Pharmacists and refusals

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Only you and your ilk say they are not comparable because it is inconvenient to your argument.

No. We (or at least I) say they’re not comparable because they are different things. One is an immutable characteristic, the other a temporary need based on a temporary condition. One is the direct subject of constitutional language; the other is a matter unaddressed by the constitution. One involves a pervasive effect on society as a whole; the other involves walking a block or three.

It’s not because it’s convenient or inconvenient – it’s because they are different.

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.

Yes, but even if I were to concede that gender is the precise class involved here – which I most assuredly do not – gender discrimination is analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny standard, and race under the strict scrutiny standard. SO even then, your efforts to analogize to race fail.

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.

Yes, and as I explained the last time you tried to dress up argumentum ignoratiam and parade it around as though it were a Real Argument, I pointed out that I could use the same argument the other way, and that it therefore proves nothing.

And even then, your statement is spectacularly untrue. Courts upheld the Thirteenth Amendment. The amount of discrimination based on race that courts were willign to sanction decreased over time, and the “200 years” figure is completely wrong. If we start by our nation’s founding in 1776, we have plenty of examples prior to 1976 of courts upholding laws that prevent discrimination.

In addition Freedom of Religion necessarily includes Freedom from Religion.

Freedom from government imposed religion, yes. I agree with any rule you care to offer prohibiting government pharmacists from refusing to dispense any medications at all.

But pharmacists are private actors. You don’t have to buy from them, and they don’t have to sell to you.

A pharmacist in this case is imposing their religious views on others. One pharmacist is affecting numerous women.

Yes. And that means the woman can choose to go elsewhere, just as she could if she disliked the pharmacist’s displaying of the Ten Commandments in large neon letters in his store.

But the pharmacist is free to display the Ten Commandments in his store.

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.

“Imposing?” No. No one is forcing anyone to patronize that store. He’s not imposing anything. Any customer is free to avoid the pharmacist’s religious views by going elsewhere.

What’s the overall theme. I continue to cite to relevant authority for my claims. You continue to make absolute statements that find their basis of authority only in your head.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tumbleddown

Okay stop. You’ve now used this phrase repeatedly in this thread, muddying the waters unacceptably.

[CENTER]There is no such thing as an “abortion pill.”

[SIZE=3]

OK then replace everywhere I said abortion pill with birth control pill. It makes their position a bit more whacky but changes little else.

If being a retail pharmacist entails something so desperately repugnant to people then there are a plethora of other jobs within the pharmaceutical family that someone with a PharmD could do without having to compromise their morals OR patient care.

None that are quite as plentiful and available.

Why are women the ones who are supposed to just suck it up and deal and be inconvenienced (at best) or have our wellness jeopardized? Why aren’t pharmacists told to suck it and deal or go elsewhere? The power in this dynamic is skewed. Women cannot get their needed medications anywhere but a pharmacy, but a pharmacist can work in a number of locations other than the local CVS, Walgreens or John Smith’s House O"Meds.

Call me back when every pharmacist is taking this position.

And here’s the crux. You don’t believe that discriminating against women by refusing to serve our medical needs is harmful at all, let alone important.

If these pharmacists were also refusing to dispense hypertension medicine to women, you would have a point. Otherwise you are simply pointing out sexism that doesn’t exist. Its not like these pharmacists are refusing to serve women, they are refusing to dispense a particular drug.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@phantom_lamb

So it’s basically either the philosophy of “Client should just find another pharmacy” or “Pharmacist should just find another job”.

I see it infinitely more reasonable to expect someone to do their damn job instead of expecting a client to endure inconvenience or health consequences because the pharmacist is so devoted to the sky fairy.

I could just as well become a priest but refuse to give sermons and all that other “religiousy stuff” cause I’m an athiest and it just doesn’t feel right, you know.

They’re not refusing to fill all prescriptions.

Part of a priest’s job is to officiate weddings. We don’t force them to officiate gay weddings.

[Cumberdale]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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.

This topic deserves its own thread. If you start one, I’ll reply.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@phantom_lamb

Would you be okay if a geology or biology teacher refused to teach students about certain scientific studies because it conflicts with “facts” that the Bible teaches? My view is that such a person should find another job and not teach geology/biology. Same for the pharmacist. They’d be doing society a huge favor by finding a more suitable job for themselves.

If they own the school, they can in fact teach creationism instead of science.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Neither am I. Instead, we have a system to craft rules that doesn’t rely on any one person’s legislative fiat. And that system has (in many states) crafted a rule that says… drum roll… the pharmacist doesn’t need to make the concession.

Do these law protect them from getting fired for refusing to dispense birth control pills if a reasonable accomodation cannot be found? IOW, does CVS have to continue to employ an otherwise good pharmacist because they refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

And similarly, no court has said that human life (and the attendant rights) begin before birth either, but one day they may.

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.

They’re not imposing their views on you. They are refusing to sell you something. Imposing their views on you would be if they prevented you from buying it from anyone. They are simply not facilitating your decisions.

[Morgenstern]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

Why don’t you draw the line.
I don’t see the imposition of having to dial an additional phone number is excessive.
I don’t see driving or walking an additional few minutes to another pharmacy as excessive.
I don’t see having to mail order a non-emergency prescription as an excessive inconvenience.
Are you claiming these are excessive hurdles to a person receiving their medication?

What about a person who receives a prescription late at night, or on a Sunday? Should they file a complaint for refusal to fill based on their regular pharmacy being closed?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

No. We (or at least I) say they’re not comparable because they are different things. One is an immutable characteristic, the other a temporary need based on a temporary condition. One is the direct subject of constitutional language; the other is a matter unaddressed by the constitution. One involves a pervasive effect on society as a whole; the other involves walking a block or three.

Seems to me being female is an immutable characteristic.

Denying lunch to a black man is denying something that will alleviate his hunger. A temporary need based on a temporary condition.

It’s not because it’s convenient or inconvenient – it’s because they are different.

Yet you keep stating that making someone walk “a block or three” makes the imposition on the woman acceptable. You nor anyone else I have seen have defined where the imposition becomes too great.

Yes, but even if I were to concede that gender is the precise class involved here – which I most assuredly do not – gender discrimination is analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny standard, and race under the strict scrutiny standard. SO even then, your efforts to analogize to race fail.

Intermediate scrutiny “must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.”

Why are the pharmacist’s personal beliefs an important government interest? Near as I can tell the beliefs do not even have to have a religious basis. Why aren’t the thousand women who patronize his store considered? There are lots and lots of religious beliefs out there. Does the government now have to protect them all so the people can have a clear conscience?

What is a government interest is regulating the pharmacy to meet some minimum standards of care.

Yes, and as I explained the last time you tried to dress up argumentum ignoratiam and parade it around as though it were a Real Argument, I pointed out that I could use the same argument the other way, and that it therefore proves nothing.

You tried and you failed.

And even then, your statement is spectacularly untrue. Courts upheld the Thirteenth Amendment. The amount of discrimination based on race that courts were willign to sanction decreased over time, and the “200 years” figure is completely wrong. If we start by our nation’s founding in 1776, we have plenty of examples prior to 1976 of courts upholding laws that prevent discrimination.

We do? Black men gained a lot in the way of discrimination prior to the 1950/60’s?

But pharmacists are private actors. You don’t have to buy from them, and they don’t have to sell to you.

So they can refuse to sell to me if I was a black man?

Yes. And that means the woman can choose to go elsewhere, just as she could if she disliked the pharmacist’s displaying of the Ten Commandments in large neon letters in his store.

“Imposing?” No. No one is forcing anyone to patronize that store. He’s not imposing anything. Any customer is free to avoid the pharmacist’s religious views by going elsewhere.

It is not about the woman “choosing” to patronize a store. It is about forcing a woman to go somewhere else. Similar to it not being about what restaurant a black man chooses to patronize but a restaurant forcing him to go somewhere else.

What’s the overall theme. I continue to cite to relevant authority for my claims. You continue to make absolute statements that find their basis of authority only in your head.

Relevant authority?

You mean, “I am Bricker! My word is my cite!”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Morgenstern

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.

They are not afraid that someone will end up without access to birth control. they want to punish anyone that doesn’t believe as they do.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

Absolutely correct.

Both race and gender are protected classes.

Absolutely correct.

ANd now, the missing link: this practice constitutes gender discrimination, and should be analyzed as such.

Um… how do you know? Who made that decision? The Brain of W-a-M?

Sure seems like some judge somewhere would have also connected the dots.

But… the Supreme Court said:

@448 US 297

Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman’s exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation, and indigency falls within the latter category.

The court there was discussing the question of funding of abortions, and specifically whether the government could choose to fund other medically necessary care and yet NOT fund medically necessary abortions. The Court said they could; there was no Due Process or Equal Protection right to such care. In other words, faced with a woman in need of a medically necessary abortion, the government could tell her to go elsewhere. Note that this is more serious than walking a few blocks to another pharmacy.

Did they heed your idea that women are a protected class? NO. They observed that this impacted not all women, but poor women, since they reasoned, rightly, that only poor women would be affected by the regulations in play.

Much like only poor patients would be affected here, by the actions of a NON-GOVERNMENT actor.

And what did the Court say?

Although the impact of the Amendment falls on the indigent, that fact does not itself render the funding restrictions constitutionally invalid, for poverty, standing alone, is not a suspect classification.

And from another case:

The Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government may not deprive the individual.

Other than your fervently held personal convictions that this involves protected classes, can you point to a single valid authority that agrees with you?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Morgenstern

Why don’t you draw the line.

Sure thing.

The line is to not refuse dispensing a legally prescribed medication to any woman. It doesn’t matter if there is a 24-hour pharmacy the next door down who will.

Your turn.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cumberdale

Once someone becomes a pharmacist, they need to do their job regardless of how they feel morally about certain items.

Thats an interesting opinion, we’ve heard it a million times in this thread and it is supported by the fact that you want the world to work that way. My opinion is that forcing people to do something against their conscience by saying “well, they can just get another job” is a poor argument.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Relevant authority?

You mean, “I am Bricker! My word is my cite!”

Um… no.

I mean the case I cited in the OP (Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich), the state laws I have subsequently cited in this discussion, and the court cases I have mentioned subsequent.

THOSE cites.

HOw can you, with a straight face, even post this? I thought your shtick was more, “I don’t care about the court cases!” How can you go from that to claiming I didn’t even provide them?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Originally Posted by 448 US 297
Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman’s exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation, and indigency falls within the latter category.

When did we make poverty an issue here?

I do not recall any discussion of who should pay for the medicine.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

I recognize that the only reason Republicans are going after them is because in many places they are the ONLY place you can get an abortion. I don’t know how profitable those abortions are but I remember Warren Buffett getting flak for donating money specifically funding abortion when his buddy Bill Gates donated a bunch of money but excluded abortion. SO I suspect that the money that they get from people who need abortions does not cover the costs of performing those abortions.

I think its despicable to threaten the health of millions of women in order to punish an organization for providing LEGAL abortions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

HAve you got a cite for that that involves a legitimate prescription?

Well, I have 5 pharmacists in the family and they say that they can refuse to dispense narcotics at their discretion. They can’t abuse that discretion but they do have discretion.

For example: If they feel a doctor has been overprescribing, they can refuse to fill. If their records show that someone keeps switching doctors and getting new prescriptions for narcotics, they can refuse to fill. If someone comes in for an early refill, they can refuse to fill. There are prescription mills out there that will write prescriptions for narcotics if you can pay their outrageous office visit fee and pharmacists are supposed to be gatekeepers agaisnt that sort of stuff..

[Morgenstern]

@Whack-a-Mole

Seems to me being female is an immutable characteristic.

Come On Whack-a-Mole, being female isn’t the reason the pharmacist is refusing to fill the prescription. You do see that don’y you?

@Whack-a-Mole

Denying lunch to a black man is denying something that will alleviate his hunger. A temporary need based on a temporary condition.

You keep trying to connect the dots with this argument. How many ways can we tell you it fails.

@Whack-a-Mole

Yet you keep stating that making someone walk “a block or three” makes the imposition on the woman acceptable. You nor anyone else I have seen have defined where the imposition becomes too great.

When the imposition becomes too great, the CC laws require that the pharmacist meet the needs until other help is available. Does that help, or do you need a specific mileage figure. And does that figure depend on the price of gas, or time spend at red lights?

@Whack-a-Mole

You tried and you failed.

I disagree.
Que Price is Right fail noise here

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Um… no.

I mean the case I cited in the OP (Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich), the state laws I have subsequently cited in this discussion, and the court cases I have mentioned subsequent.

THOSE cites.

HOw can you, with a straight face, even post this? I thought your shtick was more, “I don’t care about the court cases!” How can you go from that to claiming I didn’t even provide them?

I went back to page 5 and see no linked citations beyond addresses to pharmacies in Idaho.

You directly cited a case just recently and after I made my comment.

Still pretty thin on the citations. The Blagojevich case fine…in a thread over ten pages long though I’d call that pretty thin.

Most it has been assertions from you. You are expert in the law so you have not seen me making demands for citations but it remains “my post is my cite”.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well, I have 5 pharmacists in the family and they say that they can refuse to dispense narcotics at their discretion. They can’t abuse that discretion but they do have discretion.

For example: If they feel a doctor has been overprescribing, they can refuse to fill. If their records show that someone keeps switching doctors and getting new prescriptions for narcotics, they can refuse to fill. If someone comes in for an early refill, they can refuse to fill. There are prescription mills out there that will write prescriptions for narcotics if you can pay their outrageous office visit fee and pharmacists are supposed to be gatekeepers agaisnt that sort of stuff..

BUZZ! Fail!
I mentioned legitimate prescriptions, not legally questionable ones, and I don’t recall asking for farfetched hypotheticals(turnabout is fair play, right?).