Disgusting tale of woman's unsucessful search for emergency contraception

[WhyNot]

I'm thinking you must have gotten your Plan B at a subsidized price, or my local pharmacies are price gouging. It's close to $80 here, which is a huge chunk of change for many young women who most need to not be pregnant before they can afford it.

"Why didn't you do more?" Seriously? Why didn't that raped girl do more to prevent being raped? Why didn't those people who got shot to more to prevent being shot?

She shouldn't have to do anything more than walk into a store, pick up a box, hand them her payment method - in this case, an insurance card for a policy that covered the product - and go.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Why yes, because there is a lot of inconsistencies with her post and frankly ignorance on a board devoted to fighting ignorance, I am pro-rape.

Let's repeat them:

1) She is told her insurance won't cover it. Plan B is an OTC medication. Insurance doesn't cover OTC drugs as far as I know. None of my insurers ever did. I even had one who wouldn't cover the Zyban that was prescribed to help me quit smoking.

2) She gives very detailed things with dates and cities and organizations but neglects to mention that she went to two more pharmacies and Planned Parenthood.

3) She mentions a "waiting period" at Planned Parenthood. There is no such thing. It makes no sense for a waiting period for Plan B when you have to use it immediately.

4) She fails to mention why she didn't just pay for it. Even if she was completely broke, it is free at Planned Parenthood.

5) When called out on these inconsistencies, she stops posting.

I would hate for someone to come along and read her stuff and think that anything she said is accurate. If someone reads it and doesn't try and get Plan B because of her misinformation, that would be horrible. Which I guess makes you pro-unwanted pregnancy, right?

[WhyNot]

Yes, some insurance covers Plan B. Some doesn't. Many insurance plans will cover OTC medications if you have a doctor's prescription for them, even if one isn't needed to dispense it.

PP is not free, at least not in my city. They will help you apply for a medical card if you qualify, but they're not free, and the process does take time. I think "waiting period" is a poor way to phrase it, but yes, I've taken girls to PP and had them told to come back when they can make financial arrangements. That's a huge problem with going to PP for Plan B, which requires timely administration.

This poster is obviously a little unclear on some of the finer points of reproductive medication, and isn't the best, clearest communicator, so go ahead and attack that if you must. Tell her you think she's lying if you do. But don't fucking ask her why she didn't "do more".

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

But don't fucking ask her why she didn't "do more".

I'll fucking ask her anything I please.

Especially when her story doesn't pass the smell test, at least in the stage where she could use Plan B.

Also, now that I look at it, she never mentions being raped. So either you - who suddenly started posting right when she stopped posting - made some inference that was unwarranted or you know something that she did not post.

Spreading misinformation about Plan B - which already has a ton of misinformation about it since some people still scream that it is an abortificant when it is not - is not something I appreciate no matter who is doing the spreading.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Here is another cite which is enlightening:

While Plan B is available without a prescription, you'll still have to ask the pharmacist or his assistant directly. To obtain emergency contraception in this fashion, you'll need to be at least 18 years old and have valid, state-issued identification. You will also need to sign for the product upon receiving it. On average, you can expect to pay between $25 and $50 for one dose of Plan B at a retail pharmacy. Since the pills are non-prescription, your insurance will not cover emergency contraception.

eHow.com

This is inline with the cost I paid and says what I thought about insurance.

Also, as I said, there is no need for a prescription, most insurance companies don't cover OTC medication, it's not prohibitively expensive, there is no waiting periods, and you can get it cheaper (maybe not always for free, but that is possible) at Planned Parenthood.

As I said, a lot of misinformation. Maybe you feel that is okay, but I do not.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

I have trouble being supportive of someone who's posts don't make sense, describes herself as part of some kind of special at-risk group who has super-mega insurance but no primary doctor who can help out, and who, as this already at-risk person with pre-existing conditions who can't possibly gamble on getting pregnant, isn't already on more finite birth control - and who appears to have repeated the process.

A agree, of course, all women need to be able to walk into a pharmacy, buy Plan B, and walk out. I'm not convinced in this case the pursuit of Plan B was within 72 hours, and she is clearly misinformed about RU-486, which cannot be had at the local Rite-Aid and has to be administered in a doctor's office after an ultrasound. It just doesn't make sense. Even if she didn't know before, she would have been told at the time, so the evidence she still doesn't know is what makes her posts smell like old fish.

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

I'm thinking you must have gotten your Plan B at a subsidized price, or my local pharmacies are price gouging. It's close to $80 here, which is a huge chunk of change for many young women who most need to not be pregnant before they can afford it.

The pharmacies here have the off brand (which is obviously just as good) for $25-$40, while actual Plan B one step is closer to $50. I live in California like the original poster, too-- in fact:

Originally Posted by WhyNot

PP is not free, at least not in my city. They will help you apply for a medical card if you qualify, but they're not free, and the process does take time. I think "waiting period" is a poor way to phrase it, but yes, I've taken girls to PP and had them told to come back when they can make financial arrangements. That's a huge problem with going to PP for Plan B, which requires timely administration.

The original poster refers to PACT, which means the Family PACT card-- a California specific program. PACT is awesome-- if you qualify, 100% of your reproductive health stuff is covered. I had one of those cards from the age of 15 until a year after college and it seriously covers everything from birth control to abortions to pap tests to breast exams to UTI treatment to IUDs to STD testing and on and on. The PACT card makes everything 100% free, as long as you go to a provider who accepts it (and lots do-- I used mine at PP and the college doctor, but a lot of private offices accept it, too).

Now, PACT does give you free morning after pills, but you have to see a doctor first. Once or twice in college I got the morning after pill this way and the appointment went something like this:

Doctor: Why do you need Plan B?
Me: The condom broke.
Doctor: ok. Here you go.

I think they just have to see you as a matter of procedure, for the state paperwork. I wouldn't consider PACT "insurance" though, so I'm not sure what the OP is talking about. In fact, in order to qualify for PACT, you either have to not have insurance or have insurance that doesn't cover reproductive stuff (or not be able to afford your copays, but that's neither here nor there). So, if she's got PACT, I'm not sure why she'd be messing with her actual insurance anyway. . . since everything is 100% free with Family PACT.

While I've never had an abortion on PACT or otherwise, I've never heard of any of my friends having trouble getting the procedure on the program. Now, it might be hard to find an actual abortion clinic, but even redecky ol' conservative Bakersfield (where I live) has one-- and they do both surgical abortions and the abortion pill, all of which is covered 100% by PACT (in fact, they actually dispense the pill at the clinic, you don't go to a pharmacy to get it. . .).

I also have bought many a morning after pill all over California and haven't had any issues with anything beyond maybe a disapproving glare from the pharmacist. Again, prices seem to range from $25-$50, and I've always gotten mine at Walgreens or Target.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by SeaDragonTattoo

she is clearly misinformed about RU-486, which cannot be had at the local Rite-Aid and has to be administered in a doctor's office after an ultrasound. It just doesn't make sense. Even if she didn't know before, she would have been told at the time, so the evidence she still doesn't know is what makes her posts smell like old fish.

I was so hung up on the Plan B inconsistencies I never looked past them to notice that she mentioned Rite Aid with RU-486. That is ridiculously wrong.

[Sitnam]

:Innocent question:

If the morning after pill was essentially concentrated birth control pills couldn't someone in a pinch just take like 5 of the ones they already have and then get more claiming they lost them?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

If the morning after pill was essentially concentrated birth control pills couldn't someone in a pinch just take like 5 of the ones they already have and then get more claiming they lost them?

Yes.

ETA: Although in theory, someone who has the pills won't need Plan B, unless they didn't take them recently.

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

:Innocent question:

If the morning after pill was essentially concentrated birth control pills couldn't someone in a pinch just take like 5 of the ones they already have and then get more claiming they lost them?

When I was a teenager and first took the morning after pill-- before it was available over the counter in the pharmacy-- I went to Planned Parenthood and they gave me 12 birth control pills. They had me take 6 at once, then take 6 more 12 hours later.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

And another thing...

Originally Posted by WhyNot

I think "waiting period" is a poor way to phrase it, but yes, I've taken girls to PP and had them told to come back when they can make financial arrangements. That's a huge problem with going to PP for Plan B, which requires timely administration.

I do not believe that any Planned Parenthood would turn away someone seeking EMERGENCY contraception for any reason. They might very well have to turn away some people who are in non-emergency situations - from what I gathered online, this is happening in some places for regular contraceptive services because of budget cuts as some states slashed their funding in political moves - but I found zero instances of a PP telling someone seeking EC that they would have to come back later.

I really do find it odd that a person registers today, makes nine posts in a six-year old thread, and then vanishes when you suddenly show up to defend her inconsistent and factually wrong posts.

[Mississippienne]

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

3) She mentions a "waiting period" at Planned Parenthood. There is no such thing. It makes no sense for a waiting period for Plan B when you have to use it immediately.

I would just like to say that in New York City, you have to schedule a Planned Parenthood appointment DAYS in advance. If you need it to get EC, you are shit out of luck. They do not do walk-ins.

[Alan Smithee]

I agree that there is a lot missing from this story, but the insurance issue sounds real. Family PACT is a state-funded program to provide reproductive health care for low-income people in California. It will cover Plan B as jemc says. As far as why she would need Family PACT to cover it, she indicated that even though it was cheap, it was more than she had. Now, I suspect that she could have scraped the cash together at some point between then and when she drove hundreds of miles to get an abortion, but she's said there were other attempts in that time. One of them she says she rejected because they wanted her to come back in a week, which does seem questionable, but I suspect jemc is possibly quite young and trying to do this with help from friends and without parents finding out. I also suspect that she could have made better decisions and gotten it taken care of much sooner than she did, but that's a separate issue from whether she was denied adequate care. It sounds like she was, and on top of that, there was a major breach of HIPAA confidentiality by a pharmacist. So whatever mistakes she may have made (and we've all made mistakes) she's entitled to complain about what happened to her.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Mayo Speaks!

However, the fact remains that it is legal. As such, doctors should prescribe it for patients that ask for it and pharmacists should fill those prescriptions.

I think that'd put you at the conventional stage of moral reasoning. More importantly, shouldn't a person not choose a profession where they had to violate their conscience?

Originally Posted by Excalibre

I think there's a big difference between the Church taking an anti-birth-control stance with their own members (for the fraction that actually go along with them on the issue - I grew up in a mostly Catholic town, and I have a lot of Catholic family, and I'm pretty sure they're not all practicing the rhythm method) and attempting to impose it on others. It seems strikingly anti-Christian to me to worry more about preventing others from sinning than about one's own sins; the Bible explicitly says "Thou shalt not kill" but it doesn't say "Thou shalt stop others from killing." Think of condoms, which may count as a sin in the Catholic Church but indisputably are not the sort of sin against another person to which our laws are generally directed. It would strike me as bizarre and unreasonable for a Catholic to believe it was their duty to prevent others from using them - nothing in the Bible suggests that, does it? And I think the morning-after pill is much more akin to condoms than to anything else - so I have a lot of trouble accepting people's efforts to ban it.

Contraceptives deviate from "natural law": that all sexual intercourse must be open to procreation. Relevant biblical eisegesis derives from the Parable of the Sower and the tale of Onan. As for not preventing killing: well, Jesus explicitly said "do not resist evil". But if one interprets his comment at the stoning of the adulterer as universally applicable (let those without sin throw the first stone) then modus tollens suggests that no one be let to throw a stone.

[jemc49673]

It was an Oregon PP, but it was the closest one to me... I live right on the state line.

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

You didn't say that in your information but AFAIK, PP doesn't enforce any waiting period for EC unless mandated by law which isn't the case in California.

[jemc49673]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

I agree that there is a lot missing from this story, but the insurance issue sounds real.

Family PACT is a state-funded program to provide reproductive health care for low-income people in California. It will cover Plan B as jemc says. As far as why she would need Family PACT to cover it, she indicated that even though it was cheap, it was more than she had. Now, I suspect that she could have scraped the cash together at some point between then and when she drove hundreds of miles to get an abortion, but she's said there were other attempts in that time. One of them she says she rejected because they wanted her to come back in a week, which does seem questionable, but I suspect jemc is possibly quite young and trying to do this with help from friends and without parents finding out. I also suspect that she could have made better decisions and gotten it taken care of much sooner than she did, but that's a separate issue from whether she was denied adequate care. It sounds like she was, and on top of that, there was a major breach of HIPAA confidentiality by a pharmacist. So whatever mistakes she may have made (and we've all made mistakes) she's entitled to complain about what happened to her.

Sadly, Jen is not 'young'...lol.
I am much TOO OLD to be dealing with things such as this... >.< But, either way...I could not afford it... and as the little cash I did have at the time (and after....) was constantly going into the gas tank (96 Ford F-150 @ approx. $4.50 a gal.) to drive back and forth from North, to South and back again looking for something that my insurance does indeed cover. If I had an extra $50.00 available (knowing then what I know, now...) Ofcourse, I would have paid it.. However, I did not have extra, and I KNEW IT TO BE covered... so I believed that I was right to leave the initial pharmacy and try the next one.. what I did not anticipate was the statewide 'Free for All' to turn away patients that are 'believed' to be immoral by the providers...?
As for the space of time between the refusals and all the driving.. (I live approx. 30 miles in either direction from a 'Town/City' & another 200+ from a town without the 'Pro-Life' hurdles...*). After the refusals ... of a medication that has a three-day window (AFAIK at the time) and almost two days had already passed, it was (in my mind) a matter of 'wait and see'.
However, I did elect to purchase herbs from a local apothecary that are known to have abortifacient properties. I spent weeks choking down teas and herbal supplements..and hoping... (for a short time I thought It was working). When it was clear, it hadn't.
I then began calling and researching clinics with RU-486 services. Which IS SOLD/ADVERTISED locally. But, NO ONE will actually write the prescription locally....
Anyway, I tend to get very defensive and 'emo' over the whole issue. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed... but I tried everything (my afflicted little brain) could think of ... to get the medication to prevent it... then to obtain the medication to 'end' it... and finally resorting to the surgery... only to have another ASSHOLE :O dime me out to the very family member(s), I had done all of this to spare :*(.

[jemc49673]

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

And another thing...

I do not believe that any Planned Parenthood would turn away someone seeking EMERGENCY contraception for any reason. They might very well have to turn away some people who are in non-emergency situations - from what I gathered online, this is happening in some places for regular contraceptive services because of budget cuts as some states slashed their funding in political moves - but I found zero instances of a PP telling someone seeking EC that they would have to come back later.

I really do find it odd that a person registers today, makes nine posts in a six-year old thread, and then vanishes when you suddenly show up to defend her inconsistent and factually wrong posts.

I am sorry if my sudden disappearance offended you... I had to 'run', as they say. Until I found the post in a recent online search, I had completely forgotten, not only the post but my password as well...

I am finished trying 'defend' any of my actions. I need no assistance in the self-loathing department. I am usually the first to acknowledge that I myself/my life are an 'Epic-Fail'. I know that I am a P.O.S. by all current standards. I am simply trying not to let this epic-failure become a sequel or a trilogy!!

Whether you agree with my point(s) or not... I am grateful for ALL of the feed back. I like to know both sides of the argument. So, let me take this opportunity to Thank You, and say I appreciate the in-put! (I say that with all sincerity!)

[jemc49673]

Originally Posted by DiosaBellissima

When I was a teenager and first took the morning after pill-- before it was available over the counter in the pharmacy-- I went to Planned Parenthood and they gave me 12 birth control pills. They had me take 6 at once, then take 6 more 12 hours later.

Agreed, & that is a great point.
Because though 'some people' do not have the pharmacy coverage of OTC "EC" through their insurance. The pharmacist has the knowledge power and ability to have dispensed a BC that WASN'T; OTC &/or 'against his beliefs' (ie; that wasn't "EC") and instructed the proper dosage. AFAIK... that is what was supposed to happen if my insurance had been declined. However, it was easier to simply turn me away without even running my coverage to determine the answer to that question.

[jemc49673]

FYI-there were no other ER's to go to... (If I am even replying to the right thread...... it was the only one.. and I did go so far as to ask "should I have lied and claimed I was raped?"... it was equally NOT well received.)

[DiosaBellissima]

Originally Posted by jemc49673

Agreed, & that is a great point.
Because though 'some people' do not have the pharmacy coverage of OTC "EC" through their insurance. The pharmacist has the knowledge power and ability to have dispensed a BC that WASN'T; OTC &/or 'against his beliefs' (ie; that wasn't "EC") and instructed the proper dosage. AFAIK... that is what was supposed to happen if my insurance had been declined. However, it was easier to simply turn me away without even running my coverage to determine the answer to that question.

I didn't get anything from a pharmacist-- Planned Parenthood has stacks and stacks of birth control pills they dispense. They just handed me some.

Hell, even when I got on the pill regularly, they would give me a year's supply, not write me a script to go fill myself.

[jemc49673]

Agreed... I think the issue has very little to do with moral opposition to BC/EC/Abortion... and everything to do with personal judgement and positional power.

[anya marie]

I don't have sex in your church and I don't want to hear about your religion when I go to any pharmacy for medication.

If I really wanted to be in your church, I would get out of bed in the morning and GO. But i don't. Do your job and leave mythology OUT of the pharmacy.

[jemc49673]

Originally Posted by anya marie

I don't have sex in your church and I don't want to hear about your religion when I go to any pharmacy for medication.

If I really wanted to be in your church, I would get out of bed in the morning and GO. But i don't. Do your job and leave mythology OUT of the pharmacy.

Well said,

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by anya marie

I don't have sex in your church and I don't want to hear about your religion when I go to any pharmacy for medication.

If I really wanted to be in your church, I would get out of bed in the morning and GO. But i don't. Do your job and leave mythology OUT of the pharmacy.

Why is it "my" church, but "the" pharmacy?

I say it's MY pharmacy, if I'm the owner of the pharmacy. And therefore I get to decide what I sell.

[Maastricht]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why is it "my" church, but "the" pharmacy?

I say it's MY pharmacy, if I'm the owner of the pharmacy. And therefore I get to decide what I sell.

Bricker, could you start a thread on this? I''d like to see a specific debate on the merits of this stance.

Is a pharmacist a private contractor who can sell,or refuse to sell, medications according to his beliefs?

Or does he perform a public service, gets (in part) publicly funded, and thus has no right to deviate from the local laws on what is legal or illegal to sell?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

Bricker, could you start a thread on this? I''d like to see a specific debate on the merits of this stance.

Is a pharmacist a private contractor who can sell,or refuse to sell, medications according to his beliefs?

Or does he perform a public service, gets (in part) publicly funded, and thus has no right to deviate from the local laws on what is legal or illegal to sell?

If he gets publicly funded, then of course I agree that the entity funding him has the right to say, in effect, "If you don't sell X, then I will no longer fund you." But he in turn has every right to forgo that funding and sell only what he wishes.

Many states take this position. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington have specific language in their statutes or regulatory code that uphold a pharmacist's ability to refuse to dispense certain items, such as contraceptives. Other states are silent on the issue, which amounts to the same situation -- there is no rule compelling a pharmacist to act.

California permits a pharmacist to refuse only when the patient has another, timely option. Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin require pharmacists to dispense all FDA-approved remedies regardless of religiously-based objections.

So the state law framework on this issue is not unanimous -- but the strong majority of states do not require a pharmacist to act as anya marie demands.

I think we've done enough GD threads on this issue in the past, but if, in light of the information above, you still think there's value in another round, I'm game.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

Is a pharmacist a private contractor who can sell,or refuse to sell, medications according to his beliefs?

I would think that this would be best handled by a professional organization. If someone wants to call themselves a pharmacist, and do the highly trained and very important job of a pharmacist, then they must belong to a national accrediting body. This body should require (as does Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin) that a pharmacist must dispense all legal drugs that are prescribed by a licenced doctor. To do otherwise would abrogate your professional responsibilities.

If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist. They can open a magic shop, and sell magic healing remedies, or offer to pray to make someone better.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I would think that this would be best handled by a professional organization. If someone wants to call themselves a pharmacist, and do the highly trained and very important job of a pharmacist, then they must belong to a national accrediting body. This body should require (as does Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin) that a pharmacist must dispense all legal drugs that are prescribed by a licenced doctor. To do otherwise would abrogate your professional responsibilities.

If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist. They can open a magic shop, and sell magic healing remedies, or offer to pray to make someone better.

Well, I would think this is a matter for state regulation, not a national, federal regulation -- unless you're picturing a voluntary organization of some kind, where the market would determine its membership and success.

But I notice you first define the "rules of the profession" to be the ones you want, and then say, "If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist."

How we instead adopt the rules from the majority of states? Having done this, is it STILL acceptable to say, "If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist?" Or has this declaration lost its magic power when the rules aren't the ones you want?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Well, I would think this is a matter for state regulation, not a national, federal regulation -- unless you're picturing a voluntary organization of some kind, where the market would determine its membership and success.

But I notice you first define the "rules of the profession" to be the ones you want, and then say, "If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist."

How we instead adopt the rules from the majority of states? Having done this, is it STILL acceptable to say, "If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that's fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist?" Or has this declaration lost its magic power when the rules aren't the ones you want?

I believe that medical and scientific professionals should be governed by medical and scientific professional bodies who set the rules for their members, and should not be governed by politicians who base their decisions on their personal religious beliefs.

Religion has no place in the governing or regulation of science or medicine.

I don't particularly care what the legal-nitpickery, constitutional or "states rights" take on this is. Bottom line - Religion has no place in the governing or regulation of science or medicine.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I believe that medical and scientific professionals should be governed by medical and scientific professional bodies who set the rules for their members, and should not be governed by politicians who base their decisions on their personal religious beliefs.

I bet you don't.

I bet you believe in the authority of such bodies because you imagine they will tender the result you wish.

I bet if you were to discover that the APhA, the national professional body for pharmacists, supports an objecting pharmacist's refusal to dispense a medication for religious or moral reason, you would change your tune.

Their official position is that "The ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable is an important component of the health care system. APhA’s policy supports the ability of a pharmacist to opt out of dispensing a prescription or providing a service for personal reasons..."

They go on to also support developing a system whereby a patient's "... access to appropriate health care is not disrupted;" basically they favor a quasi-California type solution where an objecting pharmacist would return the prescription and direct the patient to a non-objecting provider.

So, let's see if you really believe that "medical and scientific professionals should be governed by medical and scientific professional bodies who set the rules for their members," or if you actually believe that medical and scientific professionals should be governed by whatever combination of rules will produce the outcome you favor.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I bet you don't.

You lose.


Your prognostication abilities are crap, and your ability to project your own close-mindedness is fantastic.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why is it "my" church, but "the" pharmacy?

I say it's MY pharmacy, if I'm the owner of the pharmacy. And therefore I get to decide what I sell.

Ah, so do you think that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse medication to black people or homosexuals? Should he be allowed to substitute an AIDS patient's medication with sugar pills to punish them for their "sin"? Which sorts of science are they allowed to ignore, and which kinds of bigotry are they allowed to indulge in?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Many states take this position. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington have specific language in their statutes or regulatory code that uphold a pharmacist's ability to refuse to dispense certain items, such as contraceptives.

Because they are run by woman-hating bigots. Indulging such bigots by letting them inflict their malice on women is unjustified.

[anya marie]

Because people say, my church and then they give the NAME of a church, Saint Wherever, or First Lutheran, or Boringville Presbyterian.

I don't belong to ANY church. Some people are like that.

Most pharmacies are part of a chain in my neighborhood. If I went to any pharmacy that pushed religious mumbo-jumbo with their medicines I would take my business elsewhere.

I bet if you were to discover that the APhA, the national professional body for pharmacists, supports an objecting pharmacist's refusal to dispense a medication for religious or moral reason, you would change your tune. -Bricker

My opinion is that they are fucking wrong. I have morals too. If I wanted preaching and lectures, I know damn well where to find them. It's your job. Shut the fuck up and give people their damn medication. Everybody knows where the churches are if they want to go. Pharmacy school is six years and by the time you finish you should understand what the medications can DO. I for one am VERY tired of everyone else's religion. Get over yourself and do your job, OR get the Fuck out.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by anya marie

My opinion is that they are fucking wrong. I have morals too. If I wanted preaching and lectures, I know damn well where to find them. It's your job. Shut the fuck up and give people their damn medication. Everybody knows where the churches are if they want to go. Pharmacy school is six years and by the time you finish you should understand what the medications can DO. I for one am VERY tired of everyone else's religion. Get over yourself and do your job, OR get the Fuck out.

Here's a better idea. As long as I'm not your boss, I don't get to tell you what your job is and how you should do it and vice versa.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Bricker

... I say it's MY pharmacy, if I'm the owner of the pharmacy. And therefore I get to decide what I sell.

Which states actually have laws that defend that?

'Cause I've looked and while some read as a general protection of the idea that no pharmacist has to dispense anything that violated their conscious they read very differently when you add the "small print".

Idaho's law is a perfect example,

No health care professional shall be required to provide any health care service that violates his or her conscience.

The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away,

"Health care service" means an abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care.

So "any health care service" doesn't really mean any health care service.

These laws have been abused (Post 4) to deny women (well at least one woman) drugs that were not "abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care"

... "Idaho Board of Pharmacy Executive Director Mark Johnston confirmed that the board received the complaint alleging that on Nov. 6 a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood's Boise-based nurse practitioners. The prescription was for a Planned Parenthood patient for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus ...

CMC

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here's a better idea. As long as I'm not your boss, I don't get to tell you what your job is and how you should do it and vice versa.

I'm glad I don't live in your country. I expect my government to enforce regulations for equal safety and access for all.

[Kalea]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Many states take this position. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington have specific language in their statutes or regulatory code that uphold a pharmacist's ability to refuse to dispense certain items, such as contraceptives. Other states are silent on the issue, which amounts to the same situation -- there is no rule compelling a pharmacist to act.

California permits a pharmacist to refuse only when the patient has another, timely option. Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin require pharmacists to dispense all FDA-approved remedies regardless of religiously-based objections.

What about a patient's right to know? Shouldn't these pharmacists be required to post a sign saying "I may exercise my right refuse to fill prescriptions which violate my moral code"? Such a sign would get the job done, and keep any pharmacists who might be so inclined from slut shaming someone attempting to fill a contraceptive/Plan B prescription. It would save everyone time!

In addition, it would prevent the pharmacist from confiscating said prescription and refusing to give it back so it can be filled elsewhere (my personal experience). Fortunately, my need wasn't urgent, just my monthly birth control, and my doctor issued another prescription. My doctor stopped referring people to that pharmacy, though...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You lose.


Your prognostication abilities are crap, and your ability to project your own close-mindedness is fantastic.

So, to be clear .... are you saying you endorse the position of the APhA?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Which states actually have laws that defend that?

'Cause I've looked and while some read as a general protection of the idea that no pharmacist has to dispense anything that violated their conscious they read very differently when you add the "small print".

Idaho's law is a perfect example,The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away,So "any health care service" doesn't really mean any health care service.

These laws have been abused (Post 4) to deny women (well at least one woman) drugs that were not "abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care"CMC

Which states have laws that require pharmacists to carry and dispense a given drug?

That is, you point out that Idaho's "small print" taketh away - but what law in Idaho would require the pharmacist to dispense EC? Granted that EC is not covered by the "any health care service" law -- so we're back at ground zero. The pharmacist is still not legally required to dispense the treatment -- is he?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kalea

What about a patient's right to know? Shouldn't these pharmacists be required to post a sign saying "I may exercise my right refuse to fill prescriptions which violate my moral code"? Such a sign would get the job done, and keep any pharmacists who might be so inclined from slut shaming someone attempting to fill a contraceptive/Plan B prescription. It would save everyone time!

In addition, it would prevent the pharmacist from confiscating said prescription and refusing to give it back so it can be filled elsewhere (my personal experience). Fortunately, my need wasn't urgent, just my monthly birth control, and my doctor issued another prescription. My doctor stopped referring people to that pharmacy, though...

In my personal opinion, requiring such signs would be an acceptable requirement.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by anya marie

My opinion is that they are fucking wrong. I have morals too. If I wanted preaching and lectures, I know damn well where to find them. It's your job. Shut the fuck up and give people their damn medication. Everybody knows where the churches are if they want to go. Pharmacy school is six years and by the time you finish you should understand what the medications can DO. I for one am VERY tired of everyone else's religion. Get over yourself and do your job, OR get the Fuck out.

Why should your opinion about what their job is be of any relevance at all?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'm glad I don't live in your country. I expect my government to enforce regulations for equal safety and access for all.

But I don't agree with your view of what regulations should be enforced.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So, to be clear .... are you saying you endorse the position of the APhA?

My endorsement or approval is meaningless.

I believe that a national professional body is the appropriate group to determine professional duties and ethics, particularly for a medical profession. It should not be up to the locally elected politicians of Bum-fuck Kansas to determine who gets what medical care.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

My endorsement or approval is meaningless.

I believe that a national professional body is the appropriate group to determine professional duties and ethics, particularly for a medical profession. It should not be up to the locally elected politicians of Bum-fuck Kansas to determine who gets what medical care.

I can't help noticing, however, that while you restate your general position, you refuse to make a specific comment about the APhA's position on the the ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable being an important component of the health care system

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But I don't agree with your view of what regulations should be enforced.

I was responding to John Mace, who seems to believe businesses should not be subject to any regulations, which is quite a different thing.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I can't help noticing, however, that while you restate your general position, you refuse to make a specific comment about the APhA's position on the the ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable being an important component of the health care system

I can't help noticing that you have "pedantic asshat" tattooed on your forehead, but I will refrain from pointing and making a scene.

[anya marie]

What an absolute drip you are Bricker. I don't know how it is you cope with life without electrocuting yourself, if you can't cope with "opinion" meaning someone besides you running their mouth.

The customer should have the option to walk out the door and take their business elsewhere WITHOUT HASSLE whenever the pharmacist pulls this "moral" clause bullshit. Pharmacy school is long enough that the pharmacist should know based on SCIENCE, what the pills do.

They give you information about the medication when you get a prescription. Is it really that unreasonable to be able to know that anybody who spends money for meds -- should be able to find out beforehand, without being subject to slut-shaming?

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by anya marie

... without being subject to slut-shaming?

Originally Posted by Bricker

... society is prepared to recognize that abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine. ...

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

... Where does it stop? If the pharmacist knows a woman (because he could see it in her records) had used a Day After pill then refuse all service? Even for prescription Ibuprofen?

Originally Posted by Bricker

... Because that's what freedom means. ... If a pharmacists wishes to refuse service to someone because he doesn't like her use of the day-after pill, then he should be allowed to do that. Pharmacists are not public servants. They are private actors. They are not paid by the government. They are citizens.

If a client doesn't like his pharmacist's refusal, or his smock, or his wall color, he can go to a different pharmacist.

That's what our notion of freedom is. ....

CMC

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

CMC

I totally agree. Bricker is totally right and is owning all the fucking retards in this thread.