Pharmacists and refusals

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tumbleddown

And birth control pills ARE prescribed for treatment of various gynecological conditions, even in women (like myself) who are infertile.

And how many times have you needed those pills on an emergency basis where getting them at the next pharmacy over was a threat to your health?

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.

Those men lie because they are Republicans. Its what they do. They have driven so far to the right that the only ones left are the ones that are Republicans first and Americans second. They drove out Bennett Bob Bennett (politician) - Wikipedia for not being conservative enough.

Those men don’t lie because they have confused birth control with abortion, they lie because its what they do.

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…

Here’s my basic issue. No matter how inconvenient it is for you that someone won’t do what you want, under what theory do you say fuck you, do what I want even though there is a law saying that you don’t have to do what I want you to do.

How is this unconstitutional? Is there some as yet unarticulated penumbra right that gives women the right to expect private parties to sell them birth control even though it goes against everything they believe in?

Absent such a federal right, aren’t you left to states rights to support your theory? If all you have is states rights, then in NJ you have the right you want and in Illinois, you do not. No matter how inconvenient it is for you, no matter how whacko that pharmacist must be for maintaining that position, how do you tell a private pharmacy owner that they must stock and sell birth control pills so that you don’t have to go down the street.

[Bricker]

@FinnAgain

This dodge has already been addressed when Bricker used it. This does not say why discrimination at restaurants against “uppity negroes” is bad but discrimination against “immoral women” at pharmacies is bad.

I di danswer this point. You’ve ignored it.

I’ll do it again:

Race is an immutable characteristic. Being a pharmacy patient is not.

I don’t accept your declaration by fiat that this is discrimination against women. Women who come to the pharmacy to buy Lipitor have no problems. So stop saying this is discrimination against women. You THINK it is, but it isn’t.

Unless, that is, you have some sort of cite that says it is?

No?

Then this is just you trying to say the same thing over and over and hope that by repetition it will become accepted as truth.

Not the way it works in debate. Have a cite? let’s hear it.

By that same logic, it’s not discrimination to prevent blacks from getting food if the Christian Identity folks are manning a Cracker Barrel and think that blacks who are “uppity” don’t deserve food, and they have to show proper deference and know their place in order to be served.
You have yet to explain what actual principles you’re using to differentiate the two, besides the fact that blacks =/= women.

Immutable characteristic.

Patient in a pharmacy = temporary.
Black =immutable.

Now, I suspect you’ll keep saying I haven’t answered you. But I have, right here.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@VinylTurnip

“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?”

LOL. That was kinda funny.

[Bricker]

@FinnAgain

Prove me wrong. After hundreds of posts in this thread, provide a reasoned response for why the law is a good, just, necessary law (no, not “It’s the law, so, um… it’s the law!”). Explain why allowing discrimination against women at pharmacies is okay but allowing discrimination against blacks at restaurants is not. (no not "Um… because!). Explain why a pharmacist can deny medicine to a woman because she may not have acted in accord with his/her religious views, but someone at a restaurant can not refuse food to a black person because of something they may have done that’s not in accord with his/her religious views.

Race is an immutable characteristic.

Being a pharmacy patient isn’t.

[FinnAgain]

@Bricker

I di danswer this point. You’ve ignored it.

If by “ignored” you mean directly responded to and provided a detailed set of logical refutations of, which you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge, let alone respond to, then yes. Otherwise, not so much.

@Bricker

Race is an immutable characteristic. Being a pharmacy patient is not.

Already addressed this dodge too.

@FinnAgain

To point out the obvious to you, this is how you’d debate if you actually intended to present a position:

It is okay to discriminate against women who may have had abortions, but it is not okay to discriminate against blacks because [fill in the blank.].

-[they’re different] does not answer take an actual position. Why does that difference mean you can discriminate against one but not the other? Races and sexes are also different, can we discriminate against women then? And [they’re protected classes] does not state a position either. Why should people be protected from discrimination because of their race or sex but not because or whether or not they have medical needs but might have engaged in a legal procedure that the pharmacist personally doesn’t like?
-[bandwagon fallacy] does not take an actual position. Why is the “will of the people” right in this case? Was Jim Crow also right because it too represented the will of the people and was upheld in the courts?
-[appeal to tradition] does not take an actual position. Why should we preference “a tradition of not making people perform parts of their jobs that they don’t like” above the medical needs of patients who have been prescribed medicine by certified doctors and who have gone to a state-regulated business to obtain those medicines?
-[because not many are probably going to be effected] does not take an actual position. Why is it okay for a general principle to be violated if there are only a few exceptions? There’s only one of you, if you were denied your free speech rights should we just shrug our shoulders, since sure the principle was violated but it only has the potential to effect one American and that’s an infinitesimal percentage?

Etc, etc, etc.*
We all understand that this is how the laws are written and they’ve been interpreted. Your continued return to hiding behind them speaks to a lack of any actual arugment that you could possibly put forward. * Now that you understand that each and every single person groks what the laws are, take a position (finally) on what the laws should be, why that is, and why it’s correct do discriminate against women who’ve (may have) had abortions.

To be honest I have little hope that you’ll actually provide your position and defend it as this seems to be a Nyeh Nyeh! sniping “debate” thread, but who knows.

@Bricker

Women who come to the pharmacy to buy Lipitor have no problems. So stop saying this is discrimination against women. You THINK it is, but it isn’t.

“Blacks who come to the restaurant and aren’t all uppity have no problems. So stop saying this is discrimination against blacks. You THINK it is, but it isn’t.”

@Bricker

Then this is just you trying to say the same thing over and over and hope that by repetition it will become accepted as truth.

I see you’ve now moved on to the point in your dodge where you pretend that people haven’t offered reasoned explanations of why they’re making the claims they’ve made. Next, if you’re true to form, you’ll throw in a “Nyeh nyeh you dirty hippies, take that, the Law says you lose!”

Now, I suspect you’ll keep saying I haven’t answered you.

Largely because you haven’t actually answered me. I suspect it’s because you cannot, and you’re simply rationalizing some reason, any reason, why it’s okay to discriminate against women on religious grounds and punish women who may have had abortions.
Your utter refusal to provide the principles you’re basing your stance on (beyond “Suck it hippies, it’s the Law!”, of course) means that we must, perforce, speculate as to what your actual guiding principles are.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cumberdale

And you would be wrong.

That’s another opinion.

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.

I have already said that if you work for someone else, you can get fired if a reasonable accomodation cannot be made but they can’t make you dispense the drug.

If you own your own pharmacy, you should be able to choose not to carry and dispense birth control pills.

[doreen]

@Lobohan

Or the neighborhood is safe.
Or that it is even walkable.
Or that she does’t have to pick up a child from school.
Or that she doesn’t have to get back to work.
Or that she doesn’t have a bus to catch.
Or that the other place also doesn’t have a delusional pharmacist.

Although I suspect Bricker thinks any of those scenarios is irrelevant.

Ok, so we’ve got a woman who faces a 40 minute round trip to the next pharmacy , who may have to get a child from school or go back to work in the pouring rain. Let’s say her nearby pharmacist is more than happy to fill her birth control prescription or sell her Plan B. But he’s out of stock and he won’t get any in for two days. What does she do then? Suppose the pharmacy closes at 5 and she doesn’t get off work till six? Is the pharmacist required to stay open and wait for her or does the pharmacy have to provide delivery for her? Or does she maybe find a way to make that 40 minute round trip to the other pharmacy that stays open later.

Really, this is ridiculous. A twenty minute walk is an unreasonable burden? People live in the middle of no where, two hours from another pharmacy , but have neither a car, access to one nor someone else to pick up the item ? What do they do when a fuse blows and the only hardware store in town doesn’t have their size in stock?

There is not a single woman in the United States who cannot fill a prescription for the pill or buy Plan B. If I choose to live in a town with only one pharmacy , 60 miles away from the next one, have no access to a car and suspect that Sam at Drucker’s General Store/Pharmacy/Post Office might not be willing to fill my prescription for birth control then it behooves me to get a six month prescription from my gynecologist , send it off to the mail order pharmacy, and order refills far enough in advance that I won’t run out. And he probably won’t sell Plan B either, so I should get that on line (or on my next trip to the big city )
I’m actually quite insulted by this attitude, because what you’re really saying is that women can’t be expected to plan ahead. We are incapable of assessing the circumstances we live in , the distance to the next pharmacy, our lack of transportation and competing obligations in our lives. And because we are incapable of conducting that assessment, we will act as though we live in NYC with ten pharmacies ,(including a 24 hour one) every two blocks and wait until we take the last pill in this package before thinking about getting a refill. We also never think about Plan B until there is a birth control failure , although we know our partner couldn’t possibly be any help in obtaining it.

On the other hand, there are many counties in the US with no abortion providers. And you can’t get those by mail order or before you actually need one. That’s a service that women really are unable to obtain.Where are the proponents of mandating that all gynecologists perform elective abortions? I’ve never heard of any.

[Cumberdale]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That’s another opinion.

I have already said that if you work for someone else, you can get fired if a reasonable accomodation cannot be made but they can’t make you dispense the drug.

If you own your own pharmacy, you should be able to choose not to carry and dispense birth control pills.

But if a person becomes a pharmacist there are certain expectations that come with the job and that includes dispensing any medication a patient has a legal prescription for. Try to think about the issue without the religious/moral problem. Suppose the pharmacist feels that a weight loss pill is useless and that said patient should eat less and get exercize and not rely on a pill. The doctor writes a prescription and the patient hands it to the pharmacist. Would you still support the pharmacist refusing to fill it. And for the sake of argument, say the pill is harmless and can sometimes be effective, but not as effective as eating better and exercizing.

[Bricker]

And you know what?

I realize you few dissenters will never be convinced. That’s fine. You can continue to spew half-assed legal theories that demonstrate your grasp of the law is lacking, and continue to whine plaintively that race and pharmacy clientele are the same thing. You’re never going to budge.

But meanwhile, in the real world, a place shunned by your particular brand of liberal thought, the vast majority of states with laws that address the issue have protected pharmacists’ rights. And that’s fine with me: if I had to make a choice between the ephemeral theory and the practical fact, I choose the fact. Fortunately, both theory and fact are on my side, so I’m doubly pleased. In your case, you believe that theory supports you… but even you must concede the embarrassing lack of actual fact leaning your way.

So I’m not going to respond to any more repetitions of the same absurd arguments. If you should happen to develop anything new, I’ll answer it. If your technique is to slyly point out again that I’m in favor of segregated lunch counters, I’m going to ignore you and simply relax by flipping through the statute web sites for the many states that knew how to handle your “arguments.”

[Morgenstern]

@FinnAgain

. . .
Largely because you haven’t actually answered me. I suspect it’s because you cannot, and you’re simply rationalizing some reason, any reason, why it’s okay to discriminate against women on religious grounds and punish women who may have had abortions.
Your utter refusal to provide the principles you’re basing your stance on (beyond “Suck it hippies, it’s the Law!”, of course) means that we must, perforce, speculate as to what your actual guiding principles are.

Your failure to accept the answer is not indicative of the lack of an answer, yet that’s what you’re doing here. You have in fact, been answered.

[TriPolar]

Bricker - this is a long thread, I haven’t read it all, so I hope I’m not going over old ground here:

Do you think that a pharmacist doesn’t give up rights in exchange for the privilege? Not anybody can be a pharmacist, you need to be licensed and regulated by the state.

Would you suggest police officers should not be required to enforce laws that they have moral objections to? After all, there are other police officers who have no moral objections who could enforce those laws.

What about the pharmacy itself? I imagine most pharmacists don’t own their own pharmacies anymore. Do you believe that state should interfere with the contract between employer and employee and allow employees to claim moral objections for non-performance of their jobs?

[Lobohan]

@doreen

I’m actually quite insulted by this attitude, because what you’re really saying is that women can’t be expected to plan ahead.

Being told you can’t have it at the point of sale isn’t about planning ahead. If you’re insulted by this you’re probably unable to function in society and should grow a thicker skin.

We are incapable of assessing the circumstances we live in , the distance to the next pharmacy, our lack of transportation and competing obligations in our lives. And because we are incapable of conducting that assessment, we will act as though we live in NYC with ten pharmacies ,(including a 24 hour one) every two blocks and wait until we take the last pill in this package before thinking about getting a refill. We also never think about Plan B until there is a birth control failure , although we know our partner couldn’t possibly be any help in obtaining it.

Your objections are silly. It may not be impossible to get it for a random imaginary woman. But each hurdle you put in place increases the chances of a failure to get this legal service.

As I said above, a pharmacist isn’t a street hotdog vendor. He is the funnel through which necessary drugs are channeled in our society. If you want those drugs you need to access a pharmacist. If the only pharmacist in your town is a shitbag religiously delusional zealot he is inflicting far, far greater a burden on the woman than a single restaurant not serving her.

On the other hand, there are many counties in the US with no abortion providers. And you can’t get those by mail order or before you actually need one. That’s a service that women really are unable to obtain.Where are the proponents of mandating that all gynecologists perform elective abortions? I’ve never heard of any.

Probably because most people aren’t ignorant enough to equate abortions with dispensing medicine.

[FinnAgain]

@Morgenstern

Your failure to accept the answer is not i

This is even less persuasive than your “I won’t address anything you said or provide coherent logic to justify my position but… Twister!!!”
Before Bricker even provided his (latest) dodge, I’d debunked it on logical grounds, predicted and refuted the dodges he would use, and pointed out what providing a coherent principle to base his views on would look like. That Bricker is unable, or much more likely unwilling to do that? That’s hardly my fault.

@Bricker

I realize you few dissenters will never be convinced.

People aren’t asking to be convinced by your argument that discrimination is okay, they’re asking you to actually explain the principles you’re using.

@Bricker

You can continue to spew half-assed legal theories that demonstrate your grasp of the law is lacking

I do not believe you’re fooling anybody, at all, into thinking that people aren’t arguing about whether or not this is a good law and what the law should be, and are instead playing Lawyerball. People haven’t advanced “legal theories”, they’ve discussed morality. But, turns out I was right on this point too:

@FinnAgain

Next, if you’re true to form, you’ll throw in a “Nyeh nyeh you dirty hippies, take that, the Law says you lose!”

@Bricker

and continue to whine plaintively that race and pharmacy clientele are the same thing.

Likewise, you aren’t going to fool anybody on that topic. Nobody has said that being black and being a woman who’s had an abortion are the same thing. We’ve said that discriminating against blacks and discriminating against women are both discrimination.

@Bricker

in the real world, a place shunned by your particular brand of liberal thought,

“Mwaack ya dirty hippies, mwaack!”

@Bricker

Fortunately, both theory and fact are on my side […]but even you must concede the embarrassing lack of actual fact leaning your way.

Surprising, then, that you steadfastly refuse to actually address what theory you’re using to make your decisions. Funny, that.
I also do not believe you really are confused that anybody actually believes that in an argument about “This is a bad law” turns on the facts of whether or not it is the law.

@Bricker

So I’m not going to respond to any more repetitions of the same absurd arguments.

It’s okay, you didn’t respond to those “absurd” arguments in the first place, although you claimed you did.

@FinnAgain

If by “ignored” you mean directly responded to and provided a detailed set of logical refutations of, which you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge, let alone respond to, then yes. Otherwise, not so much.

@Bricker

If your technique is to slyly point out again that I’m in favor of segregated lunch counters

Yeah, you’re not going to convince anybody that’s happened, either. People have pointed out that you’re using a rationalization to support sticking it to women who dare to disagree with your religious views, and that if you actually applied it consistently it would support discrimination against blacks.

@Bricker

flipping through the statute web sites for the many states that knew how to handle your “arguments.”

“Mwaaack you dirty hippies, mwaack! It’s the Law!”

[Bricker]

@TriPolar

Bricker - this is a long thread, I haven’t read it all, so I hope I’m not going over old ground here:

Do you think that a pharmacist doesn’t give up rights in exchange for the privilege? Not anybody can be a pharmacist, you need to be licensed and regulated by the state.

That’s true. And New Jersey has decided to use that licensing power to require pharmacists to dispense. I think they’ve chosen unwisely, but I recognize that reasonable minds may reach the opposite conclusions from mine.

Would you suggest police officers should not be required to enforce laws that they have moral objections to? After all, there are other police officers who have no moral objections who could enforce those laws.

Too much of a police officer’s job is on-the-spot enforcement for this to work as a general guideline. But police officers do have great discretion when they work; I suspect there are many officers who will send a marijuana user on his way with a warning out of sympathy for the view that weed should not be a criminal offense.

What about the pharmacy itself? I imagine most pharmacists don’t own their own pharmacies anymore. Do you believe that state should interfere with the contract between employer and employee and allow employees to claim moral objections for non-performance of their jobs?

I agree with this completely. This is why I praised California’s law, which only supports the pharmacist’s refusal if the employer agrees. My personal feeling is that the law correctly upholds the right of the pharmacist to refuse against government interference, but improperly interferes with the right of theemployer to run his store as he wishes. Again, this is a personal view.

[Bricker]

@FinnAgain

“Mwaaack you dirty hippies, mwaack! It’s the Law!”

Now I’m reading Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

What a lovely site.

Keep uselessly flapping your gums. We can use the breeze.

[FinnAgain]

“Fuck you hippies, we know how to handle uppity negroes.”
Truly, lovely stuff. You’re right.
Maybe you can find some states that don’t properly protect gays against discrimination, and coo over those, next?

Make sure you don’t put forward your position on why it’s okay to discriminate against women who don’t follow your religious demands. Cuz that’d be irrelevant.

And ah yes, “uselessly flapping my gum”, like by trying in vain to get you to provide an intellectually honest argument over, and over, and over again. Coo about how states can discriminate against women if they violate your religious demands and about how you won’t provide an honest discussion of your views and aint nobody can make ya. Mwaack!

[TriPolar]

@Bricker

That’s true. And New Jersey has decided to use that licensing power to require pharmacists to dispense. I think they’ve chosen unwisely, but I recognize that reasonable minds may reach the opposite conclusions from mine.

Too much of a police officer’s job is on-the-spot enforcement for this to work as a general guideline. But police officers do have great discretion when they work; I suspect there are many officers who will send a marijuana user on his way with a warning out of sympathy for the view that weed should not be a criminal offense.

I agree with this completely. This is why I praised California’s law, which only supports the pharmacist’s refusal if the employer agrees. My personal feeling is that the law correctly upholds the right of the pharmacist to refuse against government interference, but improperly interferes with the right of theemployer to run his store as he wishes. Again, this is a personal view.

You seem to be holding a reasonable point of view here. Way to wreck a good argument Bricker!

I guess the only problem I see is the ambiguity of a moral objection. I don’t like the idea of the state regulating such things. What if a person complains they can’t get necessary service from a pharmacy? How is the state to determine if the pharmacist has a valid moral objection or is refusing service for some other reason. However, seeing as how there is little evidence that this causes a widespread problem, and presuming there are reasonable corrective measures in place, it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.

[Carmady]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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.

A lot of people didn’t respond at all though. It would be nice to make sure we really do agree on that, because if not I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone here.

[Bricker]

@FinnAgain

“Fuck you hippies, we know how to handle uppity negroes.”
Truly, lovely stuff. You’re right.
Maybe you can find some states that don’t properly protect gays against discrimination, and coo over those, next?

Make sure you don’t put forward your position on why it’s okay to discriminate against women who don’t follow your religious demands. Cuz that’d be irrelevant.

And ah yes, “uselessly flapping my gum”, like by trying in vain to get you to provide an intellectually honest argument over, and over, and over again. Coo about how states can discriminate against women if they violate your religious demands and about how you won’t provide an honest discussion of your views and aint nobody can make ya. Mwaack!

Now I’m reading http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

Colorado Rev Stat 25-6-102 can be found there. It says that refusals based upon religious or conscientious objection are permitted, and no institution, employee, agent, or physician shall be held liable for such refusal. It’s like poetry.

Gee, I wonder why they weren’t convinced by your calling them racists? That sure seems like it would have swayed them.

Quite the mystery.

[Bricker]

@TriPolar

You seem to be holding a reasonable point of view here. Way to wreck a good argument Bricker!

I guess the only problem I see is the ambiguity of a moral objection. I don’t like the idea of the state regulating such things. What if a person complains they can’t get necessary service from a pharmacy? How is the state to determine if the pharmacist has a valid moral objection or is refusing service for some other reason. However, seeing as how there is little evidence that this causes a widespread problem, and presuming there are reasonable corrective measures in place, it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.

That, too, is a reasonable position, which means your presence in this thread is quite an anomaly. You’re supposed to accuse me of supporting apartheid and using water hoses on freedom marchers.