This article is mainly about the fact that a woman, after reporting a rape, was arrested on an old charge. The police department seems apologetic that that happened and it sounds like they’re going to take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Fine.
What really pisses me off, and was pretty much glossed over in the story, is that this woman was denied her second dose of the morning after pill because of a jailhouse worker’s religious convictions. WTF!!?? So get one of your co-workers to hand her the thing, if you can’t bring yourself to give prescribed medication to a rape victim! Asshole should have been fired on the spot.
The lack of access to contraception is undefendable.
But a warrant is a warrant. You can’t just not arrest someone who has a valid warrant sworn out against her because she was just raped. It’s unfortunate timing, but everyone’s hands were bound by the law, and I don’t think there’s a way to make the law more palatable in extreme cases like this.
Perhaps a greater effort should have been made to process and release her more quickly, but even that’s showing favoritism to a suspect based on events unconnected to her alleged crime.
Edit/Delete Message
Yeah, I’ve been following that thread and I can kind of see both sides of the issue with pharmacists, although I tend to feel as you do…if you don’t want to do the job, find another one. But this woman was locked up in jail. It’s not like she could toddle down to the next CVS. Plus, she’s a rape victim! I thought even the nuttiest anti-choice people made exceptions for rape victims!
Right, Menocchio, I tend to agree with you, and like I said in the OP, that wasn’t really the big issue in my opinion. (Although, they completely stopped the investigation of the rape as soon as they cuffed the woman…)
The worker who refused to dispense the drug should be responsible for child support payments, assuming a pregnancy results, as should any pharmacist who refuses. If they want to take on the responsibility of that decision then they need to take on the full responsibility.
Don’t agree, the pharmacist didn’t have the unsafe sex to begin with.
But, besides that;
I don’t agree with the Jail-person’s actions in the OP, but I do support a Pharmacists right to decline to fill a 'scrip if they so choose.
In the OP’s case the person already had the approval of a Doc and a Pharmacist and was already taking the stuff. Some meds, if not fully coursed, can do more harm than good, not sure about this one though.
But what the fuck business is it of the bitch-ho prison guard to monitor what the prisoner is taking and then pass judgement on it? Fuck her. If someone is on meds it shouldn’t be up to some lame-ass jailhouse worker to second guess anything about it. She should be fired and the state sued for whatever her lawyer can dream up.
By the way, where was her lawyer when this all went down?
The part about stopping the investigation was a quote from her lawyer. The one who is going to sue. Take that with a grain of salt.
That being said I don’t know how they could handle the situation this way. You can’t unarrest someone or ignore a warrant. You can pick up the phone and call a judge and ask to reduce her bail. ROR her and give her a new court date. It’s not like it was a murder warrant, she failed to pay restitution.
This is totally different from the pharmacist situation, where the customer is free to go find the morning-after pill somewhere else. In this case, I would consider the actions of the guard to be absolutely wrong, and I was on the side of the pharmacist in the other thread.
Not to drag that thread over here, but there is a fundamental difference between the person not having the means, and the person being locked up against their will.
(This stems from my libertarian viewpoint on these matters, so I will always see the person’s freedom of movement as giving them the ultimate responsibility in such a case.)
Well, there could be a million things that are against the person’s will that would cause them to be unable to travel long distances. It doesn’t hold up for me. Particularly with time-sensitive issues.
Quite right. Presumably a doctor made the decision as to the need for treatment. It seems that the prison matron was sort of practicing medicine without a license.
My opnion about the pharamacists was lost when the original thread was deleted – but for contrast’s sake, I believe the vast majority of states are correct by refusing to require pharmacists to dispense this medicine.
In this thread, however, I - an ardent pro-lifer - agree that the jail official acted improperly, and the woman should have been given her requested Plan B.