Pharmacists and refusals

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Relevant authority?

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

@Whack-a-Mole

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

Ask, and ye shall receive:

My cites:

Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Harris v. McRae
Casey v. Planned Parenthood (even though the district court found that a twenty-four-hour waiting period would be “particularly burdensome” on women who do not have the resources to travel or must explain their whereabouts to others, these “increased costs and potential delays [did not] amount to substantial obstacles.") This case flies directly in the face of your repeated claims to the contrary.

Arkansas § 20-9-1001
California SB 644 Chapter No. 417 (requires employer to approve action)
Colorado Rev. Stat. 25-6-102
Florida 2003 Stat. XXIX 381.0051
Georgia Admin. Code § 480-5-.03
Idaho Code § 18-611
Maine Rev. Stat. tit. 22, 1903
Mississippi Code Ann. § 41-41-215
South Dakota Codified Laws § 36-11-70
Tennessee Code Ann. 68-34-104
Washington RCW 48.43.065

OK, those are not “my word.” Those are relevant court decisons and state laws. Those are my cites.

Now, yours were… what?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Morgenstern

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?

There is such a thing as De Facto segregation. Basically, segregation that happens in practice although not officially established.

Same issue is at work here. No, they are not “after” women but in practice the result almost exclusively impacts women.

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

When you stop asserting it and tell me why it is different on a fundamental level. Yes, gender is not race. Obfuscation. At a fundamental level denying a black man service, no matter how easily he may obtain it elsewhere, is wrong. It does not matter if the person denying service has a deeply held belief that he should not serve black men. So too denying women service, no matter how easily the service can be had elsewhere, is wrong. It is your job to provide the service. If you have a problem with it find a different line of work.

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?

Actually yes.

When is the imposition “too great”? How many women need to be affected before it is “too many”?

[Cumberdale]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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.

And you would be wrong. When a person is hired, they essentially sign a contract saying they will do X, Y and Z. After they get the job and decided they can’t do Z they are going back on the contract.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

When you stop asserting it and tell me why it is different on a fundamental level. Yes, gender is not race. Obfuscation. At a fundamental level denying a black man service, no matter how easily he may obtain it elsewhere, is wrong. It does not matter if the person denying service has a deeply held belief that he should not serve black men. So too denying women service, no matter how easily the service can be had elsewhere, is wrong. It is your job to provide the service. If you have a problem with it find a different line of work.

YOU think it’s wrong.

That’s fine. I have no problem with you thinking it’s wrong.

But others don’t agree with you, and those others also have a right to make their case.

And they have. And lo and behold, just like a democracy is supposed to work, their view was convincing to lawmakers in many states. (Your view has carried the day in New Jersey, of course).

So continue to assert it’s wriong. The exercise will do you good.

But until you can craft an argument that isn’t abstract, I’m certain no one who matters will care. (In this circumstance, “who matters” is people that can propose and implement laws).

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

There is such a thing as De Facto segregation. Basically, segregation that happens in practice although not officially established.

Hey, your first cite! Congrats.

[Morgenstern]

@Whack-a-Mole

There is such a thing as De Facto segregation. Basically, segregation that happens in practice although not officially established.

Same issue is at work here. No, they are not “after” women but in practice the result almost exclusively impacts women.

. . .

Okay, I appreciate that you have a strong position in this matter. I also respect your desire to represent your beliefs in this thread. But equating refusal to fill to De Facto segregation is a pretty long stretch don’t you think? You’re going to need a lot of BENGAY in the morning.

[gurujulp]

@Der_Trihs

No, because most have no expertise in the matter, nor do they necessarily have the equipment lying around. Now, doctors who are trained and equipped for abortions shouldn’t be allowed to refuse patients just because they are lesbian, or Jewish, or black, or so on.

No, because they are not required for marriage. They are not the legally mandated gatekeepers for marriage the way pharmacists are for drugs.

Wrong.
All doctors DO have the equipment lying around. Abortions can and in the right hands, have safely been performed with kitchen implements. A scalpel and a pencil are all you need.

Yes, anyone licensed for marriage who is part of any clergy should be required, if on duty, to perform marriage services for anyone. Otherwise, they should find another position in the church.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Ask, and ye shall receive:

My cites:

Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Harris v. McRae
Casey v. Planned Parenthood (even though the district court found that a twenty-four-hour waiting period would be “particularly burdensome” on women who do not have the resources to travel or must explain their whereabouts to others, these “increased costs and potential delays [did not] amount to substantial obstacles.") This case flies directly in the face of your repeated claims to the contrary.

Arkansas § 20-9-1001
California SB 644 Chapter No. 417 (requires employer to approve action)
Colorado Rev. Stat. 25-6-102
Florida 2003 Stat. XXIX 381.0051
Georgia Admin. Code § 480-5-.03
Idaho Code § 18-611
Maine Rev. Stat. tit. 22, 1903
Mississippi Code Ann. § 41-41-215
South Dakota Codified Laws § 36-11-70
Tennessee Code Ann. 68-34-104
Washington RCW 48.43.065

OK, those are not “my word.” Those are relevant court decisons and state laws. Those are my cites.

Now, yours were… what?

I can’t find most of those in this thread. I see a different thread where you made a laundry list of eight of those.

I cannot find (with a Google search) your citations for:

California SB 644 Chapter No. 417
Idaho Code § 18-611
Washington RCW 48.43.065

At least not in this thread.

The Idaho citation seems to be one the Morgenstern posted and not you.

I have not looked up all the rest but I am content I have shown you are, to be charitable, being disingenuous here.

Also, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, we are not arguing that the law does not say what you are claiming. We are arguing that the law is a bad law.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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?

Well, it make his argument a lot easier to make.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Morgenstern

Okay, I appreciate that you have a strong position in this matter. I also respect your desire to represent your beliefs in this thread. But equating refusal to fill to De Facto segregation is a pretty long stretch don’t you think? You’re going to need a lot of BENGAY in the morning.

Show me how this impacts men.

[Morgenstern]

@Whack-a-Mole

I cannot find (with a Google search) your citations for:

. . .
Idaho Code § 18-611
. . .

See post #260

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cumberdale

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

What topic?

Are you proposing that we should make priests officiate over gay weddings or that we should make everyone get a civil wedding at city hall?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well, it make his argument a lot easier to make.

I see what he did.

Bricker cited a thread from a year ago in his OP here and counts all his cites there as cites here.

Can I cite other 12 page, year old threads I participated in and expect you to count all my citations there as citations here?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Morgenstern

See post #260

I did. I noted you made that cite.

Do your cites now count as Bricker’s cites?

[tumbleddown]

@Bricker

How about 3 to 5 to 7 minutes to walk to the next pharmacy?

Since you keep going back to this red herring I will keep challenging you. Show me the “3 to 5 to 7 minutes” away pharmacy from the ONE pharmacy in Daniels, West Virginia. Use Google, use Mapquest, use whatever tools at your disposal to show me where a woman in that town can go that’s even 20 minutes away, when the pharmacist at the ONE pharmacy refuses to fill her prescription.

@Damuri_Ajashi

But your not ill. We are talking about birth control pills and abortion pills.

We are NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION PILLS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A RETAIL PHARMACY DISTRIBUTED ITEM.

And birth control pills ARE prescribed for treatment of various gynecological conditions, even in women (like myself) who are infertile. I take them to treat endometriosis and I assure you that without the Pill I am, in fact, ill. I am, in fact, bedridden for large sections of each cycle. There are a number of conditions for which women take The Pill in order to maintain or preserve their health, not just to manage their fertility. Please pay attention, this has already been covered by several posters in this thread.

@Damuri_Ajashi

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

No, it changes everything because the continual and relentless conflation of contraception and abortion is exactly why we have men standing up in the chamber of the U.S. Senate and LYING about what Planned Parenthood does, and an endless stream of right-wing pundits pounding the abortion drum and screaming about filthy whores relying on Planned Parenthood for their abortions.

This is because the reality is that the majority of American women use hormonal birth control at some point in their lives. And religion is no barrier, Roman Catholic women who are meant to be religiously enjoined from use of hormonal contraceptives use them at rates nearly identical to women of every other religion (or no religion at all).

Being opposed to hormonal birth control and to easy access to it is a fringe position, out of touch with the reality of its use and with the *needs of women *in this country in this time, who rely upon these drugs in order to maintain fundamental control over one of the most important and intimate aspects of their lives.

So it is very rare that anyone in the political mainstream will ever openly admit to being opposed to birth control. But so long as the anti-contraceptive message can be muddled by portraying it as equivalent or inherent to the “pro-life” message, by the constant positioning of anti-contraceptive activist pharmacists as “pro-life” and they and their supporters unflinching willingness to lie by equating contraception and abortion over and over and over again it creates political cover for exactly what these conscience clause laws entail for the women who come up against them: reduced access to needed medical care.

Call me back when every pharmacist is taking this position.

If I need a medication, it doesn’t matter if every pharmacist is refusing to give it to me for entirely non-medical reasons, it only matters if the pharmacist that I encounter refuses. Because at that point I am forced to find alternate solutions, with devoting more time to the chore, with driving to the next store which might be in the next block, but might be in the next county. They are making me the beast of burden who has to carry the weight of *their *moral decisions. They have no skin in the game; if they refuse me, I am out of their store, out of their space, out of their mind, they need not worry about me for another moment. I, on the other hand, still must find a way to have my needs filled, the weight is on my shoulders.

If these pharmacists were also refusing to dispense hypertension medicine to women, you would have a point.

As the laws are written in many (though not all states) pharmacists could refuse to dispense hypertension medicine or anything else.

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.

They are refusing to dispense particular drugs that are only taken by women, for specific needs that are only experienced by women. That’s like saying it’s not sex discrimination to have a workplace policy that employees aren’t eligible for promotion when pregnant, because men who get pregnant would be as ineligible as women.

@Morgenstern

I don’t see having to mail order a non-emergency prescription as an excessive inconvenience.

Do you not recognize that there are emergency drugs within the class of refused medications in question?

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?

You don’t recognize the difference between issues of the ordinary course of business – operating hours, stock issues (out of a medication or needing to special order it), insurance snaggles and the like – and the specific and intentional act of refusal to fill a specific prescription? Or are you just throwing out nonsense to see what might stick?

@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.

Those refusals are based on legal discretion or medical necessity. These are areas in which pharmacists have both specific training as well as obligations to uphold local and federal law and fulfill the universal ethics of the profession. Those refusals are because it would be harmful to the patient or outright illegal to fill the prescriptions, not because they think Vicodin is immoral.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

The pharmacist is not refusing service to women, the pharmacist is refusing to dispense a specific drug. If a woman came in with one prescription for birth control pills and another for insulin, presumably this pharmacist would fill the prescription for insulin and hand back the prescription for the birth control pill.

A more apt analogy from the pharmacist’s perspective would be if the lunch counter only served free range meat because animal farming these days is inhumane.

From the woman’s perspective the more apt analogy is that a restaurant does not have any vegetarian dishes and instructs vegetarians to go next door to some other restaurant.

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.

I guess the question is if we would force a pharmacist to sell birth control pills if they were somehow able to find a population center where a CVS or Walgreens does not exist. I think the answer is we want to force people to sell something they don’t want to sell, then we have to pass a law to that effect. In this case the law goes the other way.

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

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

I think Bricker erred in conceding that there is any gender discrimination present at all. There simply isn’t.

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

They cannot refuse to sell to you BECAUSE you are black but they can refuse to sell a particular product.

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.

This is not discrimination. Just calling it discrimination doesn’t make it so. The woman can get any number of prescriptions filled at that pharmacy.

[tumbleddown]

@gurujulp

Wrong.
All doctors DO have the equipment lying around. Abortions can and in the right hands, have safely been performed with kitchen implements. A scalpel and a pencil are all you need.

If “all” you need is a scalpel and a pencil, you’re going to kill women, destroy their reproductive systems, make them vulnerable to all manner of complications and infections and there’s the not small matter of closing the gaping wound you’ve caused with the damn scalpel. There are far easier, far safer and far better means of performing an abortion with easily accessed items, and anyone who would even think of making the suggestion of scalpel and pencil with a straight face is either a sadist or a fraud.

@Bricker

Casey v. Planned Parenthood (even though the district court found that a twenty-four-hour waiting period would be “particularly burdensome” on women who do not have the resources to travel or must explain their whereabouts to others, these “increased costs and potential delays [did not] amount to substantial obstacles.") This case flies directly in the face of your repeated claims to the contrary.

Are you serious? You’re trying to conflate an opinion on waiting periods for a surgical procedure with the process of filling a prescription?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

I can’t find most of those in this thread. I see a different thread where you made a laundry list of eight of those.

I cannot find (with a Google search) your citations for:

California SB 644 Chapter No. 417
Idaho Code § 18-611
Washington RCW 48.43.065

Let’s be clear: are you saying you can’t find the text of the law, or are you saying you cannot find where I previously cited those laws?

[Bricker]

@tumbleddown

If “all” you need is a scalpel and a pencil, you’re going to kill women, destroy their reproductive systems, make them vulnerable to all manner of complications and infections and there’s the not small matter of closing the gaping wound you’ve caused with the damn scalpel. There are far easier, far safer and far better means of performing an abortion with easily accessed items, and anyone who would even think of making the suggestion of scalpel and pencil with a straight face is either a sadist or a fraud.

Are you serious? You’re trying to conflate an opinion on waiting periods for a surgical procedure with the process of filling a prescription?

I’m showing the blanket statement that “it doesn’t matter what the burden is” to be wrong.

I agree that there’s a distinction to be made between surgical procedures and filling a prescription.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

I see what he did.

Bricker cited a thread from a year ago in his OP here and counts all his cites there as cites here.

Can I cite other 12 page, year old threads I participated in and expect you to count all my citations there as citations here?

If you have any relevant cites there, by all means.

Just refresh my recollection on what they are.