Its not all they do but it accounts for over a third of their revenues.
And this is the problem. The pharmacist was not trying to avoid being involved in an elective abortion, she was declining to provide medically necessary drugs.
Since when has it been taboo to admit how evil the right is?
I think I’d like a second opinion.
Bricker?
No, you can’t. Defining it that way goes against the standards we use everywhere else in our life.
For most of my life. All my adulthood, certainly.
What, he already pointed out what the ruling in this case was. Will you never stop hounding him?!??
Health Center revenue is a bit over a third of their income. The health centers do a lot more than providing abortions so it cannot be said that abortions are a third of their revenue especially considering abortions only account for 3% of services provided.
ETA:
Abortions are usually elective. They are very rarely therapeutic or medically necessary.
If you’re not going to fill script for the pill you might as well have an ice cream store that doesn’t carry vanilla. I thought this whole debate was about teh abortion pill.
And would it be OK if the pharmacy doesn’t carry the drug?
No, because the only reason outside of some all-male enclave they wouldn’t carry such drugs is bigotry.
There are a lot of products and services that can only sold with a license, liquor comes to mind.
Please show me where anyone is discriminating against women, or is this another example of you promoting absurd and irrational fears to make a point?
I don’t think a “reasonable accomodation” could be reached for such a pharmacist.
A christian identity pharmacist’s inability to dispense drugs is a religious requirement for which the emplyer cannot provide a reasonable accomodation. You’re FIRED!!! If you own your own pharmacy, you have just converted your pharmacy into a 7/11 that doesn’t sell beer, good luck with that.
A Christian Identity pharmacist is discriminating against a protected class.
A pro-life pharmacist says “I don’t dispense abortion pills” Some other pharmacist can dispense them or the customer can come back later. They can probably still be fired if a reasonable accomodation is not possible but its not illegal any more than it would be illegal to stop selling drugs altogether.
We’ve already identified what you mean by “absurd”:“Absurd hypothetical” evidently means “What the law actually says and explicitly allows, but I’d rather handwave away, if at all possible.”
“Fearmongering” evidently means: “The behaviors explicitly allowed by the law that I would prefer to claim are impossible.”
Likewise, your numerous errors have been pointed out to you here and here and here (and IIRC a few other places as well). Feel free to correct your mistakes.
Or feel free to claim that what the law doesn’t say is really what it meant to say or does say if you have a secret decoder ring, and what the law does say is something that it really doesn’t mean to say, if you only are Free of Fear and Absurd Hypotheticals.
I do admit, however, I really enjoyed your claims that if a patient’s request for a prescription to be filled is denied by a pharmacist, that it hasn’t actually been denied if another pharmacist accepts it. Although, not quite as much as I enjoyed your claim that while the law doesn’t define “care and treatment” and explicitly sets up a situation where the denied prescription doesn’t have to be part of that care and treatment, that the Free Online Dictionary will show what their conduct will be.
However, your claim that women aren’t the ones being discriminated against is not quite up to snuff. I mean, sure, it’s obviously false but is it comedic? Unfortunately I’m afraid it’s just moderately silly. You can bump it up a notch if you’d like to argue that men are also being refused their morning-after pills.
I don’t understand why plan B is OTC while the pill is not. In other countries a month’s supply of the pill is less than $5, here its like $2/day or something.
Right, so this hypothetical pharmacist (who must be the only pharmcist within miles if their regfusal to dispense a drug has that sort of dangerous effect) should close up shop and now the diabetic can’t get their insulin and the caner patient can’t get his anti cancer drugs, etc. Thats better in your opinion?
Then why the fuck won’t the market system also find someone to fill the gap on the abortion pill? This really just sounds like a crusade against people who oppose abortion.
There may be 13th amendment problems with that.
The same can be said of a 1 month baby.
Slightly off topic, but in light of an earlier post I think we should consider an adjunct to Godwin’s Law.
Call it Der Trihs’ Law: the first person to bring up the Tuskeegee Experiment in an Internet discussion automatically loses the argument.
roflmao