By this time, I’m pretty sure the husband would have driven to the nearest medical facility and sought treatment. At least, that’s what a reasonable person would do. Again, you’re arguing absurd extremes.
@ Redtail23. Could you link to where I made that statement please?
There is no such a case.
The way you present is like the bleeding woman came to the pharmacy and the callous pharmacist didn’t give ther the medication.
Reality is that the Planned Parenthood Nurse (not the patient) went to the pharmacy to request a medication commonly used in abortions to stop or prevent bleeding (which wasn’t happening).
If you have a moral objection to abortion and the law allows you excercise it and a nurse from a known abortion provider asks for a drug directly used in abortions (among other things) it is exactly the kind of situations that the consicence clause is for.
That’s not me, then. I absolutely admit they are possible. Remember this line of mine?
So if your concern is the implacability of an opponent who refuses to admit any such possibility, you may rest easy.
The fact that each of your concerns are overstated. The fact is that the vast majority of people do not live in circumstances where there’s only one pharmacy with only one pharmacist; of those that do, the vast majority of those pharamacists will not object to dispensing the requisite treatment; of those that don’t, the vast majority of patients will not be unable to get to another pharmacy.
It’s possible for the roulette wheel to come up ‘22’ six times. But I don’t think we ought to make laws that assume it’s an everyday occurance.
It is not an absurd extreme. Women really suffer from this and what they do not do is go to the hospital when pain strikes because there is little a hospital can do. The condition is treated with hormones. If she did go to a hospital they’d giver her birth control pills most likely.
But of course the hospital can refuse treatment as well if this violates the staff’s conscience.
Oh yeah, if he does go to the hospital you have hours to wait their while she is checked out, insurance to deal with and if you have no insurance have fun paying the ER bill.
But hey, that’s no imposition really because the pharmacist has a clear conscience…nevermind the distress and pain and hassle and money he has cost them.
According to this about 58 million people live in rural America in 2004. “Rural” is defined here and that is indeed a minority of US citizens but neither is it an insignificant number (about 20% of the total population). That population is spread across 90% of the US land area (urban centers comprise 10%).
I’d call roughly 29 million women significant. Only 42 entire countries in the whole world have a total population bigger than that.
Please note that I said “statements to the effect of”, not “this exact statement”. You went on for multiple posts insisting that the conscience clauses could not possibly be extended to racists or other groups because those groups do not qualify as mainstream religions.
Now you’ve turned around and admitted that it doesn’t have to be a recognized religion, just whatever some person claims as a moral belief.
There is, as far as I can see, no restriction on what that “moral belief” may be. That would include no restrictions on racism, as long as it is a sincerely held belief.
Christian Identity is a well-known religion based on racism. They sincerely hold deep moral beliefs that non-whites should be removed.
And as long as I’m going back and digging up your quotes…
Well, the reason that they COULD NOT BE FIRED is because, as long as they claim a sincere moral belief as the grounds for their inaction, then they can not be fired under these laws. I believe there was an earlier mention of the fact that pharmacies now can not fire these pharmacists, even if the pharmacy owner disagrees with their (in)action.
So as long as it’s not an “everyday occurence” then it’s OK if women are routinely denied treatment?
Because we have no way of knowing how many women have been denied treatment, nor how many of them were able to obtain treatment elsewhere. Because unless the woman kicks up a big fuss and gets huge media play, we’d never hear about it. And in many of the circumstances I’m talking about, that is flatly not going to happen, even if it means that she goes untreated.
Still trying to establish your threshhold.
I doubt those of you who rush to defend an anti-abortion pharmacist’s right to refuse abortion related perscriptions to patients would be equally quick to defend a anti-population growth pharmacist who refused to fulfill scripts for fertility drugs or pregnancy related complications.
I’m just a lurker, but I would. Even more quickly, in fact.
Of course, in both cases I endorse the right of the pharmacy to fire said pharmacist.
But, since we’ve all recently learned that abortion is more than 90% of Planned Parenthood’s business, we can just always assume it’s for abortion, right?
Prescription for penicillin > penicillin is used to treat infections > infections are a complication in abortions > Planned Parenthood provides abortions > prescription is from Planned Parenthood . . . “I’m sorry Mrs. Jones, I have moral objection to filling this prescription (to treat the urinary tract infection that I don’t know you have)”.
Yeah, sounds crazy, but that’s what’s being presented here as a reasonable exercise of moral conscience.
Brilliant plan, refuse to fill prescriptions for PP services that aren’t even connected to abortion so going to PP for those services becomes pretty much useless and eventually more than 90% of Planned Parenthood’s business will be abortions.
CMC fnord!
That’s fascinating.
Perhaps you could next give us a bit of discussion on the decay of the proton.
I grant that “rural” is slightly more meaningful as to the issue of whether one lives within reach of only one pharmacy with one pharmacist, but only slightly. Unless I missed a footnote in Wikipedia, nothing in the definition of “rural” addresses the very point that I said was key to my supposition.
But thanks for the digression. Staying on point can get so stifling.
Of course I would.
“The wicked flee where no man pursueth.”
If you seek to stifle personal freedom, then you probably assume everyone else does, too. But your supposition is wrong: I would absolutely support such a zero-pop pharmacist’s action.
Ronnie! You’re back from the tomb!
As already pointed out, there have never been laws compelling a person to work as a pharmacist. We are (or at least some of us are) debating whether a pharmacist can unilaterally decide to abandon his/her duty to patients based on personal beliefs. Referring to this as “indentured servitude” is asinine, just as it would be to claim that requiring physicians and hospitals to provide copies of charts to their patients is “slavery”.
Nope. We’ve commented on the jerkishness of your posts. Perhaps in Bricker-world that counts as an assault on your posting rights, a.k.a. “indentured servitude”.
Another fantasy. Neither Whack-a-Mole nor any other poster here has made any such claim. Possibly in your aversion to taking a principled stand based on reasoned arguments, you view with horror anyone else who has the balls to do so?
This little Jack Webb fantasy of yours makes you look like the person who wants to rewrite requirements for posting in this forum.
Someone with a legal background should be aware that in this country, we do not recognize protected classes of people on the basis that if a “vast majority” of them have their rights protected, it’s O.K. if a minority are wronged (where you get this claim that things are and will always be swell for a “vast majority” is another matter, unsupported by evidence).
You have no idea whether active bleeding was occurring unless you’ve had access to the patient’s confidential medical records, which I strongly doubt you have.
Uh huh.
Well, then, where’s that tiny minority?
I assume you have a better answer than “In my imagination.”
Where is the actual minority of people that were actually wronged by this policy? Point one out to me.
Where do I sign? I’ll support it.
I’m not sure I’ll rush…but usually don’t rush, it’s too tiring.
I don’t know when you learnt about PP’s activities, I know them for at least 10 years. BTW, PP is not famous for its donuts or “carapulcras”.
Your own (very short) quote uses the word abortion twice, it’s not a band-aid.
The penicilin example is a reductio ad absurdum. What’s next? “I won’t sell band-aids because you may have cut yourself during an abortion?”
Yeah, I’m sure conscience clauses are exactly about that. Well done, expert, well done. Now, go watch a Favre game.
“People are hereby legally able to track down anybody whose uses the name “FinnAgain” on online forums, and feed them to wild dogs. Luckily, this will only effect a few people, and even then only potentially, so it’s no big deal.”
You said:
"The fact is that the vast majority of people do not live in circumstances where there’s only one pharmacy with only one pharmacist; of those that do, the vast majority of those pharamacists (sic) will not object to dispensing the requisite treatment; of those that don’t, the vast majority of patients will not be unable to get to another pharmacy. "
You have made no proof of this. You imply that as long as it is only some small minority affected there is no issue.
I showed in my cite that there are potentially millions of women in the US affected by this (in particular women who may not have another pharmacy a mere block away). Certainly the actual number will be smaller but it shows that even if the percentage is small the actual numbers are potentially considerable.
You have made no argument on how many is “too many.” Where is the line drawn? One woman? A thousand? A million?
Since when do rights only matter based upon the number of people affected? If you are censored and have your First Amendment rights stripped should we all shrug our shoulders and deem it merely one man affected so who cares?
The fallacy of ad populum is also somewhat disturbing in this context. During dark periods of America’s history the majority has endorsed all sorts of bad shit. That’s why the discussion of any principled stand is over the principle itself, not whether or not it’s “objective” and based on some guys in robes who decided something, or whether the majority supports it, or what have you.
There is no ad populum.
I think conscience clauses (CC) are good, regardless of the number of people who support it. CCs preserve personal freedom.
I think it is good that laws contemplate CC.
Before I cite some of Bricker’s comments in this thread, are you really contending that he hasn’t used the AdPop fallacy?
