I wasn’t aware that CC laws covered lunch counters and racial prejudice. Do you have a cite for that?
Yes, because when you need EMERGENCY contraception you can wait 3 to 5 to 7 days to get it in the mail.
Even waiting 24 hours for it to come FedEx (which would cost what, over top of the ~$50 cost of the medication?) reduces its efficacy.
This is true, but when they work as they’re meant to they prevent ovulation, thereby eliminating the possibility of fertilization. If fertilization does occur, it’s theorized that not only is implantation impossible because of endometrial changes but because the adjusted hormones present at fertilization create a nonviable blastocyst. But then, the vast majority of blastocysts are nonviable and never implant, for women who aren’t using any form of contraception at all. But the mechanisms definitely aren’t entirely clear because it’s beyond the realm of current science to investigate blastocyst development outside of the in vitro environment and the full effect of various hormone combinations cannot be replicated.
It’s still not accurate, in any case, to refer to common contraceptives or even emergency contraceptives as “(the) abortion pill.” That’s not the intent of anyone taking them, nor the understood meaning of abortion for anyone but the most stringent of believers in anti-choice rhetoric.
How about 3 to 5 to 7 minutes to walk to the next pharmacy?
Of course he does. It’s his own mind. His THOUGHTS are his cite.
You didn’t mean an actual citation to any relevant authority, did you?
'Cause Whack-a-Mole don’t roll like that, man.
Only you and your ilk say they are not comparable because it is inconvenient to your argument.
The comparison is it is not ok to discriminate based on race if an alternative for them is easily available.
It is not ok to discriminate against women because there is an easily available alternative.
Gender, IIRC, is a protected class.
Doubtless you will say no court has agreed with that but as noted no court agreed it was impermissible to discriminate based on race for near 200 years in the US.
In addition Freedom of Religion necessarily includes Freedom from Religion.
A pharmacist in this case is imposing their religious views on others. One pharmacist is affecting numerous women.
If their views are not based in religion but their morals you still have the problem of imposing your views on others. That is not ok.
Its not malpractice if the state says its not and its not bigotry just because you say it is.
Thats just your opinion based on your absolute hatred and vilification of anyone who opposes abortion. I believe that you honestly believe this about people who oppose abortion but its simply not true. While I don’t believe a blastocyst or even an embryo is a life that the state has an interest in preserving over the mother’s objection (at some point before birth I think the state does have that right), some people honestly do.
A pharmacist should be able to choose. Just a like a woman can choose.
Did you read what I was responding to? A 1 month old “lack the neuro capability to agree or disagree with anything.” So the neural capability to agree or disagree is not the determinative. The point is that if the newborn could choose they would choose to live.
Yeah, I agree. There are times when comparisons to Hitler are appropriate. There are times when it is appropriate to make comparisons with Nazis.
I suspect its because they want to erect a hurdle for getting birth control pills. If they could do it, some people would make condoms available by prescription only.
What is the danger that birth control pills present that something like tylenol doesn’t present?
Again, you’re allowing your fears to dictate your position. You are NOT being forced to adopt the moral/religious views of the pharmacist. You are free to choose your pharmacist based on gender, hair color or whatever criteria you prefer. The CC laws allow the pharmacist to avoid doing those thing that weighs on his or her conscious.
I think if you dropped the irrational fears and realized that no one in need of medication will be denied that medication by the CC laws. The overall effect of the law is a slight inconvenience to a customer.
The individual, before becoming a pharmacist has the right to choose whether to enter the profession or not. Once someone becomes a pharmacist, they need to do their job regardless of how they feel morally about certain items. If they cannot do that they can choose to enter another profession.
So 3% of planned parenthood’s services are abortions if you include things like dispensing a month’s supply of the pill as a service. 15% of planned parenthood’s total revenue is paid by people who receive abortions.
I support planned parenthood and I think first trimester abortions should be free to anyone who needs it and would struggle to pay for it BUT while 3% is more honest than the 90% that Kyl floats around (in that it is at least factually correct), 3% disguises the facts a bit.
The Mexico City rule is abhorrent to me because it seems more focused on punishing those that provide abortions than making sure that the government isn’t paying for any of those abortions. If money is so fungible then we should prohibit doctors that perform abortions from accepting medicaid or medicare patients. If money is so fungible we should defund any hospital that performs abortions. If money is so fungible then they should eliminate tax exempt status for any non-profit that supports anyone that performs abortions. If money is so fungible then they remove tax exempt status for the municipal bonds for cities and states that allow city or state money to be used to fund hospitals that fund abortions. Its an excuse not a reason.
And someone who is racist may have problems with their conscience if they served a black man lunch.
What irrational fears?
As I noted before the roadblocks being thrown in a woman’s access to reproductive health care are numerous. You may say any one seems not too bad but they add up to significant hurdles a woman must overcome. This is another such hurdle.
You say going two miles to another pharmacy is a minor inconvenience. What if the woman has no car? It’ll take her over an hour to make the roundtrip walk (and we assume the pharmacist there will fill the prescritption). Take a bus? We assume a bus is available. Take a cab? We assume a cab is available. In either case you are costing her more money and time to get something legally prescribed to her. Maybe she has to go to class or work and that time means missing class or being late for work or skipping her medication.
Do you want to explicitly spell out where the line is drawn between a permissible and impermissible inconvenience? Not only how inconvenient but precisely how many women per month must be inconvenienced?
Honestly though it does not matter. You cannot discriminate against providing service to someone for being black no matter how simple it is for them to find the same service elsewhere.
Both race and gender are protected classes.
Money is fungible.
Planned Parenthood scrupulously keeps the money from abortion separate from the rest of their activities. They have to since there are a lot of people watching and hoping they screw-up to bust them.
Abortions have a certain price but Planned Parenthood has a sliding scale for what a woman must pay based on her ability to pay.
Also, do not confuse revenue with profit. In terms of raw dollars coming in from abortion it is 15% of what they collect. We have seen no analysis on what it costs them to provide the abortion.
Yeah but you keep saying one thing.
This is all about people who hate women who want to punish women for being women. I don’t think ANYONE really believes that this is the case (including you) but it is much easier to argue against bigotry than to argue for why we should overcome the sincere convictions of a pharmacist to force them to dispense abortifacients.
Seriously. I have to agree. I will never support a CC law designed to allow lunch counter workers to choose who they will or will not serve based on the race of the customer.
The ones about women not being able to receive care and treatment due to the CC laws.
I’m sorry but we don’t agree on the extent of the hurdle these laws place on the public. I see the inconvenience being one no more severe than making an additional telephone call, or perhaps, driving another half mile to get the medication. No different than if the store did not have the medication in stock and the patient had to go elsewhere.
Once again, you’re resorting to fear based on a series of what-if events that really have simple answers.
I think if you did you’d see how invaild your argument is.
Agreed in part. Discrimination based on race is never acceptable.
However, there is no gender based discrimination in this case, unless you’re prepared to show a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication to ALL woman for any reason. If you could, then in that instance, I’d agree it smells like discrimination. But there is no evidence of any pharmacist using the CC laws to avoid dispensing medication to an entire class of persons referred to as women.
I think we all agree on that. I have only heard one person defend the pharmacist that allegedly declined to fill the prescription for the bleeding drug.
I don’t think you can protect a pharmacist from being FIRED for failure to dispense birth control pills or abortion pills if the employer cannot reasonably accommodate that religiously based refusal.
Pharmacists also frequently apply discretion in dispensing drugs. Particularly in the case of narcotics and stuff like that. You can have a prescription and they can still refuse to dispense to you, they can exercise professional discretion.
HAve you got a cite for that that involves a legitimate prescription?
But the right to officiate a marriage does fall under government oversight (that’s why they end the ceremony with the words “by the power invested in me by The Commonwealth of Virginia, I now declare you husband and wife”). If you are licensed to perform a legal marriage, why should you be able to pick and choose who you will perform marriage ceremonies based on religious objections to marrying gay couples?
It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about abortion birth control. The principle of conscientious objection is the same either way.
But your not ill. We are talking about birth control pills and abortion pills. We pretty much all agree that a pharmacist should not be able to refuse to dispense medically necessary blood clotting medicine based on an objection to abortion.
So if I own my own pharmacy and I don’t want to carry birth control pills or abortion pills in stock, the law should require me to carry and dispense these drugs?
On the one hand pharmacists are just glorified pill counters so they should just shut up and give me my goddam pills and on the other hand they should be held to a higher standard because they are pharmacists.
It is you and others here who are basing their argument that this is “ok” because the imposition on people seeking medication is minor. You just did it in the quote above.
So, I think it is eminently your place to define what “too great” an imposition would be for the balance to shift. Your argument implies such a line exists so where is it? How much is too much? How many women affected is too many?
As for my “what-ifs” they are not out of the bounds of something that could be expected. You make a classic error that you assume what would be simple for you is simple for everyone. That is not the case. Not even close.