Well, you see thats what this law does. It tells the pharmacist that they don’t have to if it goes against their conscience.
Once again, we have a law that says they don’t have an *obligation]/i] to dispense birth control pills or emergency contraceptives. Their obligation only exists in your mind.
I don’t see WV on the list of CC state.
As long as we’re going to base our arguments on fear, let’s look at it from both sides.
Let’s assume there is 1 pharmacist in town, and the closest competitor is 100 miles away.
The pharmacist decides he has moral concerns over filling certain prescriptions.
The pharmacist says “I quit, I’m moving to a CC state. See ya later.”
Now, you have no pharmacist.
Yes, but in your zeal to describe how the law is bad, you’re making legal claims, such as the claim that this law involves protected class analysis.
If you weren’t making those claims, then we’d be having a different (and much shorter) discussion:
W-a-M: This is a bad law!
B: No, it isn’t.
W-a-M: Yes, it is. It elevates the rights of pharmacists’s “conscience” over the health and reproductive rights of women, and we shouldn’t do that as a society.
B: Well, I disagree with your weighting of those rights, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Show me the West Virginia law that relates to this issue.
Show me some evidence that the West Virginia pharmacist has any objections to filling prescriptions.
Why should I care about some speculation on your part that this pharmacist will enagage in this conduct?
In any event, Beaver, WV, which has a Walgreens, is 1.3 miles from Daniels.
And at an average human walking speed of 3.1 miles per hour… that’s about a 20 minute walk.
“Hi, um, is this the Walgreens in Beaver? Yeah… before I walk there, what kind of mood would you say the pharmacist is in today?”
Call him and ask…
(304) 256-04XX
“Hello. I was wondering if you have such and such medicine?”
“That depends-why do you want it?”
“My doctor said I need it.”
“Sorry, but unless I approve of reason you need this medicine, I’m not going to give it to you. Please tell me exactly why the doctor thinks you need it.”
“I’m sorry, but that is personal and none of your business!”
“Hasta la bye bye, heathen” click
No matter. There’s also a CVS and a Hodge’s in Beaver.
Sucks when the facts don’t behave, doesn’t it?
Goody! Let’s all move to Beaver and there won’t be any problems!
Enough with this “alternate pharmacies are within walking distance” crap because I’ve named places where it isn’t true. In your opinion, how far would be too unreasonable to go to get a prescription if you are refused at your local store?
I’m a big fan of Beaver.
But you have to admit Beaver isn’t right for all people, right?
If you want to start a new debate, start a new thread. This one deals with phamacists and refusals.
Where did you name places were it isn’t true? I’ve just disposed of Daniels, WV.
In my view, it’s not unreasonable to expect people to have either cars or access to a car. What would they do, after all, if the sole pharmacist was killed in a car accident? Perhaps we should pass a law forbidding the unplanned deaths or illnesses of all pharmacists, too. The greedy moralistic bastards better not get sick or die until we say they can!
Is this your indirect way of saying that no distance would be too great? If so, then have the guts to say it direct instead of your “there’s another one a couple of blocks away!” mantra. If not, please tell me what distance would be unreasonable, in your personal opinion..
We almost all think cities when we discuss the inconvenience of forcing a person to obtain a picture ID. For some people it is a damn big problem.
This is similar. For some people, drug stores are not easy to get to. They do not have one on the next block. Some people live out in the country and getting to a drug store is a big deal to them. If they take the effort to get a prescription filled and a pharmacist declares the right to decide if he should have the drug or not, he should belheld liable for the inconvenience and the potential physical damage .
Like I said earlier, if you presume the right to decide what drugs you will allow your customers to have, there should be a huge sign in the window stating that. The potential customer has a right to know.
I use no potential drugs that a religious nut might object to. But if i knew he was willing to decide for others, I would not go to his store.
If I heard that a person had actually been refused service at a pharmacy where there was no other pharmacy within 60 miles, I would consider that unreasonable.
Now it seems it’d be okay to discriminate against blacks as long as they could find another lunch counter 60 miles away. Or, since technically all women aren’t up for discrimination, just those who take medicines that the pharmacists don’t like, how about all discrimination against blacks is still illegal, except at lunch counters, and then only if the attendant doesn’t like something about them. I’m sure we can agree on something that the Will of The People can get behind. Say, if you’re black and you have a college degree and are all uppity like that, the attendant can refuse to serve you food.
Yes?
Is this a cause we can get behind, no food for educated blacks, or just no medicine for women who don’t abide by your religious views?
Maybe food is not okay, and instead we can just refuse certain prescriptions to educated blacks instead?
Just looking for the actual principles you hold here, other than “That’s the law, nyeh nyeh!”
Spoken like someone who has never had to live without a car.
In any case, a two hour detour after you already have made a good faith effort isn’t acceptable at all.
Pharmacists are who we as a culture use as the gateway to some medications. If one of them, based on his personal ignorant superstitions, decides you can’t have a medication he has no business acting as that gateway. Plenty of peaches need picking, if a particular pharmacist is unwilling to perform his duties he can go get another job.