Perhaps you’ve missed the point of the thread…that if it was as easy as taking our business elsewhere, this thread wouldn’t exist. Twice.
Yeah, just like black people shouldn’t have complained about segregation and just shut up and used the faculties for “colored people”. :rolleyes:
I proposed something like this in another thread, only with the proviso that Conscience Pharmacists must also arrange to have the medication express shipped from the nearest available pharmacy and available to the patient at their expense. They don’t have to soil their consciences, the patient gets the medication (which is indeed potentially lifesaving in the circumstance of severe bleeding or avoiding unwanted pregnancy which carries a low but definable risk of death) and everyone wins.
So where in the First Amendment does it allow requirements that 1) pharmacists must be properly trained and licensed, 2) have oversight by state pharmacy boards and 3) permits their personal religious beliefs to determine which of their patient customers receive health care?
I don’t recall any such provisions, but maybe you can enlighten me.
No, serving pork is a privilege exclusively set aside for Congress. 
Uhm, no. It just shows that there are 2 pretty stupid people out there. I won’t comment so much on the story in the OP because we don’t even know if it’s real or not and can’t question her. Go back and read the “tale of woe” from the person who created this Zombie thread. Her problem seems to be more that she wants her insurance to cover an OTC drug. She could have just bought the damn stuff herself but she kept trying to figure out some way to get it for free.
Well, you definitely need to be enlightened because you don’t really seem to understand much about the US constitution and the power of the states.
-
Pharmacists are licensed by the states. They don’t need no stinkin’ US Federal Constitution to tell them they have that power.
-
Did you notice that you used the word “state” in that sentence. See #1, above.
-
The constitution isn’t there to tell us what we are permitted to do. It’s there to tell the government what it is permitted to do.
The teachings of the Church are not severable. If you are willing to have a country that stops killing its unborn children, then I am willing to have a country whose concern for the health of its citizens requires that its society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow those citizens to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.
The First Amendment does not list things government can do. It lists things government can’t do.
State governments have plenary power: they can legislate in any area.
The federal government has limited, enumerated power: it can legislate only where the federal constitution gives it power.
You…you did already know that, right?
You’ve never lived in a really small town that’s miles away from other towns and cities, have you? There are places where there’s an effective monopoly on businesses. And the whole point of this discussion is whether or not certain medications are available without undue restrictions. I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and I have gazillions of stores to choose from. I’ve also lived in very small towns, where the shopping options are very, very limited, because even if there are several stores of the same type, they might all decline to carry items that an group with an agenda is against.
Do you want to make a rule that pharmacists can’t pick and choose what medicines they dispense if there is no alternative within "x’ miles? Fine. But that still means the vast majority of pharmacists still can pick and choose. My sense is that most people voicing objection in this thread are not going to agree to that.
But the larger point is that we don’t make broad public policy based on outlier situations. Tell me what % of American women don’t live within say, 50 miles, or a pharmacists that will provide whatever they need first, and then we can discuss broad, public policy. So far, we have some woman in Ohio where there are 20 Planned Parenthood clinics who somehow can’t get herself to one of them, and another woman who lives one the border of CA and OR who can’t seem to get to clinics that are about 30 miles from one of her preferred places of purchase (Yreka). I find neither of them credible.
I can’t believe that the civil rights movement wasn’t stopped cold by arguments like John’s.
“No one will rent an apartment to you because of your color/ethnicity/religion? Did you try that neighborhood close by? Or that nice building 30 miles away? There’s plenty of places to rent - you can’t force a landlord to do business with you.”
The SCOTUS, in its infinite wisdom. ruled that such discrimination was unconstitutional. It’s a moot point.
Can you cite the SCOTUS case that declares pharmacists must sell items that that their conscious tells them they should not? Would you like to put that issue in front of the SCOTUS and agree to abide by their ruling? I"m OK with that, but until then, we’re left what the legislatures declare. But the fact is, there is no “competing right” in the constitution to discriminate by race. As there is, there is a right to free exercise of religion. And when competing rights clash, we have to look at the overwhelming needs of society. I have not seen the evidence that the overwhelming needs of society are such that the right to free exercise needs to be put aside.
No, and not their unconscious either. 
Which is where we were on a number of issues not originally graven in stone in the Constitution. But as a society we evolved to protect additional rights. Access to medical care not fettered by another person’s belief that his religion entitles him to but into a physician-patient relationship is arguably a compelling right, even if it makes libertarianoids and anti-abortion activists whine and moan.
State law cannot violate the constitution, so yes the constitution does limit even state law.
Bricker was a bit careless in his wording. Yes, the constitution puts some constraints on what the states can do. But the states are not limited in what they can do by the constitution in the way that the federal government is. The feds can only do those things the constitution allows it to do. The states don’t need permission from the constitution in order to legislate, as long as they don’t violate specific constrains put upon them.
For instance, the federal government wouldn’t be able to set the age of consent. It doesn’t have that authority granted to it by the constitution. But the states can do that-- they don’t need to be granted the authority. They can do anything the constitution doesn’t forbid them to do. The feds can do only those things the constitution allows them to do.
Big difference.