Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 2:51:47 AM   
Petronius


Posts: 289
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments.  Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize.

Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies.


I don't have any problem with ad absurdum arguments; they're often useful and I make them myself.

But if you believe that "masturbating elderly patients" is really part of a nurses job description then that's not an ad absurdum argument; that's an absurd delusion about the world.

I'm not saying that people should simply be told to not take jobs they have some objections around. I am saying that people who want and defend government regulation of a job should not then be freed from the very regulation they defend. In this case we have a druggist who wants government regulation of druggists for anybody ... but druggists like himself.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 4:20:04 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

So, Marc, let me get this straight...you'd say it's all right for Muslim taxi drivers to deny service to customers carrying alcohol?

And if not...how is this case any different?


In the interest of full disclosure: I drove cab for six and a half years. So I have an insiders, and admittedly biased, view of anything that concerns taxi and taxi drivers.

To answer your question – yes. If a Hack (slang term for taxi driver) doesn’t want to pick up a particular passenger – for whatever reason – he shouldn’t have to. I see no compelling reason why the government should dictate who he may or may not allow in his cab.

Having been a cab driver I can say that this is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Most cabbies make their money on commissions and tips and you get neither if you deliberately limit your pool of customers. But, if that is what a particular cab driver wants to do, then it’s up to him to accept the consequences. I want to note that this applies to independent cab drivers. The Hack working for a cab company agrees to abide by the company’s rules or can look for work elsewhere (and the company as a whole must deal with the consequences) It’s all about personal freedom which means choosing the available choices and then making more choices in light of the consequences.

Brief departures – It occurs to me that the word "consequences" carries a negative connotation. I should note that when I say consequences, at least in this context, that I am using it in a neutral sense. Consequences (or results, if you will) can be good or bad.
 
Now, I know that many people will at this point start screaming that under this policy not only will Muslim drivers refuse to pick up passengers with alcohol, but other drivers will refuse to pick up black people (as if this doesn’t happen already), or Jews, etc., and that this will be a violation of their rights. But does a person have a right to hire a taxi? Does a person have a right to force association with someone who does not want to associate with them? I have conceded earlier that there are some situations where the government would have a compelling interest in overriding such rights. For example, requiring police officers not to discriminate (because they are representatives of the government). I do not see this situation as one of them.

I remain confident that nature abhors a vacuum, not just in physics but in society as well. Any cab driver/cab company (or any company in any business, for that matter) that refuses to serve a particular demographic (for whatever reason) yields that demographic, and the market share they represent, to the competition – and there will be competition to take that market share (presuming the government doesn’t interfere for some reason) either from existing companies or new companies created to exploit (I’m using exploit in the neutral sense, too) the stupidity of the KKK Kab Ko.

I also remain confident that any company that openly discriminates will soon become a victim of word of mouth (nothing can affect a company’s bottom line, for good or ill, more than reputation). The KKK Kab Ko. will not only yield the black demographic but will also loose business from any decent person of any race, creed or color. Despite what I see on the news, despite some life encounters with some truly abhorrent people, my experience is that most people are decent people. So, in my opinion, people who want the government to assume a parental role over us and force us to be nice to each other (which is not the same as forcing us to respect other people’s rights) are getting worked up over nothing. Let the jerks and the assholes amongst us run free. It makes them easier to spot. They also tend to congregate together and this makes them easier to avoid. In short, I prefer censure (the cumulative effect of free people making free choices) over government fiat.

Taxi Driver, Night Shift.
A Haiku by Marc2b

Skimming through hushed streets
Philosopher of the night
Smoke and coffee thoughts

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 4:28:17 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		He even writes Haiku!
Nicely answered, Marc2B, and I wish you a belated Happy Birthday.

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 5:13:53 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, the standard retort that these are bad business decisions anyway, because the market will take care of any customers who are discriminated against.  The problem is that it just isn't true.  The market didn't take care of customers who were discriminated against in the Jim Crow South.  A pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning-after pill may be making a VERY GOOD business decision if he lives in a neighborhood where he knows that his moral stand will be popular.  So you can spare your breath on the dream-world "let the market take care of it" answers.  That's never going to convince me.  We enacted laws about business practices precisely because of abuses in the past.  Why is the market going to take care of the problem now if the market didn't take care of the problem then?

We live in a federal union, not the Wild Wild West, and people ought to be able to rely on their pharmacist to dispense whatever drug their doctor damn well prescribes.  Or put it this way: I don't want to live in a nation where businesses are free to turn away people on the basis of their skin color; where Muslim taxi drivers can decide whether they're going to drive people to liquor stores; and where pharmacists can decide to withhold your medicine if they have a moral objection to it.  I don't think most Americans want that, either.

Funny how the people who talk about "small government" in cases like this tend to be the same people who want the government to ban abortions.  Small government?  Yeah, spare me, I know your response.  "That's not me, don't make invalid assumptions, I never said anything about banning abortions."  You're predictable.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 5:15:24 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

The potentially limited stocks at Rural pharmacies. Because it's in The Public Interest that the profession and operations of Pharmacists be regulated, one of the primary reasons is to ensure that when your physician prescribes any medication, that you will be able to go purchase that medication without undue burden.


I don’t think it is an undue burden to go to another pharmacy. Also, you’re operating on the presumption that people have a right to medicine. Now, before the denunciations start, this doesn’t mean I want to see anybody go without medicine they need but that is not the same as having a right to it. If you have a right to medicine then that means you have a right to compel people to labor in your service. If you believe that then why not go all the way and dictate to people what labor they must do and screw their personal choices.

That aside there remains the unintended consequences. If you force a rural pharmacy to stock certain medications (in order to ensure a readily available supply) that don’t sell in their area, you may end up forcing them out of business (due to the loss you force them to take by stocking unprofitable medicines). Now the people in the area don’t have any pharmacy, so how has your regulation helped them?

quote:

That burden is acknowledged by this ruling where the Judge tells the whiny bitches: "Sure you don't have to dispense or stock it, BUT if you're not going to you HAVE TO give the patient the name and address where the 'script can be filled."


Actually, that judge is telling us how wishy-washy he is. He seems to acknowledge people’s right not to violate their religious conviction but pulls back from fully proclaiming it.

quote:

Which brings up the moral question: "Is it RIGHT to tell someone whose prescription you're not filling, due to moral issues with assisting in the potential termination of a life, WHERE TO GO TO GET ASSISTANCE IN THAT ACT?"

Does telling the patient where to get it filled, make you an accessory to the abortion ANYWAY?


That would be up to the individual (the whole idea behind freedom). I want to reiterate, however, that businesses that refuses to serve a particular demographic are dumbasses. But that’s just me.

quote:

Did the judge bitch-slap these jerks, and they don't even know it, forcing them into doing one thing which is morally questionable to avoid another morally questionable act?


No. I still think he’s wishy-washy.

quote:

The point is actually that, say, Rite-Aid Drugs, doesn't have ***ANY*** wiggle room. Rite-Aid does what the fuck they're told, when they're told, and with a fucking smile. If the President of Rite Aid wants to donate a grand to a candidate and write a letter saying a law needs to be changed, that's FINE.

When Rite-Aid donates $5000 to a lobbyist, that's tampering with the political system.

See the essential difference? The Company PRESIDENT has a vote on Election Day. The COMPANY DOES NOT.


I’ve never seen Rite-Aid in the voting booth. The laws regarding political donations from various types of business are complex. If you don’t like them or feel that they are ineffective then work for changes in the laws. What I don’t understand are sentences like, "Rite-Aid does what the fuck they're told, when they're told, and with a fucking smile." I can’t help but wonder where this hostility comes from. You sound like you’re one of the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment (I’ve been reading the book). 

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 5:18:57 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks.  The birthday is actually on Tuesday, but thanks.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 5:45:33 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

What I don’t understand are sentences like, "Rite-Aid does what the fuck they're told, when they're told, and with a fucking smile."


EVERYTHING wrong in the US is traceable to a Corporation forgetting their "Natural Place".



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 6:43:07 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Yeah, the standard retort that these are bad business decisions anyway, because the market will take care of any customers who are discriminated against. The problem is that it just isn't true.


I never said the market will take care of any customers who are discriminated against. I contend that it is likely to take care of them, especially if the government doesn’t stand in their way.

quote:

The market didn't take care of customers who were discriminated against in the Jim Crow South.


Because the law forbade it from doing so!  You are making my point!

quote:

A pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning-after pill may be making a VERY GOOD business decision if he lives in a neighborhood where he knows that his moral stand will be popular.


That’s the fucking point! He is the one making the decision, not the government!

quote:

So you can spare your breath on the dream-world "let the market take care of it" answers.


A dream world you are falsely attributing to me. The people living in a dream world are the ones who believe that we can legislate a perfect society where everybody gets along with everybody else, where we all live happily all the time and never have to face the consequences of our decisions and actions.

quote:

That's never going to convince me.


That much is obvious.

quote:

We enacted laws about business practices precisely because of abuses in the past.


And yet the abuses keep happening. And often with the blessing – if not the requirements – of the law. That’s what happens when you let the government (a concentration of power and therefore prone to corruption), rather than free people, make most of the decisions.

quote:

Why is the market going to take care of the problem now if the market didn't take care of the problem then?


As I noted earlier, the purpose of the law (concentrated power) was all to often to ensure the abuses and protected the ability of powerful interests to escape the effects of free market forces. One of the biggest myths out there is the belief that business love the free market because it allows them to ride roughshod over people. The opposite is true. Businesses hate the free market. The free market allows competition. The free market allows free people to reject you. Businesses look to government and the law to protect their ability to stay in business despite market forces.

quote:

We live in a federal union, not the Wild Wild West, and people ought to be able to rely on their pharmacist to dispense whatever drug their doctor damn well prescribes.


People ought to be able to but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will (reality - what a fucking bitch, huh?) So what should their redress be? You (and way to many others) prefer to run crying to the government, petulantly demanding that they trample other people’s rights in order to make life more convenient for you.

Whaaaaaa! The big bad meanie behind the counter won’t fill my prescription! Now I have to drive three blocks to another pharmacy! Whaaaaaa! Make the big bad meanie be nice to me!
 
I find it ironic that a man who calls himself LordandMaster wants to live under a nanny state where the government takes care of him.

quote:

Or put it this way: I don't want to live in a nation where businesses are free to turn away people on the basis of their skin color; where Muslim taxi drivers can decide whether they're going to drive people to liquor stores; and where pharmacists can decide to withhold your medicine if they have a moral objection to it.


In other words, you don’t want to live in a nation where people are free to associate or not associate with who based upon their own conscience. Where people are free to relate to you and do business with you as equals. You don’t want freedom.

quote:

I don't think most Americans want that, either.


Probably not but the pertinent question is: do most Americans want to respect the rights and freedoms of others?

quote:

Funny how the people who talk about "small government" in cases like this tend to be the same people who want the government to ban abortions. Small government? Yeah, spare me, I know your response. "That's not me, don't make invalid assumptions, I never said anything about banning abortions." You're predictable.


I make no apologies if I fail to live up to the image your prejudices and bias dictate I should fulfil. As for being predicable, I prefer to call it consistent. You are right about one thing, though. You are making an invalid assumption if you think that I think we should ban abortion. 

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 6:48:57 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

EVERYTHING wrong in the US is traceable to a Corporation forgetting their "Natural Place".


Whoa! That smacks a little close to telling black people to remember their "natural place." Now relax, I’m not accusing you of being the grand pobah of the klan but I am thinking, scratch a farglebargle and find a tyrant.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 7:19:20 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

You see? To me, that's just a very naive view. Life is logical- it's human prospective of it that's not.

I'm not sure about your zeal with this, but, no, there's no problem with birth control. I'm against killing things, not for overpopulation.


That must really limit your menu options.

You know, LOGICALLY, if you're against killing, than you're against killing animals. And of course plants are alive, too.

Maybe you need to qualify your "reluctance to kill". Does it include killing for food? By Proxy, or do you do your own bacon?

If you are entitled to the CHOICE to kill for substenance.... Well, you know... Free Will is a real bitch.


Or, perhaps, I'm against killing humans?  There's a lot of implied things in a statement that one hopes to get across.  Such as, in general, I'm against killing humans.  To protect more human lives is, of course, a possible implied exception.

Now, being against two things doesn't mean that one can't win out, or have a greater priority.  There's quite a bit to weigh.

But, no, life's quite logic; loopholes one sees in it consist of a variety of errors, but the static world is among the foremost and reliable of our observations as humans.  There's little more basic than it to our very perception of the world, if anything.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 7:26:14 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Petronius
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments.  Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize.

Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies.


I don't have any problem with ad absurdum arguments; they're often useful and I make them myself.

But if you believe that "masturbating elderly patients" is really part of a nurses job description then that's not an ad absurdum argument; that's an absurd delusion about the world.

I'm not saying that people should simply be told to not take jobs they have some objections around. I am saying that people who want and defend government regulation of a job should not then be freed from the very regulation they defend. In this case we have a druggist who wants government regulation of druggists for anybody ... but druggists like himself.


My argument was simply that just because a portion of a job can be argued to be part of someone's job, it can be absurd to imply that they, therefore, have to do it.  The analogy feels fairly apt to me.

You see, to me, it sounds as absurd to force pharmicists to sell a pill that doesn't cure a problem, but kills a human being- if not slightly moreso.  One who doesn't see the embryo has a human being, or denies it, seems to have a fundamental difficulty in understanding the absurdity, shown in the feeling that the analogy itself is awkward.  Regardless, though, the analogy hasn't been shown to have any irregularities condemning it; it just sounds odd.

Then the question becomes.. are we to force people to act against their beliefs or give up their livelihood?  This strikes me as unconstitutional.

PS-  My point about the job description being absurd was intentional, btw.  From one point of view, one can say, "A nurse is to administer care to her patients' physical needs."  From this same point of view, one can say, "It's a pharmacist's job to distribute medicines to her customers."  Only, I'm showing that it's absurd to say that this is the case- as many have been arguing- since a nurse shouldn't be expected to provide care which grossly violates her as a person, and a pharmacist, in the same respect, also shouldn't have to.

Neither should have to just because the absurd task is similar to the tasks that they signed up for; because, while similar in ways to their normal duties, these, for some reason or another, fundamentally violate the practicionor.

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 11/12/2007 7:40:50 PM >

(in reply to Petronius)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 7:55:33 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

EVERYTHING wrong in the US is traceable to a Corporation forgetting their "Natural Place".


Whoa! That smacks a little close to telling black people to remember their "natural place."



Slaves WERE property, and Corporations *ARE* property, so the analogy isn't too far off.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 8:03:31 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:


Then the question becomes.. are we to force people to act against their beliefs or give up their livelihood? This strikes me as unconstitutional.


Exactly where in the Constitution are people guaranteed employment in any particular industry?

How much should "The People" tolerate questionable religious exemptions to regulated duties? We're back to, "Should Muslim cabbies be permitted to refuse service to unescorted, and uncovered females?"

And the answer is, yeah, ONCE. After that, they're not cabbies anymore. They're unemployed, as being incapable of satisfying the requirements of the position.

Similarly. If a Pharmacist cannot exhibit the PROFESSIONALISM required to fill any valid and legal prescription, that that Pharmacist is clearly unfit to hold the job.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 8:18:04 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Slaves WERE property, and Corporations *ARE* property, so the analogy isn't too far off.


Whose property? The investors? The governments? Yours?

That’s not what bothers me, though. What bothers me is the stridency and the intolerance it often shields. I don’t know if that applies to you. Iguess I’ll just have to conclude that you’re a strident S.O.B and leave it at that. Nothing personal.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 8:25:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Slaves WERE property, and Corporations *ARE* property, so the analogy isn't too far off.


Whose property? The investors? The governments? Yours?



I would think that the law here would be pretty well understood by all.

It is the property of the investors, regulated by the people, by proxy of the government.

No-one is forcing any individual to seek liability protection. I don't have any objections if a PERSON chooses to hang out a shingle and conduct their own business FREE OF REGULATION, ( to the degree they can get away with, as the authorities will *still* consider them under whatever regulations an Artificial Legal Entity is subject to )

quote:


That’s not what bothers me, though. What bothers me is the stridency and the intolerance it often shields. I don’t know if that applies to you. Iguess I’ll just have to conclude that you’re a strident S.O.B and leave it at that. Nothing personal.


These *things* aping their betters just isn't right. They need to be put, and kept in their place.

The idea that a paper-creation, by some, is considered to be equal to a REAL PERSON is just silly.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 10:06:45 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		A.  You don't know that there's another pharmacy three blocks away, and you don't know that that other pharmacy, even if it exists, will supply a morning-after pill.  This case isn't chilling in New York City; it's chilling in rural Idaho, where a woman may not have as many options are you're pretending.  Obviously, I'm not going to need a morning-after pill myself.  I'm thinking about OTHER PEOPLE--someone who might not want to have a baby just because some pharmacist thinks she should.

B.  A business owner does not have the right to pursue his business in any way he sees fit.  Where did you get that crazy idea?  The Constitution, which is the only source of any rights at all in this country, clearly authorizes the regulation of commerce.  What "rights" am I trampling on?  The right of a pharmacist to determine which medicines he will and won't dispense?  Sorry, but I don't believe pharmacists have that right.  Does a police officer have the right to do HIS job in any way HE sees fit?  A contractor?  Hardly.

C.  Lay off the personal comments and lay off the f-word.  It's very fucking tiresome, to use language that you might understand.

And I'm done with this thread.  You don't have anything new to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

People ought to be able to but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will (reality - what a fucking bitch, huh?) So what should their redress be? You (and way to many others) prefer to run crying to the government, petulantly demanding that they trample other people’s rights in order to make life more convenient for you.

Whaaaaaa! The big bad meanie behind the counter won’t fill my prescription! Now I have to drive three blocks to another pharmacy! Whaaaaaa! Make the big bad meanie be nice to me!
 
I find it ironic that a man who calls himself LordandMaster wants to live under a nanny state where the government takes care of him.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 10:26:00 PM   
CalifChick


Posts: 10717
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

farglebargle

If a Pharmacist cannot exhibit the PROFESSIONALISM required to fill any valid and legal prescription, that that Pharmacist is clearly unfit to hold the job.



quote:

Lordandmaster

A.  You don't know that there's another pharmacy three blocks away, and you don't know that that other pharmacy, even if it exists, will supply a morning-after pill.  This case isn't chilling in New York City; it's chilling in rural Idaho, where a woman may not have as many options are you're pretending.  Obviously, I'm not going to need a morning-after pill myself.  I'm thinking about OTHER PEOPLE--someone who might not want to have a baby just because some pharmacist thinks she should.



Okay, it's official.  I heart both farglebargle and Lordandmaster.  Big time.

Cali

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 10:33:36 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		The same people who are railing against a pharmacy who decides not to sell the morning after pill would probably be applauding a store that decides not to sell guns. A private enterprise should have the right to sell or not sell anything they want.
And please, there are many, many drugstores who do sell the morning after pill. Even in Idaho.

< Message edited by Estring -- 11/12/2007 10:34:03 PM >

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to CalifChick)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 10:49:18 PM   
CalifChick


Posts: 10717
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: California
Status: offline 		Estring... several years ago I was working for a primary care doctor in a rural town in California.  There were two pharmacies in that town, and the next pharmacy was about 45 minutes away.  What if neither of those two pharmacies were to sell the MAP?  This was a farm town, and many of the farm laborers did not have transportation available to the next town.  Sure in the town I live in, no problem, there's a Rite Aid, a Walgreens, a Longs Drugs and a Walmart at least every mile.  But I don't think you can realistically say that going to another pharmacy is a viable answer for everyone.

When a pharmacist can prescribe a drug, then he can decide who gets it. 

Cali

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning aft... - 11/12/2007 10:50:39 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Yeah, well we also still live in a republic that it supposed to stand for some individual rights. What are they going to do, throw a pharmacist in jail for not giving the pill? If it is that big of a deal, have the Doctor's that prescribe them, keep the pills in their office.

Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yeah, the standard retort that these are bad business decisions anyway, because the market will take care of any customers who are discriminated against.  The problem is that it just isn't true.  The market didn't take care of customers who were discriminated against in the Jim Crow South.  A pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning-after pill may be making a VERY GOOD business decision if he lives in a neighborhood where he knows that his moral stand will be popular.  So you can spare your breath on the dream-world "let the market take care of it" answers.  That's never going to convince me.  We enacted laws about business practices precisely because of abuses in the past.  Why is the market going to take care of the problem now if the market didn't take care of the problem then?

We live in a federal union, not the Wild Wild West, and people ought to be able to rely on their pharmacist to dispense whatever drug their doctor damn well prescribes.  Or put it this way: I don't want to live in a nation where businesses are free to turn away people on the basis of their skin color; where Muslim taxi drivers can decide whether they're going to drive people to liquor stores; and where pharmacists can decide to withhold your medicine if they have a moral objection to it.  I don't think most Americans want that, either.

Funny how the people who talk about "small government" in cases like this tend to be the same people who want the government to ban abortions.  Small government?  Yeah, spare me, I know your response.  "That's not me, don't make invalid assumptions, I never said anything about banning abortions."  You're predictable.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109