Pharmacists and refusals

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Why is it an “argument” when you invoke Jim Crow laws but an “assertion” when I do it?

Because you have made no argument beyond, “A legislature enacted the law, the court thinks the law is ok.”

Not really. Jim Crow laws specifically grew out of the vacuum that followed the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. When slavery was extant, Jim Crow laws did not exist, or need to.

When you consider slavery as part of the Jim Crow universe, as it certainly was in spirit, then you’re quite wrong: overall, the laws permitting discrimination against blacks was at an all-time high when slavery was extant, and then trended generally downwards until 1964.

Jim Crow is explicitly viewed as starting post-Civil War. Yes, it was an attempt of states to maintain segregation. Nevertheless it simply has to be true, whenever it happened, that Jim Crow laws were on the rise before they saw a decline. Conscience Clause laws will perforce rise before (if they ever do) decline.

I’ve given my argument for why the law is generally a good one: in this country, we intrude on personal freedom only when the alternative is worse. When we balance a pharmacist’s right to not dispense medications that offend his conscience with the “right” of a patient not to walk a few blocks, the answer is obvious.

You don’t agree with that balancing. That’s fine. How are we to resolve this basic disagreement?

You have explained that it is not a big deal for a person to walk a few blocks to another pharmacy. You have a cite above from jackmanni where the pharmacists go further than just refusal but are obstructionist in the woman getting her medication.

You have also not told us why a pharmacist should supplant the doctor/patient relationship and the expertise of the doctor with their personal whims. 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?