’s the high road, all right. Fine, upstanding people, those.
20 A lot of the Catholic hospitals ended up dodging the abortion issue by closing their OB departments. If someone has some heavy-duty reservations about servicing the needs of other people living in a way they disapprove of, perhaps it should influence their career choice.
You don’t see many advocates of temperance working as bartenders, do you? I’ve also known quite a few engineers who refused to work in the “defense” industry because they didn’t want to be responsible for creating the means of killing people.
Then don’t try making your profligacy with it my responsibility to rectify or my problem generally.
Not sure what you’re accusing me of, Pip, but I don’t have kids, have never been on welfare and pay my taxes. On the other hand, I do resent your implication that you have any business telling me how I ought to live. I’m not telling you how to live, or what to think, I’m just telling you to keep your nose out of my vajayjay.
@23 To “fuck with the system to make a political point” is exactly what Gregoire did and what led in large part to the state losing at this round of the case. Prior to Plan B, the ONLY medicine a pharmacy was required to stock or dispense was syrup of ipecac. The professional regulators on the pharmacy board came up with a rule that was very similar to the judge’s decision here.
But then Gregoire threatened to replace all of them unless they changed the rule. The plaintiffs here are trying to preserve the status quo. The state and the radical left are the ones that “fucked with the system.”
The “get a new job” stuff is just absurd. It might make more sense if the rule were always in place and we were talking about someone who became a pharmacist in the face of the rule, but that’s not the case here. After you’ve invested thousands in professional education and years of your career and the state changes the rules, you’re just supposed to up and quit?
“………..Women who want to avoid pregnancy use Plan B to avoid having to make the choice of abortion later……..”
Some consider the two to be the same.
Their position is life is life even if it’s only a few cells.
I think we have to respect judicial rulings. It is not productive to criticize a court ruling favoring abortion rights with a picture of historical Nazis and alleging a “holocaust”. Nor is it productive to criticize the present court ruling favoring conscientious objection with a picture of men in Islamic garb and alleging “Taliban”.
Courts exist for a reason. They are the only forums capable of addressing constitutional rights claims. We don’t leave final determination of constitutional rights to Congress (flag burning), the state legislatures (abortions), state agencies (the Plan B regulations), or even the voters (Eyman initiatives). These disputes have to be resolved in a court of law.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear when life begins and that is when you are born. It is when you are born that you are invested with rights and citizenship. Until that point you are a part of the woman’s body and she has every right to decide whether you will remain a part or not.
Until the blastocyst becomes a separate entity no longer connected directly to the woman and is able to viably survive in the world as any other person does, without requiring extraordinary means to sustain itself, it is simply a set of extra cells that are no different from a benign tumor as far as biology is concerned.
If you want to argue about whether random cells have souls, you can do so till the cows come home. That, however, has no basis when it comes to forming Government policies in the United States. Religious doctrine or beliefs are not to be considered when arguing the merits of a law.
It is pathetic considering how Republicans keep talking about following exactly what the Constitution states but when it comes to actually practicing it, they are the worst offenders of ignoring every injunction and rule that the Constitution lays forth.
@29 Wow. Of your four paragraphs, the first three are presented as statements of fact and they are simply wrong as a matter of law, biology, or both. Your fourth paragraph is your opinion. Have you read Roe v. Wade? It doesn’t even go as far as that nonsense you just spit out.
You are quoting the Amendment regulating citizenship, not life. They are not the same. Do our laws only protect citizens ? If so (and using your argument to the fullest), a recent immigrant from let’s say Mexico (and lets further assume for the sake of argument, illegally here), would not be a person and can be “disposed” of. Now of course, you say, this person has been born and is not a blastlocyst, but neither is a 7 or 8 months old baby, capable of living outside the womb…but still terminated in LTA. Neither are citizens in that respect and your argument utilizing the consitution is bogus (Piper or Richard can probably be more eloquent here).
And if the pharmacist wants to use his “freedom of speech” to not sell B…it’s his right. Nothing is preventing people from buying their Plan B at other places. Or would you say that you have the right to enforce anyone to stock what you think is write ? Let’s say I’m a Muslim and want to have properly slaughtered lamb (halal etc..you know what I mean)…but my local Safeway doesn’t have it, just has regular lamb…can I force them to stock it for me, even though there are other places I could buy it at ? Or Kosher, or whatever ?
@28 The real purpose of courts is they’re all that stands between resolving disputes with guns.
The pharmacists that won’t give out Plan B pills need to go back to biology class, Plan B Prevents a pregnancy from taking place, it does not end one.
@30 & @31
Didn’t realize you felt the Constitution was a lie?
The Constitution bestows rights and citizenship when a child is born, not before because it is not a person until born. At that point, the person can be naturalized as a citizen and not until because they are part of the the woman. If the woman was pregnant before entering the U.S. and the child was born on U.S. soil, they are a citizen. That is the point when the Constitution recognizes they are a person.
The 14th Amendment is about becoming a citizen and not about who has protection of the law. There are certain rights and privledges that are given to citizens only. One of the most commonly recognized is the right to vote. It is telling that a Republican would try to use the 14th Amendment to exclude rights given to everyone within the United States from Mexicans.
@3 Piper sez:
The customer has a ka-jillion options when it comes to pharmacies: Bartell’s, Rite-Aide, Walgreen’s, Safeway, Costco, and scores upon scores more.
As long as you’re in Pugetopolis or one of our 3 or 4 other wide spots in the road, you’re completely correct. This is a point of interest only to legal professionals. Is the pharmacist at the Walgreen’s being a dick? No problem, there’s another one 3 blocks down the street. All that pharmacist did was guarantee I’ll never give him a dime again in my life. BFD.
Once you leave the concrete and go out into, uh, you know, the other 85% of Washington State which is not full of people, this is not an abstract problem anymore. If you are pregnant and the only pharmacist in a 20 mile radius is quoting the Bible at you, this is potentially a life-changing decision. What if you can’t get a car to go to the next town within 72 hours? What if getting the money together for an abortion is going to be a problem? What if you’re 16 years old and your parents are going to beat you to within an inch of your life when they find out you’re pregnant?
The great thing about being rich, white, and living in a big city is you have choices galore about how your life will be handled on any given day. That’s the point of the whole excercise. The law doesn’t have to protect me. Unfortunately, I have heard that some people may not have access to unlimited choices and a stuffed bank account. I have no idea how this could happen in the land of milk and honey, but I’ve been told it does. The law exists to protect the weak. Not the strong.
The wingnut position on birth control (recall, they fought that vociferously, too) and abortion is simply inchoherent.
That being said, a pharmicist is legally obligated to fill the prescription. If they refuse, they may do so, but they should be willing to bear the consequences, similar to the tenents of civil disobedience.
So other things I’m not too sure about:
(a.) What if the pharmacy refused to stock the Pill or Plan B? Is this considered an ethical violation? Then the ‘refusal to dispense’ is moot?
(b.) Why aren’t Plan B or even birth control pills simply available ‘over the counter’?
Just askin’
JSA @ 35
How does this situation differ from the scarcity of abortion providers in many sparsely populated areas? Someone may have to travel 20 extra miles to get a Plan B prescription filled, while they may have to travel over 200 miles to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion. The timeliness parameters vary as well — Plan B needs to be given within 72 hours (preferably less) of intercourse to be effective, while the time frame in which to have an abortion is generally considerably longer.
If you accept (1) the premise that Plan B is morally equivalent to abortion for some pharmacists, and (2) that physicians have a constitutional right not to be forced to perform an abortion, how you can deny the same constitutional rights to pharmacists?
I would venture a guess that a far higher percentage of pharmacists are willing to dispense Plan B, than there are physicians who are willing to perform abortions. I would assume that many physicians who have no moral objection to abortion still will not perform abortions for numerous other reasons — not being a qualified OB-GYN, or simply not wishing to focus their practice on pregnancy termination, etc. By contrast, practically every pharmacist who does not morally object to Plan B should be willing to dispense Plan B — it would be no different than dispensing any other drug if moral issues do not get in the way.
Okay, I agree there is a possibility that some women are in areas where they simply lack the personal means to get to a pharmacy willing to dispense Plan B within the necessary time period. Just as there are women who lack the personal means to travel to the nearest willing abortion provider. The number may not be that large in reality, but I am sure there are some. Presumably, the interests of this group of women are what must be balanced against constitutional rights of conscientious objector pharmacists.
How about a private charity, along the lines of NARAL or Planned Parenthood, providing transportation assistance to poor rural women to get to the nearest willing Plan B pharmacists, or the nearest willing abortion provider for that matter? And require pharmacists who will not dispense Plan B to provide this charity’s toll-free number (in addition to information – address and telephone number — about the closest three pharmacists that are willing to dispense Plan B)?
I did read Judge Leighton’s decision on the preliminary injunction. Judge Leighton raises a lot of issues that he will be deciding when the case is actually tried on whether to make the injunction permanent or not.
I changed my opinion on this issue today. While I’m not fond of the pharmacist who feels strongly about denying Plan B to a rape victim, or, for that matter, any woman who is worried about an unplanned pregnancy — we live in a pluralistic society, and I feel most strongly about living in a society that remains pluralistic. Get out the scales and balance religious beliefs with those seeking Plan B. The overwhelming majority of those seeking the drug have other options. I know, there may be people in small towns that might not have another option, but even then, it doesn’t meet my test of balancing religious beliefs with public policy.
@34 Yep, I see right there in black-and-white, in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Constitution, where it says you’re not a citizen until you’re BORN.
@38 So a waitress whose “religion” is Christian Identity (some would not dignity this particular set of beliefs or biases with the term) can refuse to serve a Jew or black person? The law says no, she may not.
The fact is, when a person engages in a business, occupation, or profession, they do not have an unlimited right to inject their personal beliefs and biases into how they go about it.
That’s because members of the public have rights, too, and when a pharmacist’s personal beliefs conflict with a customer’s legal rights, the law has a right to enforce the customer’s legal rights.
Here’s something else to think about. Apparently, in Washington, a woman can get Plan B without a doctor’s prescription if she is 18 or over. And somehow, a woman under 18 can get a Plan B prescription at the pharmacy without first seeing a doctor (who issues this prescription — some doctor over the telephone or the pharmacist?).
http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/ecinfo.htm
So does a pharmacist in Washington have to exercise professional judgment in dispensing Plan B to a woman who requests it? Do they have to ask the woman whether they have recently had intercourse, and determine issues about side effects and other contraindications? How about verifying age? What if the woman doesn’t have a driver’s license, it is Saturday night, and DOL isn’t open until Tuesday morning? Or is a pharmacist (aside from the moral objection issue) legally required to sell Plan B to every woman over 18 who requests it? (What if a man over 18 requests it — perhaps for his underage girl friend?)
Normally, a pharmacist only dispenses prescribed drugs with a prescription from a physician or similarly authorized health care provider. And the pharmacy sells non-prescription drugs (aspirin, etc.) and non-prescription medical devices (condoms, etc.) to every customer who wishes to buy them (assuming the pharmacy stocks the item), without any exercise of professional judgment by the licensed pharmacist on duty.
So if Plan B requires the pharmacist to exercise professional judgment and discretion, then different moral objection issues would be presented than, let’s say, birth control pills. A given pharmacist may have equally strong moral objections to birth control pills as to Plan B. But if the pharmacist is only required to dispense birth control pills on a doctor’s prescription, this is quite different than the pharmacist being called upon to exercise professional judgment and discretion in whether or not to dispense Plan B.
On the flip side, let’s assume that Plan B always required a doctor’s prescription. In that case, the moral objection problem of pharmacists could easily be averted. Doctors are certainly allowed to stock drugs in their offices. A doctor willing to prescribe Plan B could have the pills in his or her office, and sell them to the woman in need, rather than require her to travel to a pharmacist to get them.
I agree with Roger Rabbit. Fuck the Muslims when they want special treatment at work. You Muslim cab drivers WILL pick up prostitutes! You WILL pick up drunks carrying alcohol! Muslims who work at grocery stores and restaurants WILL have to handle pork products!
From the Washington Administrative Code:
WAC 246-869-150: Physical standards for pharmacies — Adequate stock.
(1) The pharmacy must maintain at all times a representative assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients.
WAC 246-869-010: Pharmacies’ responsibilities.
(1) Pharmacies have a duty to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies, or provide a therapeutically equivalent drug or device in a timely manner consistent with reasonable expectations for filling the prescription, except for the following or substantially similar circumstances:
(a) Prescriptions containing an obvious or known error, inadequacies in the instructions, known contraindications, or incompatible prescriptions, or prescriptions requiring action in accordance with WAC 246-875-040.
(b) National or state emergencies or guidelines affecting availability, usage or supplies of drugs or devices;
(c) Lack of specialized equipment or expertise needed to safely produce, store, or dispense drugs or devices, such as certain drug compounding or storage for nuclear medicine;
(d) Potentially fraudulent prescriptions; or
(e) Unavailability of drug or device despite good faith compliance with WAC 246-869-150.
(2) Nothing in this section requires pharmacies to deliver a drug or device without payment of their usual and customary or contracted charge.
(3) If despite good faith compliance with WAC 246-869-150, the lawfully prescribed drug or device is not in stock, or the prescription cannot be filled pursuant to subsection (1)(a) of this section, the pharmacy shall provide the patient or agent a timely alternative for appropriate therapy which, consistent with customary pharmacy practice, may include obtaining the drug or device. These alternatives include but are not limited to:
(a) Contact the prescriber to address concerns such as those identified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or to obtain authorization to provide a therapeutically equivalent product;
(b) If requested by the patient or their agent, return unfilled lawful prescriptions to the patient or agent; or
(c) If requested by the patient or their agent, communicate or transmit, as permitted by law, the original prescription information to a pharmacy of the patient’s choice that will fill the prescription in a timely manner.
(4) Engaging in or permitting any of the following shall constitute grounds for discipline or other enforcement actions:
(a) Destroy unfilled lawful prescription.
(b) Refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions.
(c) Violate a patient’s privacy.
(d) Discriminate against patients or their agent in a manner prohibited by state or federal laws.
(e) Intimidate or harass a patient.
“………..Women who want to avoid pregnancy use Plan B to avoid having to make the choice of abortion later……..”
Some consider the two to be the same.
Their position is life is life even if it’s only a few cells.
But, it’s not. Plan B is a CONTRACEPTIVE. So there is no life when you take it, you take it to avoid “a few cells.” People who equate Plan B with abortion are just ignorant of the biology.
Second, my thumb is “just a few cells” too, and they’re human, but if it gets accidentally amputated, we don’t declare it to be a person and give it full legal rights. All these fetishes about cells, especially undifferentiated ones, just creeps me out.
Tlazolteotl @ 45
I see Plan B as a contraceptive as well, and not as an abortion pill. However, there are people who see it as an abortion pill and find it deeply morally objectionable. And there are people who find contraception itself to be deeply morally objectionable.
So I don’t see this as a biology debate. Even if it was, and the other side won the debate, abortion is already legal anyway for at least six months. So Plan B would clearly be legal, even if it was called an abortion pill instead of a contraceptive.
So any idea as to the real statistics regarding this debate? What percentage of pharmacists would refuse to dispense Plan B on personal moral grounds, if they had the right not to? What percentage of women wanting Plan B are not able to get it reasonably timely because of pharmacists who refuse to dispense it?
Second, my thumb is “just a few cells” too, and they’re human, but if it gets accidentally amputated, we don’t declare it to be a person and give it full legal rights. All these fetishes about cells, especially undifferentiated ones, just creeps me out.
Will your thumb grow into a fetus???? Are you saying that all humans started as two thumb cells???? When you leave a human egg alone does it grow into a fetus??? When an egg and sperm meet in the whomb does it just sit there until somone tells it to grow into a human???? I don’t get your arguement???? Please explain.
I agree with Roger Rabbit. Fuck the Muslims when they want special treatment at work. You Muslim cab drivers WILL pick up prostitutes! You WILL pick up drunks carrying alcohol! Muslims who work at grocery stores and restaurants WILL have to handle pork products!
I could care less if a Muslim businessman don’t want to serve prostitutes,drunks or hamdle pork. This is America and if you own a private business you can serve whoever the F you want. I just don’t want real Americans to be forced
to pick up,serve or handle food for Muslims. No Towel heads welcomed. Hey that has a good ring.
It’s a matter of property rights. Who owns the phamracy? Does that person choose to carry Plan B or not? Whatever that person’s choice is applies to his or her pharmacy, not to all phamacies. If you don’t like it, go to another pharmacy.
It’s that simple, people. Jeesh!
Some doctors prescribe asprin to patients. If a convenience store doesn’t carry asprin, is it coming between a doctor and his patient? Is it infringing on the rights of the patient?
PS, the world is a better place now that Norman Mailer is dead.
Oh, isn’t this just great. Now we can have whites only pharmacies. And the wimpy far righters are waving their pom-poms.
Richard @ 37:
How does this situation differ from the scarcity of abortion providers in many sparsely populated areas?
Interesting question. Let me get back to you on that in a second.
If you accept (1) the premise that Plan B is morally equivalent to abortion for some pharmacists, and (2) that physicians have a constitutional right not to be forced to perform an abortion, how you can deny the same constitutional rights to pharmacists?
There is an issue of morally willing and logistically capable of. A D&C is not quite surgery, but it’s not something my general practitioner is equipped to handle in her office either. If it was one of these life-or-death issues, I’m sure she knows how it’s done and could do it, but would prefer a specialty clinic do this.
Let’s also approach this from the point of view of chemistry. This evil substance called Plan B is the same mix of estrogen and progesterone found in birth control pills, just in higher doses. The physiological effects are similar in that they both trick the body into believing that the woman is already pregnant. If a pharmacist is unwilling to dispense birth control pills along with Plan B, you may have something there. Otherwise, the objection has little moral or medical validity.
Now, getting back to your original question, forcing the creation of clinics by legislative fiat is a big reach. Saying that there must be an abortion clinic (or a bookstore, or a McDonalds) within 10 miles of every American is well outside of our understood social contract. That’s a good thing. Asking an established pharmacy to keep a box of Plan B in stock is not.
How about a private charity, along the lines of NARAL or Planned Parenthood, providing transportation assistance to poor rural women to get to the nearest willing Plan B pharmacists, or the nearest willing abortion provider for that matter?
In terms of common-sense solutions to problems, I think this is a good solution. It is not, however, a good solution from a legal point of view. The purpose of the law is to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone. Your solution, while not bad, merely protects rights and freedoms as much as the resources and logistics of a private charity will allow.