You say we are only talking about contraceptives, but I find that hard to believe when everyone is using such general terms.
Pharmacists should not be able to stock and then refuse to dispense, for example, anti-bleeding drugs. Indeed, I would argue they should not be allowed to stock any drug they are unwilling to dispense.
If you don’t want to dispense a drug, start your own pharmacy and don’t stock it or take a job at one that doesn’t. Don’t take a job at one where the owner clearly has no problem with it. That puts an unfair burden on doctors and patients to find a way through a maze of which pharmacies “really” have a drug.
They should not be allowed to pick and choose which patients their conscience deems morally worthy of a drug, when they would dispense the same drug for someone else. “You’re a bad person (by any standard I choose), no drug for you!” How is that not discrimination?
The current law you are defending appears to allow all of these things.
What, the “It’s the law you dirty hippies, and there’s no more discussion and now I refuse to tell you what principles I’m using to come to a conclusion here!” argument?
So are you finally prepared to explain why discriminating against “impure women” at the pharmacy counter is fine, but discriminating against “uppity darkies” at the lunch counter is bad?
Yes yes, you offered dodges that were rebutted before you even offered them, that doesn’t exactly count.
The reason the issue of race has come up is because you’re supporting discrimination that is, unfortunately, societaly acceptable. And some of us are trying to get you to explain why it is that discriminating against women based on religious grounds is any more acceptable than discriminating against blacks on philosophical grounds.
Discrimination laws are different in the voting area than in other areas (see voting rights act). Discriminatory effect applies pretty robustly in that arena. Not so much in other areas.
Damn it Bricker, I’m a doctor not a lawyer! Wait, I’m not a doctor either. Nevermind, I don’t know how this ‘agreeing with people’ stuff works. I’ll find another thread.
It didn’t for decades (or longer). Certain states were falling over themselves trying to find ways to restrict the plain will of the Constitution (everyone gets to vote).
Know where else this is happening? Abortion.
The law of the land is a woman has a right to an abortion. States are falling over themselves to restrict it in any way they possibly can. This is not particularly new, they have been doing that for awhile, but they are really picking up steam lately (see cite I just provided).
This is more of the same.
Not only can we look at these CC laws individually and say they are bad but when people shrug and say, “Well, it’s not all that much of a burden.” it is appropriate to see the dog pile of burdens they are piling on and take them as a whole.
No, the government found a convenient loophole. The government cannot outright ban these things so pass it off to the person and let them claim a moral reason for it.
Neat trick.
Who are you to say what a “burden” is to someone? Maybe it is 10 degrees outside and a blizzard. Maybe the person is disabled. Maybe she needs to get to class or work or pick up her kids. Who knows? These are certainly not mythical people. I cited 10.7 million women use oral contraception. You think they all have cars, all live in places with a pharmacy every block?
It is not the same.
Doctors should do exactly what I have been saying here. If you think you will be forced to do something morally objectionable (to you) then don’t do that job.
Doctors who are opposed to abortions should not be in the Emergency Room (or have other doctors who will be there 100% of the time). Doctors who do not want to perform elective abortions simply do not do that job. Go be a podiatrist or something.
So tell me, when her need to get to class or work or pick up her kids interferes with her ability to pick up her prescription at the pharmacy down the block which does fill contraceptive prescriptions because by the time she finishes work and get the kids the pharmacy has already closed how do you solve that? Or if the absolute closest pharmacy is a 40 minute walk Is it suddenly just fine for her have to take that 40 minute walk or resign herself to using mail order as long as the pharmacist is willing to fill it, even though it hasn’t actually been filled?
Nope, but they apparently manage to get their prescriptions filled- even those in the states that do not require pharmacists to dispense contraceptives. Perhaps because people who live in sparsely populated places with few stores and no public transportation know that they live in that sort of place and either have access to transportation or find away a way to get what they need, even if they don’t sell it at the crossroads that functions as a downtown.
Of course , if you think you will be forced to do something morally objectionable you shouldn’t do that job. That wasn’t what I asked or what any of this thread has been about . If you believe that states should mandate that pharmacists ( self- employed or not ) fill prescriptions for contraceptives and that if a state does not impose such a mandate is is violating the rights of women to have their prescriptions filled , they why are you not also advocating that states mandate that gynecologists (self-employed or not) perform elective abortions and that a state not imposing such a mandate violates the right of women to have an abortion.
If a gynecologist can open a practice and choose which procedures to perform or not perform then why can’t a pharmacist open a store and choose which drugs to dispense or not dispense. It’s not enough to say its not the same, because I don’t understand. What specifically is the difference ? Both have licenses and are the only legitimate source of their services.
Not serving a black person at a lunch counter was not deemed to be wrong based on how easy it was to walk to another lunch counter.
It is wrong in-and-of itself.
You are placing an added burden on someone else. In this case it is being done to assuage their personal beliefs. They are welcome to their personal beliefs but not welcome to inflict them on others.
If you want to be an OB/GYN and are working in a hospital and a woman needs an abortion to save her life then yeah…you should be obligated to do the procedure. If you don’t want to don’t be an OB/GYN.
If you do not want to perform elective abortions then do not work in a place that performs elective abortions. Most doctor’s offices are not equipped to perform the procedure. My brother-in-law is an OB/GYN and quite capable of performing an abortion. He also absolutely supports a woman’s right to an abortion and no hang-ups whatsoever about it. He never performed one though.
Likewise a pharmacy is not obliged to carry contraceptives. If you are a pharmacist with a problem dispensing them then go find such a pharmacy or open your own.
If the pharmacy does carry them then the pharmacist should dispense it when a legal prescription is presented (with a caveat for drug interactions and such). If there is another pharmacist working at the same time and one has an issue then have the other one do it. That’s fine too.
That brings up an interesting question to me.
If there are two (or more) pharmacists working at the same time and one is willing to dispense and one isn’t.
Does the one unwilling to dispense have to get the other pharmacist or can they tell the woman, “Sorry, go somewhere else.”?
Apparently, this thread has gotten so long that I’ve become confused. I thought you were one of the people arguing that all pharmacies should be required to stock contraceptives because it might be impossible or too difficult for her to go to another pharmacy and that if a state did not require this it would be discriminatory towards women. Based on what you say below, I was wrong.
No disagreement here.
I’m guessing the owner will take care of this - I can’t imagine the owner saying “Okay Fred, feel free to send the customer elsewhere even though we have it in stock and Joe , who is five feet away has no problem dispensing it”
IIRC a former governor of Illinois demanded that any pharmacy that carried contraceptives had to carry Plan-B.
That ignited a shit storm
Personally I would like pharmacies to be forced to carry contraceptives and Plan-B but there are lots and lots of drugs out there so you get into a mess of what they must and must not carry. It is a difficult problem from a practical matter.
Presumably contraceptives are so ubiquitous that a pharmacy that doesn’t carry them is begging for competition to open up across the street. The competition that does carry them will get gobs more business…say goodbye to your pharmacy.
When it comes to the chains (ala CVS) I think it is a corporate decision. The pharmacists are employees. So if the pharmacist is denying a woman the pharmacist is also thwarting the owners of the store. I believe the CC laws explicitly make it impossible for the store to fire the pharmacist for that though.
Curious if Bricker and company are ok with an employee refusing to do their job despite the will of the owners who hired them to do that job. Also, can an employer ask about that during hiring and refuse to hire someone to evinces a moral hangup with part of the job? (Dunno myself…really asking)
Worse, a woman may go to the local CVS regularly to get her pills. One day a new pharmacist is there. She does not “know” to go to another pharmacy for her pills. She always got them from that place with no trouble. All of a sudden the pharmacist is telling her to go elsewhere.
As mentioned the CC laws protect the pharmacist. The owner cannot say they are not ok with it. The pharmacist may decide their morals prevent not only them from filling the prescription but that having George do it is little different…best to send her on her way.
Earlier in the thread cases were cited where pharmacists were actively obstructionist in the woman getting her prescription…far beyond merely not filling it themselves.
Sorry, you totally missed my point. Perhaps I could have worded it better.
Yes, Bricker did say that pharmacist could be fired, however in very rare circumstances.
As for the teacher, as far as I know most do not own their own school so your point really doesn’t matter in the real world. I’m talking about a teacher who works either for a public or private school that does use grades for measuring, promoting etc. In this scenario a or a few teachers decide that grading only fosters competition which results in violence, wars and the like. They adopt the CC language and the teachers union backs them.
The reason I brought this up is because generally conservatives (assuming you, Bricker etc. accept this label) think unions are bad. Would you agree with the union in this increasingly more complicated scenario than I really wanted to get into, or do you say, “the teacher needs to do their job or find another”.
My understanding is that employers can always ask questions regarding an applicant’s ability and willingness to do the work. They can’t ask if you have children or babysitting arrangements but they can certainly ask if your willing to work the midnight shift. And no ,I don’t think the law should protect a pharmacist who is unwilling to do the job as defined by the employer.
I understand some , if not all of the CC laws do protect the pharmacist from being fired for not dispensing- but I didn’t see any that said he or she couldn’t be fired for refusing to call over another pharmacist who is in the store and instead sending the customer to the competition. I doubt that whoever wrote the laws even contemplated that situation.
i don’t doubt that some will try it- I just doubt that any law actually gives them the right to confiscate the prescription, ask irrelevant questions or refuse to call over their coworker. There may not be any laws explicitly making these actions illegal, but that doesn’t mean the employer can’t fire them for it.
I really do not know how it works in these borderline cases but could it not be said that the pharmacist with the moral objection sees calling over a coworker to fill it as tantamount to doing it themselves?
They want to stop what is happening…that is what their moral objection demands. Kinda like I am unwilling to shoot you in the head so I call over my buddy, hand him the gun and tell him to shoot you in the head.
I am not clear (read that again) how the CC laws would deal with a pharmacist refusing to let someone else fill the prescription. If the actual basis is you cannot compel them to perform what they believe to be murder how can you compel them to get someone else to do it?
Indeed this points out just how untenable these laws are.
If you are not willing to do parts of your job then find a new profession.
Apparently, the Idaho law defines “provide” as " “counsel, advise, perform, dispense, assist in or refer for any health care service.” So I guess it does protect the pharmacist who won’t call over a coworker. Just another reason to be against the CC laws.
The right to vote was extended to blacks by the 15th amendment. The court relied on the 14th amendment to strike down poll taxes. Or so I thought.
In the arena of voting rights, we almost assume discriminatory intent where we have discriminatory effect because of the history of discrimination and segregation.
Ah, so you would need someone to pass a law to achieve your result. There isn’t some additional penumbral right that we didn’t know about that will necessitate this result.