From Bathija's article:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other civil rights and civil liberties groups are deeply concerned about the potential negative effects.

"Under an overly broad WRFA, employees could claim a right to preach in the workplace, and it would be very difficult to protect co-workers, patients, clients, customers and others from religious harassment or proselytization," said Aaron Schuham, director of legislative affairs for Americans United. "What's more, an employee could request to not work with someone who is a member of the wrong' religion, an atheist or someone who is openly gay if it violates the employee's religious beliefs.'"

Schuham and AU's Legislative Affairs Department have been battling this overly broad version of WRFA for years. So far, the measure has stalled in Congress, and advocates have not introduced a new version this session. AU argues that this form of WRFA, that protects one person's conscience at the expense of others, violates the Constitution and conflicts with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But the Religious Right's crusade doesn't just stop at WRFA.

As soon as the debate over health-care reform got under way, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) began pushing for amendments that would grant health-care providers, including physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies, a virtually absolute right to claim religious exemptions and refuse to perform their duties.

Coburn's amendments have failed to garner enough support so far, but opponents are keeping a close eye on his maneuvers.

And just before President George W. Bush left office, his administration proposed dangerous regulations granting health-care workers sweeping rights to follow their consciences at the expense of patient care.

Americans United protested the new rule in comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But the Bush administration enacted it anyway.

President Barack Obama has rescinded the Bush regulations, but it's unknown what he will issue in their place. In his Sept. 10 speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama said "federal conscience laws will remain in place" in his proposed health-care reform.

And:

Action is also under way in the state legislatures.

States across the country are considering laws to give health-care providers the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. In 2008, 10 states considered 13 anti-choice measures that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for all forms of contraception.

These states include: Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.

But several other states have recognized the danger in allowing pharmacists to push their religious agenda while denying women access to medical care. Twelve states in 2008 considered a variety of measures that would guarantee women's access to prescriptions.

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy did so as well. After Blanding and dozens of women in Olympia stood up for their right to access "Plan B," the Board in July 2007 issued regulations that prohibited any pharmacy from refusing to fill a prescription based on moral or religious grounds. The regulations allowed for individual pharmacists to refuse to fill the prescriptions on those grounds, so long as another pharmacist at the pharmacy could do so.

"I went down to a pharmacy board meeting and said how I had been refused at Ralph's," Blanding said. "I think at that time there was a perception that there wasn't a problem with refusals in the state.

"But I told them that I knew two women who had to go to four pharmacies before they could get their prescriptions filled," she continued. "I've had many women come to me and tell me their stories. People are reluctant to come forward because there is a possibility that their sexual behavior will be dissected in public."

Before the regulations went into effect, the ADF stepped in to represent Stormans and two pharmacists and challenge the Board's new policy in federal court.

"The so-called morning-after pill is widely accessible in this state," said ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner who worked on the case.

Arguing that there is no reason for "government coercion of Christian pharmacists," she claimed "the handful of health-care providers who have a strong moral objection to participating in taking innocent human life should be allowed to refer customers elsewhere. Under the new rules, their rights are not respected and they may lose their jobs."

Finally:

But Blanding recalled that the pharmacist who denied her prescription at Ralph's back in 2006 was genuinely sorry and embarrassed for not being able to honor the prescription.

"He told all of us that he disagreed with the owner's policy, and he was sorry he couldn't give us emergency contraception," she said. "The owners of Ralph's weren't letting the pharmacists do what they think is appropriate. The owners were the ones not allowing the pharmacists to exercise their own consciences so this is not really about freedom of conscience.'"

After Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the Board's policy. The appellate court ruled in July that the lower court was wrong when it blocked the regulation from going into effect.

The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings but the appellate panel strongly suggested that the Washington state regulations are constitutional and in the best interest of the patients.

The appellate judges also said that the regulation did not unfairly single out those with religious beliefs and that requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions in a timely manner is a neutral rule and does not target religious beliefs for negative treatment.

"I have seen what the Stormanses have said in the case," Blanding said. "They make it seem that it was some abortion rights group that started this and that we were targeting their religion.

"But that's not true," she continued. "It was a bunch of local women who were just stunned that the place where we were shopping and enjoying could ever do this. A lot of people just felt judged."

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn, said the 9th Circuit came to the right decision.

"States have every right to set policies that guarantee patients' access to medical care," he said. "The Religious Right and its allies have been waging war on women's access to reproductive health services. This is one battle they have now lost."

And all this because young girls are now taught that they no longer need to keep their legs together.

The owners are correct, the employees are not. The Pharmacy owners totally have the right to decide what they will stock and what they will not stock. The employees are hired to do a job and can either do it or go somewhere where their beliefs will not come into conflict with their occupation.

Has everyone forgot common sense or something?

Has everyone forgot common sense or something?

LOL.

Forgot?

Try....never had it.

ideology is way too important to allow common sense to get in the way.

"The Religious Right is behind a movement to give employees and health-care service providers a legal exemption from doing their jobs because they claim it violates their "conscience." "

What is really needed is a movement to have bible-thumping assholes deported.

The haters are terrified of allowing people to live according to their values. The only values that are permitted are those of the haters

Do you really want a world based on the values of Drunk_Dwarf_Slovenly_Pig_Fan_o f_Polanski_Child_Rape?

"The haters are terrified of allowing people to live according to their values."

Absolutely true, Vernon. They try to impose their idiotic religious values on their own customers.

I wonder how many of these pharmacists received Government Subsidized Loans.

You know the loans that are underwritten by the US taxpayer.

One easy fix for this much over dramatized and over sensationalized brouhaha would be that when the applicant asks for the Tax Payers assistance in educating themselves (they don't seem to mind WHO is doing that for them) that they indicate if their "religion" would prevent them from providing a service to the very people who are giving them the low interest loan.

That way the Tax payer gets to weed out these bastards from the system BEFORE they take our money!

One easy fix for this much over dramatized and over sensationalized brouhaha would be that when the applicant asks for the Tax Payers assistance in educating themselves (they don't seem to mind WHO is doing that for them) that they indicate if their "religion" would prevent them from providing a service to the very people who are giving them the low interest loan.

we certainly live in an imperfect world don't we?

LOL

And all this because young girls are now taught that they no longer need to keep their legs together.

Yeah, with all that abstinence-only sex education for about the past decade, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.

Or it could be that some acknowledge reality and try to work with it instead of trying to force it into some quaint version of what they'd like it to be. Face it. People have sex. Teenagers have sex. Pregnancies will inevitably result and it is not up to YOU or anyone else to tell those women how to cope with it.

The haters are terrified of allowing people to live according to their values.

LOL yes, I'm sure they are quaking at the wonderful wholesomeness of it all.

Or it could be that Christians (not all, but many) have a tendency to push their beliefs onto those around them and this is the inevitable pushback.

The only values that are permitted are those of the haters

They can live by them all they want UNTIL they expect those values to trump other's. Sorry doesn't work that way.

A pharmacist's personal beliefs ARE NOT more important than a decision made between a doctor and their patient nor a personal decision reached by an individual for what is best in THEIR life. Don't like it, find a different job where you can live happily in your self righteousness.

Not only should they not have access to taxpayer funded school loans but the business should be denied Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. It's the Oath stupid.

But they SHOULD be allowed to stock or not stock according to their beliefs.

"And all this because young girls are now taught that they no longer need to keep their legs together."

IS that what you taught your girls?

Anyway, the funny thing about your "young girls are now taught" jag is that not so long ago, girls were married off at age fourteen to men in their forties ---- and upon being married, commenced to having children before the age of sixteen (and that aint done with ones legs closed)!
And try to remember that this was perfectly acceptable to the "christians" of the day, then.

So doc favors forcing people to do things they see as murder? He would have made a good Nazi prison guard, following orders.

If this is the case, then I have the right to deprive you of anything required for sustenance and survival. Housing. Jobs. Clothing (might be a bad idea). After all, you are terrorists, with historic evidence and cause to support my claim.

You do keep claiming my non-beleif as a religion. Equal representation and all.

"Anyway, the funny thing about your "young girls are now taught" jag is that not so long ago, girls were married off at age fourteen to men in their forties ---- and upon being married, commenced to having children before the age of sixteen (and that aint done with ones legs closed)!
And try to remember that this was perfectly acceptable to the "christians" of the day, then."

Woody Allen is Jewish, not Christian.

So doc favors forcing people to do things they see as murder? He would have made a good Nazi prison guard, following orders.

#16 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-10-02 12:24 PM | Reply | Fl

If they were having ethical issues regarding dispensing medicine prescribed by a doctor, they should have thought about that before entering pharmacy school.

They were fine entering the pharmacy field up until then. What a bunch of hypocrits.

728? They entered the business before they were being forced to abet murder. Nice try.
No one should be barred from employment based on a religious test anyway. Are you an American or North Korean??

If their job description requires them to fill, and sell prescritions, then they should fill, and sell prescriptions.

If their job is to instruct how best to use the medications, they should do so.

Called job description, do it or move on to a new career.
Now lets try this one and see who shifts their position, shall we...

Should a passivist air traffic controller be required to provide ATC services to military aircraft, whose mission is death and destruction despite his antiwar christian beliefs?

I'm guessin several here you would have a different interp in that situation. How bout it?

Are you an American or North Korean??

Do you have an actual argument or ridiculous hyperbole?

I'm guessin several here you would have a different interp in that situation. How bout it?

They'll probably agree with any situation so long as their values trump everything and everyone else's. It's part of the narcissistic, self-righteous holier-than-thou bullshit they've convinced themselves they embody.

CHRISTIANS: "I see emergency contraception as virtually eliminating the need for abortion," she said. "It can really eliminate a lot of heartache for women. I want my daughter to have access to that.

And all this because young girls are now taught that they no longer need to keep their legs together.
.......#4 | Posted by KBM

.....your mother couldn't keep her legs together...

.....do you think the urge to reproduce is weaker in others.?......

......or was she particularly slutty ?.......

......I'm just wondering who she had to fuck to get you......

#24 | POSTED BY SKIZZIKS AT 2009-10-02 03:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#25 | POSTED BY SKIZZIKS AT 2009-10-02 04:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG

#26 | POSTED BY SKIZZIKS AT 2009-10-02 05:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I get sad when people don't respond to my posts, too, but seriously man, show some pride.

You can't make a muslim taxi drive you to the liquor store.

The haters are terrified of allowing people to live according to their values. The only values that are permitted are those of the haters

#8 | Posted by vernon

I guess you realize that sword has two sharp edges.

You can't make a muslim taxi drive you to the liquor store.

Laws have changed in 35 years, but that's not surprising, though, in this era of PC.

When I was 20 yo and in the Navy I got in on a late flight into WDC. I had to get to the train station a couple of miles away. I got into the first taxi in the queue. He did not want to take me because he wanted a better fare since most people coming in that late were going home. He told me to take the bus, but I didn't want to.

A cop saw us talking (some might say arguing) and came over. He told the cab driver he couldn't refuse a fare because of the destination. He said if he didn't take me where I wanted to go, he'd have his license yanked. The cabbie begrudgingly took me to the train station.

If these stupid assholes don't want to be pharmacists then do train to become one.

Too fucking bad.

If these stupid assholes don't want to be pharmacists then do train to become one.

Too fucking bad.

Pardon the double post.

I meant 'don't' by the way.

No slant to this story, huh?

"But as the mother of a teenage girl, she wanted to make sure her daughter would never be shamed and turned away by a pharmacy." - So, teaching your teenage daughter not to sleep around is not an option?

"It is a family-run grocery store in Olympia, Wash., and owner Kevin Stormans made it clear that as a Christian, he chose to not stock the drug at his pharmacy based on religious and moral grounds." - So, he is NOT refusing to sell something in the store, IT IS NOT AVAILABLE in this store? NOt smart enough to go to another store?

"Ralph's Thriftway continued to refuse filling the prescriptions." - See above.

"But it's not just the Stormans family seeking a special privilege to push their religious beliefs on others." - If you don't like what the store does or does not have to offer, can't you go somewhere else or is this the only drug store around?

"Thanks to Religious Right agitation, women across the country have been turned away by pharmacists at crucial times." - So, in this time of such an enlightened population, "safe sex" isn't practiced?

Hey dumb asses, condoms, the pill, that shit you get put in your arm (norplant?) or, here's a novel idea, stop fucking people you meet in bars!!!

Holy shit, be responsible for your actions!!!
If you are gonna sleep around, take precautions, MEN & WOMEN.

Why not expand this to other professions?

If you order a meat-lover's pizza, the vegan delivering it should be able to remove the toppings before delivering it to you.

If you order flowers, an allergic delivery boy should have the right to take out any blooms that make him sneeze.

And if you are a Christian Scientist, and deliver the mail, you should be able to withhold any and all prescriptions going through the postal service.

Wouldn't the world be better...if only every person who never went to medical school got to veto any and all decisions made between you and your doctor?!?

What could possibly be wrong with that concept???

This is a tiresome subject. As usual, though, for libbies, freedom only rolls in one direction.

Shawn,

Most of them throwing the fit were around long before Plan B.

Once again I agree with Kan. If you work for a store you do what your paid to do, if you own a store you carry what you want.

"If you don't like what the store does or does not have to offer, can't you go somewhere else or is this the only drug store around?"

Sometimes, yes. Other times, one group will buy up all the pharmacies over a large geographical area.

If this was a theft threat, or took up a lot of space, opponents might actually have a point. That it's a single pill, no one is breaking it to steal it, and a giant bottle would take up no more shelf space than a similar bottle of Tylenol, the arguments against it melt into pure dogma.

Sorry, boys...not your purview.

"As usual, though, for libbies, freedom only rolls in one direction."

And, as usual, freedom for conservatives includes imposing their own moral paternalism everywhere they can. Theirs, and no one else's.

Ref #4 Why haven't the Muslim taxi drivers in Minn been fired for refusing to take fares that had alcohol? If I own a business I dictate the terms unless the Feds step in and dictate it for me.

If you go to a store and they only stock pepsi, but you want coke do you make a law requiring they sell coke, or do you just go to another store?

Personaly if I owned a pharmacy I would stock it. It seems like you can make a ton of money on it. However who am I to tell a business man how to run his business?

If you cannot bring yourself to do what is required in your profession, FIND ANOTHER FUCKING LINE OF WORK.

#5 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-02 10:28 AM
***"The owners are correct, the employees are not. The Pharmacy owners totally have the right to decide what they will stock and what they will not stock. The employees are hired to do a job and can either do it or go somewhere where their beliefs will not come into conflict with their occupation."

Except that "their occupation" is "dispensing available pharmaceuticals" for medical purposes. They are licensed to do so by the government, so if they do not dispense available pharmaceuticals that the public (that pays for this governance) needs, then the pharmacist is no longer fulfilling his/her obligation as a state certified pharmacist...

I have an idea; if your pious ideology gets in the way of your occupational responsibilities to those that you have taken an oath to serve, find another occupation...

Dumbest f'n thing I've ever heard...

#36 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-02 10:08 PM
***"This is a tiresome subject. As usual, though, for libbies, freedom only rolls in one direction."

Yeah, those "crazy Liberals" want people to have the free access to needed and legal medication and treatment...

If your pious ideology prevents you from performing your required duties as a healthcare professional, don't be a healthcare professional...

>>Or it could be that some acknowledge reality and try to work with it instead of trying to force it into some quaint version of what they'd like it to be.

So why is it that every african country that has reduced its rate of hiv has also reduced its rate of anything goes sex? Correlation?

>>the arguments against it melt into pure dogma.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Enjoy!

>>Dumbest f'n thing I've ever heard...

You haven't read #35.

I see the "logic" the left wants! The pharmacist who is forced to abet what he sees as murder in order that he might earn enough to pay rent can claim "I was only filling orders" when he reaches the pearly gates.
Get real! An individual's conscience is what the Constitution was meant to protect. This idea someone can not be a pharmacist without commiting what he might equate to manslaughter is a clear violation of the Constitution.

"Thank you, Captain Obvious."

You're welcome, Private Oblivious.

So, if I am a Jehovah's witness and a doctor, I can just refuse to give patients necessary treatment that is in conflict with my personal brand of religious zealotry???

Religion INC. has become a certifiably insane group of the population. This wouldn't be so bad if religious people weren't such blind faith followers by nature, therefore being led around by whoever preaches the best line of bull shit. I say take away their tax exempt status and tax them like every other business...

>>If you order a meat-lover's pizza, the vegan delivering it should be able to remove the toppings before delivering it to you.

C'mon, you have to admit - only a retard could equate these two.

You can do it...

"C'mon, you have to admit - only a retard could equate these two."

Do you or do you not want whoever is on duty at CVS that night to have the final veto over the decision made between you and your doctor?

C'mon, dumbshit...you can address that issue, right?

>>Do you or do you not want whoever is on duty at CVS that night to have the final veto over the decision...

Final veto? Hardly -- I'd just go somewhere else. What's the big deal?

"I'd just go somewhere else. What's the big deal?"

Not everywhere has a convenient "somewhere else".

Sheesh, the moronic provincialism around here can be asphyxiating.

#47 | Posted by happyending at 2009-10-02 11:58 PM
***"You haven't read #35."

Oh, I read it. I think that #35 makes a good point. If Christians can claim "conflict of conscience", why shouldn't everybody else have the right to do the same thing? Let's say I am "ideologically opposed" to psychiatric medicine and I refuse to sell anti-psychotic medication to dangerous schizophrenics? I should have the right to do so if Christians have the right to refuse LEGAL MEDICAL NECESSITIES to patients...

"If Christians can claim "conflict of conscience", why shouldn't everybody else have the right to do the same thing?"

All I know is my prescriptions haven't arrived ever since we got that nice Christian Scientist mailman.

>Not everywhere has a convenient "somewhere else".

Not everywhere? Settle down, Captain. And who said anything about convenient?

Sheesh...

Explain exactly why I not only have to give you money but must also make it comfortable for you as well?

Oh that's right. You're entitled.

#51 | Posted by happyending at 2009-10-03 12:03 AM
***"C'mon, you have to admit - only a retard could equate these two"

Maybe, but a vegetarian, (if the law were to be applied equitably), would be able to refuse to deliver a pizza with meat on it...

>Oh, I read it.

Ok, you can read. You just can't comprehend.

>If you order a meat-lover's pizza, the vegan delivering it should be able to remove the toppings before delivering it to you.

No. I bought the pizza. It included meat. We had a deal and you accepted my money. Now keep your fucking fingers off of it.

The pharmacist said, "no thanks, I don't want your money."

Now buzz the fuck off.

"And who said anything about convenient?"

If you had to drive 40 more miles (or 400) you'd be bitching all week long.

"Oh that's right. You're entitled."

Oh, that's right...the pharmacist is licensed by the state.

Try answering the question directly: should the mailman have the right to refuse to deliver your mail-order prescriptions, or not?

"No. I bought the pizza. It included meat. We had a deal and you accepted my money. Now keep your fucking fingers off of it."

Yea, but that was the owner, before the delivery boy got to inject his opinion.

#57 | Posted by happyending at 2009-10-03 12:20 AM
***"Oh that's right. You're entitled."

Access to legal pharmaceuticals from a government certified pharmacy? Yes, I am entitled...

And no, as a government certified pharmacist, you are not entitled to regulate my access to legal medication, due to your pious ideology...

>Maybe, but a vegetarian, (if the law were to be applied equitably), would be able to refuse to deliver a pizza with meat on it...

So pass it off to the next delivery boy. And there is none, then don't order from there again. What is so hard about this concept, drudgies?

"Now buzz the fuck off."

Translation: I'm cornered.

>Access to legal pharmaceuticals from a government certified pharmacy?

Gov't certified? CVS is a franchise.

"CVS is a franchise."

Nice try. Pharmacists have a license from the state.

Pardon the double post.

I meant 'don't' by the way.

That's why you had the double post. The product of two negatives is a positive.

>Oh, that's right...the pharmacist is licensed by the state.

Psychologists are also licensed by the state. Should they be forced to regurgitate from the "world according to whomever" or should they offer you their own perspective?

>Translation: I'm cornered.

Translation: doesn't understand the concept of a contract.

The pizza was purchased but was not delivered.

The drug was never sold to you in the first place.

Am I really having to explain this?

You're hopeless.

Outta here...

#68 | Posted by happyending at 2009-10-03 12:30 AM
***"Psychologists are also licensed by the state. Should they be forced to regurgitate from the "world according to whomever" or should they offer you their own perspective?"

Nice dodge...

That is not denying treatment due to religious ideology...

And, "offering their own perspective" is what a psychiatrist does...

"The pizza was purchased but was not delivered."

No, the pizza was purchased from the owner, but the worker decided not to deliver it, and just give you your money back.

"Outta here..."

No surprise there.

As usual, though, for libbies, freedom only rolls in one direction.

Yep, for the general public, especially in the marketplace.

Scary, isn't it?

If pharmacists can decline to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs, what's to stop them from serving customers because the cuistomer has a different religious belief? Far-fetched? Not at all---those who seek the morning after pill obviously have different religious beliefs.

If it becomes legal for pharmacists to discriminate in this way, at least post the policy in plain view so everyone can see the policy--and decide if they want to support such a pharmacy.

What ever happened to personal liberty?

@ #11 Redneckville
It is thinking like this that the overreaching arm of the socialist state scares people. Be careful what you wish because that axe swings both ways. I suppose you suggest that since I went to public elementary school that I should be forced into whatever labor the government commands me to do. I owe them my life and labor, according to you.

And just to continue that thought a little more. According to Redneckville's thinking, if a person receives any benefit from the government, they are no longer entitled to their first amendment rights. Or if they wish to hold on to those rights, they are precluded from government assistance.

"I should have the right to do so if Christians have the right to refuse LEGAL MEDICAL NECESSITIES to patients... "

Since when is an abortion pill a medical "necessity" Capt. Uranus? No one will die if I refuse to sell it. Someone WILL DIE if I sell it. I have the right to refuse to abet a killing. If you do not see it as a killing: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to force me into it.
And liberal assholes have no right to declare Christians can not be pharmacists or physicians if they refuse to violate their consciences. Period. That is what freedom is all about.

On a thread about "Conscience" laws dealing with pharmacists we get:

#9 | Posted by vernon

Basically, Vermin's projection of his sick fantasies about sex with children. Do everyone -- especially yourself -- a favor, Vemrin, and keep your disgusting desires to yourself or whatever Asian alley you frequent.

I think a pharmacy owner should have the freedom to refuse to carry whatever medications he/she wants, employees though are obligated to either sell the medications that the owner carries or find another job. We, the taxpayers would also have the right to determine that pharmacies that refuse to carry all legal medications would not be eligible to receive payment from Medicare or any other government program.

I think a pharmacy owner should have the freedom to refuse to carry whatever medications he/she wants, employees though are obligated to either sell the medications that the owner carries or find another job. We, the taxpayers would also have the right to determine that pharmacies that refuse to carry all legal medications would not be eligible to receive payment from Medicare or any other government program.

Posted by danni at 2009-10-03 08:53 AM | Reply

Sorry but I must disagree. I believe a Pharmacy to be an extention of the medical care community therefore He or She should not have a right to carry the medications that He or She wishes to carry or not. They are the last line of defense with regards to medical care. They must carry the medications the Dr's will prescribe to their patients. If they have some religious problems with that I suggest they go into some other field.

Larry

I'm heading to McDonald's for breakfast, then to my attorney for not being able to buy a beer there. While I'm at it, I'll sue Walgreens for not carrying all sorts of perfectly legal tranquilizers and hallucinogenic drugs, simply because they're afraid of break-ins.

I proposed a solution before: "sorry, we're sold out." Or, "we have one left--it's $14,500. Will that be cash or charge?"

They must carry the medications the Dr's will prescribe to their patients. If they have some religious problems with that I suggest they go into some other field.
* * * *

Fair enough. A lot of drugstores refuse to carry hallucinogenic drugs, because they're being broken into constantly. Should we shut them down? Or it is okay to refuse to carry drugs for financial reasons, but not religious ones? Because in that case, all the pro-lifers need to is organize a protest or two, and suddenly the objection becomes financial also.

" A lot of drugstores refuse to carry hallucinogenic drugs "

Thanks for the info. Saved me a trip into town for some mescaline and psilocybin.

Went to Sam's Club the other day. It's where we get all our prescriptions. Mrs Oohrah had a script for something to help with a gall bladder attack.

Pharmacist said they didn't carry the drug and he hadn't seen it proscribed in a "long time." Fortunately, Wal-Mart down the street carried it.

Question: should pharmacies be forced to carry each and every drug known to exist? And if not, under what rationale?

This thread concerns the conscience issue... but what about "turns?" Should a pharmacy stock something which doesn't sell - or turn?

Fair enough. A lot of drugstores refuse to carry hallucinogenic drugs, because they're being broken into constantly. Should we shut them down? Or it is okay to refuse to carry drugs for financial reasons, but not religious ones? Because in that case, all the pro-lifers need to is organize a protest or two, and suddenly the objection becomes financial also.

Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-03 10:10 AM | Reply

Time for them to get a Wall Safe or a floor safe for those types of drugs. I expect the pharmacist to have the drug the I am prescribed NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

Larry

Nice try. Pharmacists have a license from the state.

#66 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

So does an Amish restaurant who refuses to dispense beer. So does the family-owned card store who refuses to sell racy greeting cards you'll find at Spencers. So does the occult bookstore who won't sell Bibles. Every single business in America gets a license from the state. So what?

Time for them to get a Wall Safe or a floor safe for those types of drugs. I expect the pharmacist to have the drug the I am prescribed NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

Larry

#85 | Posted by LarryMohr
* * *

Wow! What a great idea! A safe, or some kind of secure cabinet!
You're genius Larry. I'll bet that's never occurred to anyone. Next thing you know, they might start putting bars over their windows, and locking the doors at night.

"I expect the pharmacist to have the drug the I am prescribed NO MATTER WHAT IT IS."

Contact your representative. Have him/her propose a "Larry Law" because you're so special. I'm sure it'll be well accepted in whatever world you inhabit.

" proscribed "

Uh, ... I think you meant 'prescribed.'

Proscribed = prohibited.

And Sam's Club = Walmart.

I use Medco.

"I'll bet that's never occurred to anyone."

In Larry's part of Kansas it's the latest thing.

Good catch, ZAT.

And while there are deep ties between the two entities it apparently doesn't extend to their respective pharmacies' inventories.

So does an Amish restaurant who refuses to dispense beer."

Wow, that's a real equivalency! There's only one restaurant, and you absolutely HAVE to have a beer or your entire life will change!

What's the matter, RiR? Your usual "inner-city thugs will break in" argument didn't hold water?

But I guess "judicial activism" is okay if it's YOUR activism, huh?

The principle is simple: do you want whatever pill jockey who happens to be on duty at the local Ralph's to have a veto over a medical decision made between you and your doctor?

And liberal assholes have no right to declare Christians can not be pharmacists or physicians if they refuse to violate their consciences. Period. That is what freedom is all about.

As usual, only YOUR freedom matters.

So does an Amish restaurant who refuses to dispense beer. So does the family-owned card store who refuses to sell racy greeting cards you'll find at Spencers. So does the occult bookstore who won't sell Bibles. Every single business in America gets a license from the state. So what?

You really think beer, racy greeting cards and Bibles are equal to medications?

This isn't about some store not stocking a product, it's about the store overriding a decision they have no business involving themselves in.

"Fair enough. A lot of drugstores refuse to carry hallucinogenic drugs, because they're being broken into constantly."

Could you give me a list of ones that do carry hallucinogenic drugs? Thanks.

NULL-
I think the poster meant to say narcotics.

When I worked in a drug store as a kid the pharmacist had them locked up. I would presume the same regulations exist today.

Larry,

It is not possible for a pharmacy to stock every drug. Most of my MS drugs have to be ordered on-line. I have pointed this out before but aparently it is ok to force a pharmacy to stock a drug for political reasons but not for finacial reasons.

Bottom line is pharmacies will be forced to stock a product because the right to life lobby is so strong. Barr will love it.

I bet Novartis or Bayer would love for the MS lobby to get that strong.

It's a pretty sad day when I agree with Danni and am not liberal enough for you guys.

The principle is simple: do you want whatever pill jockey who happens to be on duty at the local Ralph's to have a veto over a medical decision made between you and your doctor?

#92 | Posted by Danforth
* * *

Oh. They're "pill jockeys" now.

No. I think I should be able to get a doctor to write me a scrip for marijuana, then sue any pharmacy that doesn't carry it. And if I can find a doc to write me one for powerful narcotics, I should be able to go to any inner-city pharmacy and have the pill jockey there sent to jail because his insurance company doesn't let him carry it anymore.

This is fun! We can all be liberals! Hey, you douchebag pill jockey! I gotta piece of paper right here! Gimme my pills!

LMAO. You're funny.

You really think beer, racy greeting cards and Bibles are equal to medications?

This isn't about some store not stocking a product, it's about the store overriding a decision they have no business involving themselves in.

#93 | Posted by jpw
* * *

Ummm . . . okay. Never mind that it is their business, and that my point was that every business is licensed by the state.

You libbies are funny. Tell me--what business do you work for?

"and that my point was that every business is licensed by the state."

And the assholes ought to have their license pulled.

I'm licensed by the states, too. All 50 of them. And guess what? I can choose to take any client I want, I can--and do--refuse to sell certain investments, and tell them that if that's what they want, they need to go elsewhere. Should I go to jail? Should I have somebody like YOU looking over my shoulder, approving everything?

What biz are you libbies in?

"I think I should be able to get a doctor to write me a scrip for marijuana, then sue any pharmacy that doesn't carry it."

Excellent idea. Definitely should be part of any patient's bill of rights.

Next, you pious self serving people who profess to be "the moral fiber" of America and consider yourselves part of the "Religion of love" will be refusing to sell AIDs medication because you think that it's God's way of punishing people...

For god's sake, it's a grouping of cells; tissue. I scrub more intricate forms of life off my skin every time I take a shower...

Shut up.

Shut up.

#103 | Posted by rightisright

Shut up yourself, rtard.

#100 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-03 01:49 PM

If you were in the medical field, yes you should be forced to sell medication that is legal and necessary for the public that pays taxes to insure that you are regulated according to FDA guidelines...

So every single pharmacy in California should be required to sell marijuana? And every single inner-city pharmacy in the country needs to keep quantities of narcotics onhand?

You know best. It's must be great to be a libbie, and just know everything.

"So every single pharmacy in California should be required to sell marijuana? "

We don't need to. We have dispensaries/co-ops full of all kinds of goodies: cannabis, hash, hash oil, cannabis lemonade, cookies, cannabis-infused BBQ sauce, you know, the usual.

"What biz are you libbies in?" #100 - RIR

When the government controls healthcare there won't be any latitude, nor would there be latitude for you to only offer certain investment vehicles if you wanted to maintain your government-approved license.

The really insidious thing about government-run healthcare is the massive control they'd have over our entire life.

Look at all the strings which come attached to government-backed plans in education or any number of other areas. Don't think for one second the government won't lay out guidelines "for our own good" and tax the crap out of businesses and individuals to "encourage" compliance... or simply ban something entirely. And where is a citizen to turn for redress? Sue the government? We can't switch to another provider.

Without competition there's no incentive to attain profit. I realize that's a dirty word to some, but without it you'd have to keep tapping into the tax kitty for more and more.

At what point do Americans say, "enough!"?

"If you were in the medical field, yes you should be forced to sell medication that is legal and necessary for the public that pays taxes to insure that you are regulated according to FDA guidelines..." - CAPT

What about the trucking industry? It's regulated, too. Should my transport company be compelled to haul cargo I deemed inappropriate or not profitable?

This is the stupidest debate ever! So when does life begin for the religious right? According to the FDA's website, Plan B works in three ways: it can stop an egg from being released; it can stop sperm from fertilizing an egg; and it can stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Once implanted, Plan B will no longer work, so IT IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL. That's the reason women have such a short window in which to use it!

How far do we go? Is a fertilized egg life? A lot of shit happens between fertilization and birth. Is every miscarriage an abortion? Since God apparently decides so many things in the lives of Talabaptists, then lets protest God for the millions of abortions he causes every year!

Lets take this argument to the next logical step. Will religious righties refuse to sell condoms, or fill prescriptions for birth control pills? So then the Talabaptists will want to start prosecuting (or killing) the 99% of teenage boys who masterbate, because they waste millions of sperm, each of which could possibly conceive a child! Charge them all as mass murderers. Have O'Reilly call them all "Baby Killer." Any girl that menstruates, lets charge her with murder, because she's wasting good eggs that could be fertilized. How silly are they willing to take this thing?

A pharmacist is a "professional" who is trained, and licensed to dispense drugs, not moral advice. If a pharmacist can't do his/her job with a clear conscience, the he/she needs to find a different line of work! My thought is, if a woman wants counseling on morality, she will seek that from another professional, her clergy!

#109 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-10-03 03:32 PM
***"What about the trucking industry? It's regulated, too. Should my transport company be compelled to haul cargo I deemed inappropriate or not profitable?"

The trucking industry hasn't taken an oath to provide medical treatment and pharmaceuticals to the tax paying public under strict governmental regulation. Regulation that the tax paying public has paid to have enacted and enforced...

"And if I can find a doc to write me one for powerful narcotics, I should be able to go to any inner-city pharmacy and have the pill jockey there sent to jail because his insurance company doesn't let him carry it anymore."

I knew you'd break out your "scary inner-city thugs" line sooner or later. But this has nothing to do with safety, and you know it. It has to do with people who can't win the issue at the ballot box or in the courtroom wanting (all of a sudden) to be able to impose their moral "judicial activism" on people they feel aren't as Holy-As-They-Are. They have no idea if the mother's life is in danger. They have no idea if the fetus is irreparably damaged. All they know is someone isn't living by THEIR capricious standards, and they suddenly believe they should have the power over what a doctor has decided is the best medical route for the patient.

Of course, you wouldn't want your Christian Scientist mailman refusing to deliver your blood-pressure medication, but that's different, right?

OMG. You and your Christian Scientist mailman.

If the CS works for the postal service, he has to follow any rules the service expects of him. If he runs his own delivery service, he's free to make any rules he cares to, and his clientele can respond accordingly.

I'm all about freedom. You libbies aren't. If a store owner doesn't want to carry condoms, he shouldn't be required to carry condoms, whether his objection is religious, moral, or otherwise.

The trucking industry hasn't taken an oath to provide medical treatment and pharmaceuticals to the tax paying public under strict governmental regulation. Regulation that the tax paying public has paid to have enacted and enforced...

#111 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus
* * * *

So . . . are you saying that the owner of a trucking company can refuse to ship morning-after pills, if he is a practicing Catholic? Or not?

I used to run a trucking company. It's surprising to hear how ignorant you are about the regulations there. Actually--no it's not.

" If a store owner doesn't want to carry condoms, he shouldn't be required to carry condoms, whether his objection is religious, moral, or otherwise."

Condoms aren't prescription drugs, so that's just a deflection from a doctor-patient relationship, but now that you mention, yeah, pharmacies ought to sell condoms. And if they don't, the bible-thumping pricks ought to lose their license, have their assets seized, and imprisoned for 5 years just for the hell of it.

Ummm . . . okay. Never mind that it is their business, and that my point was that every business is licensed by the state.

And it's a poor argument you're making because it backs your preconceived conclusions. Beer, Bibles and racy greeting cards are NOT the same as medications. This is not about whether or not a store owner has the right to carry a production or not. It's about a store owner overriding the medical decision made between a patient and a doctor not because they know better, but because it offends their sensibilities.

You're being intentionally obtuse if you think it's about anything else.

You libbies are funny. Tell me--what business do you work for?

What does it matter what business anyone works for? Would you be happy if someone unqualified and completely removed from the situation decides their morals overrides YOUR personal decision and you just had to deal with it?

I'm all about freedom. You libbies aren't.

LOL you're so full of shit.

You're all about freedom so long as it agrees with YOUR beliefs.

At what point do Americans say, "enough!"?

Good question.

It seems many have said "enough!" when it comes to self-righteous, holier than thou religious dipshits trying to tell them how to live their life.

"self-righteous, holier than thou religious dipshits trying to tell them how to live their life."

Too bad we can't deport these assholes.

You're all about freedom so long as it agrees with YOUR beliefs.

#116 | Posted by jpw
* * *

Not quite, turd. I don't have a problem with a Muslim limo owner not picking up someone with alcohol. No problemo with a libbie women's clinic who don't want to treat men.

Then again, no reason for "pill jockeys", whose only education consists of being able to count to 250 differentiate between green and red, to be able to argue with an all-knowing doctor. No such thing as a conscience should be allowed to operate anywhere you libbies say. Go libs! You know everything!

Too bad we can't deport these assholes.

#118 | Posted by nullifidian
* * * *

You can! Just call the White House! Gobama!

#114 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-03 08:36 PM
***"So . . . are you saying that the owner of a trucking company can refuse to ship morning-after pills, if he is a practicing Catholic? Or not?"

No, I didn't say that...

***"I used to run a trucking company. It's surprising to hear how ignorant you are about the regulations there. Actually--no it's not."

I didn't used to run a trucking company...

I am not that familiar with trucking regulations. Why would that be so surprising?...

You answered your own question...

And, this thread is not about trucking, it is about Religionists (once again) trying to force their beliefs upon those of us who aren't dedicated to their chosen name-brand of inspiration...

No such thing as a conscience should be allowed to operate anywhere you libbies say. Go libs! You know everything!

You can follow your conscience by not using the pill yourself.

But that's as far as it goes-yourself. By influencing other people's lives, it goes beyond yourself and that is when the problem arises.

Don't want to be part of the dispensation, tough. Get a job with "conscience applies" as part of the job description.

A doctor may not operate on blacks because of their conscience? Is that what repubs are saying?

I am not that familiar with trucking regulations. Why would that be so surprising?...

Because it shows you're not as all-knowing and infallable as rir.

I haven't read the entire thread, so if this is redundant, (considering the "it's fucking obvious" factor, it probably is) excuse me.

If some aspect of a job bothers a person, (s)he has no business working in that position. A business shouldn't have to rewrite its business model to be PC.

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2009-10-03 10:16 PM

***"because it shows you're not as all-knowing and infallable as rir"

If that's what "all knowing" looks like I'll remain a "know nothing"...

No offense RIR...
;~}

#125 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-03 10:17 PM
***If some aspect of a job bothers a person, (s)he has no business working in that position. A business shouldn't have to rewrite its business model to be PC"

Well, it is a bit redundant, but it's nice to hear it said by someone other than me...

Wow, I just realized -we agree on something-, either one of us is getting smarter, or one of us is getting dumber... (keep your opinion as-to who is doing what to yourself)...

;~}

Thanks...

Wow, I just realized -we agree on something-, either one of us is getting smarter, or one of us is getting dumber... (keep your opinion as-to who is doing what to yourself)...

;~}

There are only 4 or 5 regular contributors to the DR whose intelligence I question. You are definitely not one of them.

So, if I understand the libs, I should be able to go into a vegan grocer and DEMAND that they sell me a steak, and put the owner of the business and/or the store people out of a job if they refuse.

I should be able to take my girlfriend into an abortion clinic and DEMAND that they perform a live birth, or have them put in jail.

And, finally, I should be able to grab a war protester and DEMAND that they go to war to defend me or have them put in jail...

I am sure that all you libbies are so strongly supporting my right to eat what I want, have a child if I want, and have a safe country... you will all line up behind me when the lynching of vegans and abortionist and war protesters begin, right?

FUCK all you whinny-assed liberals that are intellectually bankrupt.

FUCK all you whinny-assed liberals that are intellectually bankrupt.

So are all you dipshits spewing bad comparisons and misconstruing the topic to a right to carry whatever product you want. That's not what the debate is about.

No room for Libertarians here, 1. Liberty is defined only by one of the libbies' grievance-mongering identity groups. Vegans are Obama voters, so you'll just have to get your steak elsewhere.

"OMG. You and your Christian Scientist mailman."

Of course you don't like it. It shows the huge gap in your logic. If a pharmacist should have a veto between doctor and patient, why shouldn't anyone else who could possibly insert themselves in between?

I'm sure it's especially uncomfortable since your usual "inner-city thugs waiting to break in" meme doesn't work in this arena. Instead, it all boils down to someone wanting to impose their paternalistic morality on someone else.

"Vegans are Obama voters, so you'll just have to get your steak elsewhere."

But, but, but...shouldn't your waiter have that final veto? He knows more than you, right? He gets to override the chef, doesn't he?

"No room for Libertarians here"

I hadn't realized "libertarians" (whatever that means) had thrown in with the bible-thumpers.

I hadn't realized "libertarians" (whatever that means) had thrown in with the bible-thumpers.

Well, if you don't know what it means it's no surprise you don't know who they "throw in" with, is it?

I don't know why we have pharmacists at all. Just get a bunch of former ACORN workers who can count, then get them to work in ObamaCareClinics. They're only pill jockeys, and it's marginally more prestigious than lining up Guatemalan prostitutes for welfare checks. And nobody could EVER accuse an ACORN employee of being morally judgmental, which is something we simply can't have in the medical profession anyway.

Headed down to Rite Aid to pick me up some medical pot. I gotta doctor, and we can't have any of these pussy pharmacists coming between me & my doc, right?

Gobama! Go libbies! Drugs for everybody!

"we can't have any of these pussy pharmacists coming between me & my doc, right?'

No, on the contrary...whomever is on duty should have the final say...right? It should all depend on who the Piggly Wiggly manager scheduled for this Saturday night. Who gives a fuck if the doctor went to med school for 8 years, the pharmacy tech went to the community college for 8 weeks!

Drugs for everybody!

#136 | Posted by rightisright

Good idea. We should tax churches to pay for it.

Nobody even needs 8 weeks. I didn't know until Danforth and these smart libbies came around how really easy pharmacists' are. "Can you count? Can you put little pills into a big bottle? You're hired!"

Maybe we should have a PharmaCzar. Think of all the money we can save, by replacing pharmacists with anyone who finished kindergarten. Go Danforth! You're a genius!

This might be one of the ways Obama thinks there's $500 billion to be saved in Medicare. Just replace doctors with unemployed service union members, and pharmacists with gang-bangers from Chicago! Go libbies!

How about a Reefers for Reading Program? We put a tax on bibles and all other cult merchandise like voodoo dolls, crucifixes, rosemary beads, etc., and use the money to pay for free joints handed out for participation in public library reading programs.

"Can you count? Can you put little pills into a big bottle? You're hired!"

Oh, please...you know that's not the only questions asked. "Can you make capricious moral decisions irregardless of knowing the full medical story?" has to be another query on the application.

"#139 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-03 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:"

What in the fuck what that pile of incoherent horseshit? Are you drunk? It's almost midnight down there in inbred banjo land, isn't it?

morally judgmental, which is something we simply can't have in the medical profession anyway.

Everyone is judgmental to some degree, it's just whether or not you allow it to interfere with being a professional. These people are, that's why it's a problem.

Headed down to Rite Aid to pick me up some medical pot. I gotta doctor, and we can't have any of these pussy pharmacists coming between me & my doc, right?

Except pot is currently illegal. Plan B is not. Get it?

#136 | Posted by rightisright
#139 | Posted by rightisright

Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it?

...inbred banjo land...

Actually laws have been passed to ensure genetic diversity for banjos.

A Los Angeles pharmacist told Anna Nicole Smith's internist that the drugs he had prescribed to the model after her son died were "pharmaceutical suicide," and refused to fill the prescriptions.

"Who do those douchebags think they are? Bunch of pill jockeys coming between a patient and her doctor. Get busy, DanforthfidianJPW--here are three guys who need their licenses pulled."

Gee, you've obviously lost on the main issue, so you're trying to flip it from interference on moral grounds to interference on the grounds of knowledge.

If you can show where Plan B is 'suicidal', you'll have a point. Since you can't, all you've done is try to move the goalposts.

Pharmacists interjecting based on science is completely different from interjecting based on paternalistic morality.

Except that's part of their job, dumb fuck.

We have pharmacists to ensure that medications are safely administered.

Denying Plan B because it makes your pussy dry up is NOT anywhere close to the same thing.

Yet again you draw a false comparison. Yet again you show your stupidity is not yet at rock bottom.

Pharmacists interjecting based on science is completely different from interjecting based on paternalistic morality.

#146 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Uh huh. Paternalistic morality. Well, we can't have any of that.
We should pass a law, maybe. Whenever a doc prescribes an abortifacient, methadone, or . . . I guess whatever else DanforthUnitybama want to put on the list, they can't ask questions. Otherwise, they're expected to interject . . . um . . . based on science.
I guess we have to send them to school after all. Too bad. Think of all that money.

Yet again you show your stupidity is not yet at rock bottom.

#147 | Posted by jpw at 2009-10-03 11:55 PM |
* * * *

I know. I keep doing that. I wish I were as smart as you libbies, who just know everything.

A prescription is a permission slip from a doctor, not a court order from a judge. Learn the difference people.

"Uh huh. Paternalistic morality. Well, we can't have any of that."

No, RiR, that's all we should have. Waiters deciding what you should be served, despite what the chef offers or you order. CS mailmen withholding mail-order prescriptions. Pizza-delivering vegetarians picking all the meat off the Choice Cut Thin Crusts. Whomever is in the chain should always have the final veto, regardless the consequenses....right?

"Otherwise, they're expected to interject . . . um . . . based on science."

You know there's a difference. Why are you pretending you don't?

"Paternalistic morality. Well, we can't have any of that."

You sure hate it when someone with a (D) after their name wants to impose environmental restrictions.

I know. I keep doing that. I wish I were as smart as you libbies, who just know everything.

It's not about knowing everything, it's about not being intentionally obtuse and being able to actually address arguments without injecting irrelevant information.

A prescription is a permission slip from a doctor, not a court order from a judge. Learn the difference people.

But it's also outside of the role of the pharmacist to deny one's access to a legal drug prescribed by a doctor based on their own "values."

I know. I keep doing that. I wish I were as smart as you libbies, who just know everything.

Posted by rightisright

Democrats don't know everything, but being able to state the facts as they are widely known is easy:

- The Bush Administration didn't think deficits matter. Now, all the GOP can talk about are deficits and debt. The same crowd that just a couple years ago were making excuses that the national debt was "ONLY such and such percentage of the GDP".

- The Bush Administration had the once in a generation opportunity to completely PAY OFF the national debt, but chose to double it instead to one never seen in the history of mankind.

- After years of harping on 'big government' the GOP chose to engage in the largest expansion of government known to mankind.

- Now, every right wing idiot (obvious who they are here) are harping on the very situation that the Bush Administration and GOP Congress got us into and blaming the paramedics who have to deal with the crisis rather than the drunks who crashed the car.

I'd bet you may have made statements just like the last sentence in paragraph #1... Hmmm?

And, RightIsRight, your Anna Nicole Smith analogy is apples and oranges. One type addicts abuse, the other hardly so.

#128 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-03 10:42 PM

Thanks, and back at you...

Ok... I think some on the left are missing the point, probably intentionally. From the article ... and owner Kevin Stormans made it clear that as a Christian, he chose to not stock the drug at his pharmacy based on religious and moral grounds.

The owner of the business decided to not carry the product. That is the choice HE should be allowed to make. He owns the damn business. That is why I, as a libertarian, side with the religious right on this issue. [if it was the state trying to prevent the sell of the drug that the pharmacist wanted to carry, I would be on the side of the pharmacist in that case too... even though my personal views are opposed to abortion].

If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription for a certain drug for moral reasons, I have no problem with that either. However, if the owner of the business wanted to let the pharmacist go for not being able to sell them, that would be a different argument. I would probably side with the business owner in that case, but religious grounds are protected, so I could see arguments for both sides.

But that isn't the case here. The case here is can a business decide what it will or will not carry. Does some whore's desire to get a pill that may prevent / end a pregnancy override the desire of the owner to not carry the product?

If the desire of the customer for one product forces the owner of the business to carry a product they do not wish to carry, can we force abortion clinics to deliver babies? Can we force vegans to sell meat? Can we force AA meetings to serve beer?

Just how much freedom is the left going to allow someone who disagrees with them?

Or force auto manufacturers to only make certain kinds of vehicles...

That is the choice HE should be allowed to make. He owns the damn business.

If I own a burger joint should I be allowed to not serve blacks?

In my opinion, yes. Of course, if you refused to serve blacks, I would not chose to eat there. But if you own the business, you should be allowed to do stupid shit that cost you business if you want to.

If the people in the neighborhood where the pharmacy is located are so upset that they have to go somewhere else for their abortion goodies, they can stop shopping there. If the store owner looses enough business, he will go under and someone else will take over. Capitalism at its finest.

Maybe the new owners won't care for cigs or beer and not sell them. Who know? Maybe some lib will buy the place and only sell condoms, morning after pills, and health food.

Sorry but a Pharmacy must despense medicine NOT Moral or Religious beliefs. Doesn't a Patient have an expected right to obtain those medications prescribed to Him or Her as their Doctor orders?? Yes they do. Their health is counting on it.

Larry

No.

You do not have any RIGHT to force a business to carry a product just because you want it.

You want to make the product available, open your own god damn store.

Or, better yet, give your product to the doctors and let them give them to the women directly...

Oh, even better... just have the schools give all the little girls a morning after pill with their milk for breakfast.

And based on the left's defense of that child-rapist... the little girls would be all ready for some good teacher-on-13 year old action.

Oohrah ever heard of this place?

So... don't eat there. Stand outside and hold up a sign telling customers that blacks aren't allowed to eat there. If people of all color agrees that the owner of this shop is a piece of shit, then he would go out of business.

Better yet, open a bbq shop next door, make it open to everyone, and put up a big sign telling people headed to his shop that you aren't racist.

I wouldn't be a member of a club or party that discriminates against blacks or women. But I don't think we need to go to court to break up black universities or women's colleges.

No, hadn't heard of it, JACK. If it was violating your civil rights then the courts got it right based on the laws we have. We are in agreement with that.

If your point is that businesses (people) discriminate... again, people have done that for centuries and will always have their set of views. When those views manifest into actions like refusing to admit or sell to you based on those protected civil rights, then the legal system has cause to right that wrong.

If you're making a correlation between not serving blacks and refusing to stock a particular product... we'd have to disagree. You'd have a hard time convincing a judge your civil rights have been violated - upon what would your base your case?

Now if the pharmacy DID stock the product but would only offer the abortion pill to minorities to preserve white supremacy, then if that could be proven, you'd have a case.

"But that isn't the case here. The case here is can a business decide what it will or will not carry. Does some whore's desire to get a pill that may prevent / end a pregnancy override the desire of the owner to not carry the product? "

And you just showed your reasoning. So to speak. Yep, anyone wanting that product is clearly a whore. (I think you probably meant slut, but okay.) No, it clearly couldn't be used by a married person who forgot, by someone whose condom broke, by...

See, moral judgment. If you're against contraception in any way, you shouldn't even open your mouth on this argument. Unless you couch it in those terms. If you're against premarital sex (or sex that is not intended for procreation), you shouldn't even open your mouth on this arguments. Unless you couch it in those terms.

I'm actually impressed that most of the argument has not been about either of those things, or about judging the person having sex and needing/desiring the product. Most of you are arguing owner's rights and their conflict with patient (consumer?) desire/need. I side with the folks who say "If you don't want to give it, don't do the job. Dispense the drugs that are legal, not the drugs that are legal that you agree with." I might take this step, though: ADVERTISE in BIG letters that you have certain values and post out loud and outside the drugs you won't distribute. But this gets rather fantastic. How about a pharmacy owner who doesn't believe in psychiatry? So we could have folks blowing their stack because they can't get the drugs that hold their psychoses in check? Murder and chaos ensuing? Yes, it's dramatic, but think about it. What if you're the only pharmacy in a 60-mile radius? Your potential patrons can't realistically get to another pharmacy (poor, no car, etc.--you know, like lots of hardworking folks in the flyover zone). If you start picking and choosing what products to carry, what happens to them? The "market" doesn't solve every problem, folks.

And I agree, pharmacists (actual pharmacists, not any old person behind the pharmacy counter) are not pill jockeys. They're educated, trained professionals. As such, they are subject to greater regulation than store owners (yes, the argument that "every business has a license, so the gov't can control all businesses" is bunk; a business "license"--papers of incorporation--is not in the same realm as a doctor's license, pharmacist's license, teacher's license...).

I skipped ahead a bit...

Point 1) Pharmacist can not interfere with Dr. Paitient relationship.

CounterP1) My pharmacy does for fincial but not moral reasons so that makes it ok for the pharmacy to interfere with a Dr. Paitient relationship.

CounterP2) Plan B is OTC for anyone over 18 so there is no Dr. Paitient relationship at question here.

2) A pharmacisit has to do their job their job is pushing pills so they have to do it.

CounterP1) No counter this is true if you work for a pharmacy and you won't do your job tough shit your fired.

3) A pharmacy owner has to stock it

CounterP1) Why why do you force them to stock this and not Advil or Tylenol or Avonex?

CounterP1) Why why do you force them to stock this and not Advil or Tylenol or Avonex?

#169 | Posted by TaoWarrior
* * * *

You already know the answer to that. When a large percentage of Democrat voters need Avonex, then they'll start the lawsuits. Until they're a protected class and a professional grievance-mongering group, you'll just have to settle for getting it by mail.

RiR I know the answer but would love to actualy hear someone admit it.

I suspect it will either be ignored or someone will blather on about how it is different.

What's Avonex? I think the answer is that they _are_ different. If a pharmacy/drugstore stocked no NSAIDs, that would be very odd--and who the hell would shop there? A Christian Scientist pharmacy? But seriously, I have only seen this issue come up in connection to the Morning After pill and very occasionally other contraceptives (not the same as abortifacients, though we could argue about Morning After).

By definition, Advil, Tylenol, etc. are different. And the "moral pharmacist" is probably not going to think of rejecting those.

I think the argument about doctors (say, an ob-gyn not treating an unwed mother in an emergency) is somewhat valid--not that the Morning After pill is that sort of emergency, but...

Will anyone take on my question about geographic accessibility? It's not cut and dried, but I think it's worth talking about.

My pharmacy does for fincial but not moral reasons so that makes it ok for the pharmacy to interfere with a Dr. Paitient relationship.

The pharmacy is doing all that it can to stock the drugs that its customers need, given the company's financial situation. This in no way is comparable to an individual pharmacist obstructing an individual patient's access to a drug.

Plan B is OTC for anyone over 18 so there is no Dr. Paitient relationship at question here.

A pharmacist's job is to facilitate access to medicine, not hinder it. There is still the issue of a pharmacist blocking an individual's access to a drug that has only a narrow window of time in which it is effective. It is a unethical practice born out of fundies' desires to impose their beliefs on others.

if you work for a pharmacy and you won't do your job tough shit your fired

So we agree... if you refuse to sell medicines that your store stocks, you should be fired. If you refuse to stock medicines that personally offend you, management should hire someone who will.

Why why do you force them to stock this and not Advil or Tylenol or Avonex?

There is no need to force a pharmacy to stock those OTC medications. Fundamentalist idiots aren't refusing to sell/stock them (like Plan B).

Zombie,

The pharmacy is doing all that it can to stock the drugs that its customers need, given the company's financial situation. This in no way is comparable to an individual pharmacist obstructing an individual patient's access to a drug.

Zombie since getting MS I have had 3 scripts that I had to mail order why are you not screaming to force a pharmacy owner to stock those? Maybe becaue it is a finacial decision to not stock? So why is that different that not stocking a drug because you don't want to. As you said we agree about the role of pharmacist as employee the difference is pharacist as business owner. I am not talking about one pharmacist being a dick. Fire his ass.

There is no need to force a pharmacy to stock those OTC medications. Fundamentalist idiots aren't refusing to sell/stock them (like Plan B).

The other day I went to the store to get more claratin and they were out Should I sue? I had to drive to go buy it somewhere that did stock it pain and suffering I was denied by that evil pharmacist!

Prag,

Will anyone take on my question about geographic accessibility? It's not cut and dried, but I think it's worth talking about.

It is and so far it is the only really valid argument I have heard. My easy answer is online/over the phone. Just like all the fun MS drugs I have to order that way.

I see. So it's okay to refuse to stock a drug out of selfish financial reasons, but not moral ones.

Got it.

just wondering

are there any Christian Science Doctors or Pharmacists?

Parents of this faith are regularly hauled into Court to force treatment for their children's curable and incurable diseases.

Care must be provided, unless of course, you're an Insurance Company,whom can deny care until the patient dies.

It seems to me this issue has already been settled. Of course, some will argue that pregnancy is not a disease, but it is a biological state that some consider undesirable.

Why are the same people who believe we have souls and seek to make abortion illegal are the same people willing to bomb the innocent foriegners and deny welfare benefits to poor innocent American children. The primary beneficiaries are the attorneys. It is litigation for its own sake.

#168 | Posted by pragmatist

well said. He tries to put some libertarian lipstick on that pig but it seems he's just being intellectually dishonest.

I have had 3 scripts that I had to mail order why are you not screaming to force a pharmacy owner to stock those? Maybe becaue it is a finacial decision to not stock? So why is that different that not stocking a drug because you don't want to.

It's not merely a financial motive. Drugs have shelf lives and if a drug is rarely sold, allowing drugs to expire is wasteful.

For this argument to be valid you have to compare to a drug that is as in demand as Plan B (maybe they are, in which case I'm wrong).

The other day I went to the store to get more claratin and they were out Should I sue? I had to drive to go buy it somewhere that did stock it pain and suffering I was denied by that evil pharmacist!

They were out or they didn't carry it?

Also, did you drive two miles to another CVS to pick it up? They could not carry it so as to prevent redundant coverage of a particular product.

I see. So it's okay to refuse to stock a drug out of selfish financial reasons, but not moral ones.

Got it.

You don't see or get anything.

I continue to be amazed at something that continues to be missed here in this issue. There are the rights of patients, there are the rights of pharmacists, but what about addressing the rights of the pharmacy?

Frankly, I think it is not a big deal to support the rights of a particular person, the pharmacist. But that does not mean we should support the pharmacy in this. The pharmacy has it's own license. I say let the individual pharmacist refuse, but don't let the pharmacy refuse. Thus, every single pharmacy in America, in order to have a pharmacy license to give any pill, must have on staff during every hour that any pharmacist is on duty, to also have on duty a pharmacist who will provide those pills.

Thus it forces the pharmacy/pharmacist to put their money where their mouth is. In order to excercise your personal freedom to deny patients a medication, you have to be willing to have on duty -- thus paying the salary of, that second pharmacist that will provide the pill.

The pharmacy will be required to know how their individual pharmacist feels on this issue, and if they decide to hire a pharmacist who refuses to provide such pills, then that pharmacy must find and employ and pay the salary of a pharmacist who will.

Actions have consequences.

"It is and so far it is the only really valid argument I have heard. My easy answer is online/over the phone. Just like all the fun MS drugs I have to order that way."

Sorry to hear about your MS, Tao! Holy shit! Best of luck, now and always. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for you.

I don't know if I agree that it's the only valid argument, but I know about your libertarian tendencies... : ) So I thank you for acknowledging a point.

"Also, did you drive two miles to another CVS to pick it up? They could not carry it so as to prevent redundant coverage of a particular product."

Good point--the redundancy. However, you have a criticism of an argument apparently embedded. What if you don't have an alternate pharmacy nearby? Where is the line? It seems to me that allowing someone to decide not to dispense (individual or store) the Morning After pill could easily be the beginning of a slippery slope. And that's what many people have been getting at--if you allow a "moral" or "values" based decision here, it opens the door to lots more. So can pharmacies choose not to stock any form of birth control? (Granting that there are reasons/benefits of birth control besides killing babies.) Can pharmacies choose not to stock anti-psychotic drugs because they don't believe in psychiatry? Etc.

I really don't think you can ignore the slippery slope issue. I mean, hell, lots of you argue about unintended (as in unforeseen) consquences in Democrat-sponsored legislation. I think you're ignoring unintended consequences in this issue. Or maybe you're not, which might be even more problematic. To me, pharmacies are indeed part of the health-care network.

TAOWARRIOR

It is and so far it is the only really valid argument I have heard. My easy answer is online/over the phone. Just like all the fun MS drugs I have to order that way.

I saw this article the other day when I was checking out Science Daily and thought of you and my cousin. I plan to email it to her and to link for you to read when you showed up again on DR. Now's a good a time as any and hope you see my post.

Chris,

There is a lot of good stuff coming out about MS now and with stem cell really just gearing up here in the states I expect a lot more soon. I had not heard about that one but sounds like progress. Thanks for finding it (oh and not mentioning stoping drinking diet soda or removing my mecury amalgam fillings) I swear if I have one more person tell me that will cure my MS I will hit them. I don't drink/use fake sugar and never have and I don't have any mercury fillings.

Prag,

I do understand the slipery slope argument but it works the other way too. If it is ok to mandate that a business owner stock one product where does it stop?

I think that unless geographic avalibility is at issue then an owner should make his own choice. I would be willing to say that if it was the only pharmacy in 60 miles and due to the time issues with Plan B then yes it would be ok to mandate it at that pharmacy but if the pharmacy owner does not want to stock it the gov. ought to pay to stock it and keep the profits from it. However telling Joe the Pharmacy owner he has to stock it when there is another one half a block away is just being authoritarian for the sake of it.

If you think the poor people in flyover country all need these products and can't get them, start your own chain of pharmacies.

Capitalism vs fascism. What a concept.

If you think the poor people in flyover country all need these products and can't get them, start your own chain of pharmacies.
* * * *

I don't know. That sounds like it might involve work.

Pharmacies are a necessary and vital component of the health care delivery network.

It's a disruptive and unwarranted intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship for them to refuse to dispense based on non-medical reasons.

Pharmacists are entrusted with medical judgments like not prescribing dangerous combinations of drugs, and not prescribing to drug-seekers. But they can't refuse to serve niggers or whoever else they personally don't like.

I don't see why there's even debate about this. It's as plain as day. As an academic exercise it might be interesting but pharmacists exist to safely fill the Rx; that's their job.

Well Snoof, it's a debate because we happen to live in a Republic. And just because something should be non-negotiable to you, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

"Capitalism vs fascism. What a concept."

Seems to me some of you can't make up your mind whether libruls are into socialism or fascism.

Anyway... It's been fun. There is no solution to this argument.

But kudos to those who can have the argument without bringing up hot-button scare words.

Like I said, RiR, interesting from an academic point of view.

That we're even having a public policy debate on this issue is a sign of how unhinged we've become. "Equal time for wingnuts" as Drew Curtis would say.

And just because something should be non-negotiable to you, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I think it's pretty well understood that if people find their jobs morally objectionable, they should find a new job. Should a vegetarian working at McDonald's have the right to refuse to hand over a Bic Mac? Let's say I work at a gas station, does my concern for global warming mean I can refuse to sell you gas for your SUV?

Snoofy,

But it is OTC so no Dr. Paitent relationship. That seems to be the crux of the argument against a pharmacy owner getting to stock what they want to.

RiR and Libertarian, I do agree with you but I would be willing to compromise to protect the rest of the pharmacists in the nation, besides I have a guess that there are not too many places that would qualify for the within 60 mile rule.

Snoofy,

If the guy who owns the gas station belives global warming is man made well I have to wonder about his mental stability but he can sell or not sell gas to his hearts content.

There is a gas station across the street from me that does not sell gas, they had to dig up their tanks and the owner is not replacing them because he doesn't make enough to justify it. He makes most of his money on cigarettes, 40's and blunts anyway. Yes I have asked.

It's funny he still has the price up for super premium so some times people still pull in. Especialy since he hasn't changed it from the 1.91 it was when he had to stop selling it to rip out the old tanks.

Back on topic like prag said this is an endless argument and I want to watch a few episodes of Weeds before I crash so night all, it has been interesting, enlightining and fairly civil.

Me, I'm watching The Wire--last ep of Season 1.

"Doesn't require a prescription" is not the same as "can be procured outside a pharmacy."

Pharmacists are a trusted source in the delivery of health care and their purpose is to provide medicine, not deny it.

What sort of asshole gets into the pharmacy business and then withholds drugs? It defies reason.

But as usual, ideology trumps reason, especially Christian ideology, and especially in the eyes of the Christian.

Equal time for wingnuts

I"ve a slightly OT question: When someone refers to "wingnuts" how do you know whether they mean left wingnuts or right wingnuts unless it's obvious by the poster's normally partisan views?

Jewish restaurants should be forced to serve pork if we want it. -The left

"Jewish restaurants should be forced to serve pork if we want it.-The left"

False equivalents are all we have - The Right

"Doesn't require a prescription" is not the same as "can be procured outside a pharmacy."

- You set the bar at Dr. Paitent relationship not me. No moving it now.

What sort of asshole gets into the pharmacy business and then withholds drugs? It defies reason.

- Some of the assholes have been selling you grandparents the diaper rash cream for your parents. Plan B is much younger than the vast majority of pharmacists.

But as usual, ideology trumps reason, especially Christian ideology, and especially in the eyes of the Christian.

-Um how is letting a business owner run his own business a "christian ideology" While I won't deny being a christian I don't think my religion has a lot to do with my views on this one.

False equivalents are all we have - The Christian Scientist Mailman.

"False equivalents are all we have - The Christian Scientist Mailman."

That's a true equivalent. If one link in the chain can veto the decision made between you and your doctor, why shouldn't anyone and everyone in the chain have that same option? The pharmacist isn't making the refusal based on medicine, he's making it based on morals. It has nothing to do with his scientific training, and all to do with his religious training. If he gets the moral veto, why shouldn't everyone else who handles the prescription?

Nope the mail man does not stock the drug you ordered it online and he failed to deliver that is a failure to do his job. Has nothing to do with controlling what a pharmacy owner chooses to stock.

Seriously I have answered every objection you have and you still fall back on bullshit. I agree 100% that the pharmacists as employee has to do his damn job. The only difference we have is on the owner which renders your mailman example moot.

Please tell me why a pharmacy owner should be forced to carry this drug. You don't force them to carry my drug so why this one? Answer that honestly and maybe you might convince me. What is your logic?