# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/161 "2011-05-16T03:53:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not because they think they will never run into these problems its because they have firm convictions about what the answer should be in these situations. So if their daughters got pregnant on prom night, they would be happy to ruin their daughter’s lives in order to save the life of their grandchild. Actually, statistically, evangelicals and Catholics who claim pro-life beliefs get abortions at rates completely in line with those who hold other religious beliefs, or none at all. So if their daughters got pregnant on prom night (or they become untimely pregnant themselves) they’d sneak an abortion with strict orders not to tell, and believe that it’s okay because they’ll pray and/or go to confession and because they’re moral people with that direct path of redemption, they’re automagically forgiven if they ask nicely even after premeditated commission of what they believe strongly to be a grievous (mortal) sin. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (snipped) > Is that your yardstick? Feeling pain? > Does it apply to adults too? The fetal pain issue arises because the legislature requires doctors to tell women that the fetuses they’re carrying can feel pain, even though the vast majority of those women are early in their first trimesters and there is absolutely no reputable scientific data to back up such an assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/162 "2011-05-16T04:23:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s an interesting conspiracy theory. Pro-life people don’t really believe that that human life begins at conception, they just pretend to do so in order to outlaw abortion. Go it. Of course they don’t really believe it; they don’t remotely act like they believe it. And since when is accusing people of lying to support a position a “conspiracy theory”? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Of course it is because that is what we base our laws on. If you mix up cause and effect in one case to create a conspiracy theory, then I get to do the same for the other case. More babbling, and an attempt to avoid actually making an argument. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/163 "2011-05-16T13:29:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course they don’t really believe it… Of course they don’t, **DT**. Of course they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/164 "2011-05-16T15:30:41Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Prohibitions against drugs. Marriage laws. Divorce laws. Imprisonment for property crimes. Abortion prohibition. Oh, sorry, you only asked for one. That sounds more like a list of laws you don’t like rather than a list of laws that do not consider equity and entitlements in their crafting. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/165 "2011-05-16T15:42:37Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I disagree when it comes to licensed professions. It would be every kind of foolish, for example, to let lawyers determine their own ethical codes rather than have them set down by state law or the state bar association. I don’t think the canon of legal ethics require you to affirmatively take actions that are against your conscience. There is no legal ethic that says that you have to take every case that is presented to you. You get to pick and choose. If I don’t want to defend the guy that killed George Tiller, then I don’t have to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/166 "2011-05-16T15:48:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think the canon of legal ethics require you to affirmatively take actions that are against your conscience. There is no legal ethic that says that you have to take every case that is presented to you. You get to pick and choose. If I don’t want to defend the guy that killed George Tiller, then I don’t have to do so. Certainly–but many canons of legal ethics DO require lawyers, for example, to affirmatively take actions like perform pro-bono work that are against the ethics of some lawyers. So it’s clear in some cases we can regulate consciences. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/167 "2011-05-16T15:56:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That sounds more like a list of laws you don’t like rather than a list of laws that do not consider equity and entitlements in their crafting. I didn’t say they that equity and entitlements aren’t considered in their crafting. Those are laws based on subjective definitions of morality. Contrary to the belief of some, most of the laws we have on the books now are based on fairness and rights, not some particular theology. This law is worse than the traditional morality based law because it allows each person to use their own definition of morality. I sympathize with those who don’t want to pay their taxes because the money is used for things they consider immoral, as long as they pay their taxes. I sympathize with those who want to commit murder because someone really deserves to die, as long as they don’t actually do it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/168 "2011-05-16T16:03:02Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > Superstition is pretty good. I would just say they have a sentimental, romanticized idea of what’s going on. Does this apply to people who believe that something worth protecting exists in the third trimester of pregnancy or just those who think that an unimplanted zygote is a human worthy of all the protections we afford to babies. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/169 "2011-05-16T16:30:03Z")
> [@margin](#): > > Often gals? Gals? Wow, that’s not sexist at all. Gals is sexist? > [@](#): > > And prove it. [http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/gardner.pharmacy.pdf](http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/gardner.pharmacy.pdf) Pharmacists have been trending female for decades. > [@](#): > > Their focus is not on gender? Really? Remind me again, how many men take birth control pills? You are missing the point. They are not rejecting birth control prescriptions BECAUSE they are women, they are rejecting birth control prescriptions BECAUSE they are birth control prescriptions. If they really hated women as much as you say, then why wouldn’t they deny anti-biotics to women as well? Their purpose is not to persecute women. > [@](#): > > These victims cannot go three miles road and get their birth control pills from another pharmacy if they don’t have a car and the next pharmacy is more than three miles away. And states can legislate that but there is no “right” to force pharmacists to sell you something they don’t want to. I’ve asked for cites for women who were unable to get their birth control pills for lack of someone willing to sell it to them and I have not seen any cites. This concern reminds me of Republicans who raised holy hell about people losing the family farm due to the estate tax laws. Its a solution looking for a problem. > [@](#): > > Why bother becoming a pharmacist if there’s some pills you know you won’t give out? I don’t know, it doesn’t make much sense to me but forcing them to dispense drugs they have a moral objection to is just as bad as forcing doctors to take a position on “when life begins” that they are morally disagree with. > [@](#): > > I see you’ve avoided addressing the idea of proving that these guys have targeted _anybody_ but women. targetting requires intent. You have never gotten anywhere close to proving there is a discriminatory intent. > [@](#): > > What part of, “Don’t want to give out pills, then don’t take a job where that’s the major duty” do you not get? How much more simple can one make it? That’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Can you show me where any of these guys have refused to fill some asshole’s prescription for weiner pills? They’re going after women, and as people like Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter show, there’s always a few women around to suck up to assholes if they think they’ll get to be Serena Joy. If weiner pills resulted in preventing pregnancy then I could see your point but right now you’re not making any sense. You might as well replace weiner pills with prostate medication in your example. You are ignoring the reason they don’t fill these prescriptions and focusing on the gender of the patient when the pharmacist is not focusing on the gender and focusing on the effect of the drug. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/170 "2011-05-16T16:35:22Z")
> [@margin](#): > > Bolding mine. > > YOUR statement, not mine. Wanna try that again? Try WHAT again? I don’t remember ever saying that ALL pro-lifers are compassionte or aren’t libertarians. I said most of the ones I know aren’t libertarians. You said “A few anti choicers here and there who cough up the dough for some diapers does not equal compassion.” I was pointing out that there is a large population of single issue voters who are otherwise fairly compassionate but you are practically shoving them into bed with libertarians. If they end up catching whatever disease that makes libertarians the way they are, then you are the one that forced their exposure to that disease. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/171 "2011-05-16T16:39:24Z")
Wiener pills can result in sinful fornication just like birth control pills. A case could be made that a pharmacist can refuse to fill boner pill prescriptions for unmarried men on religious grounds just as legitimate as refusing birth control to women. Of course, ther damage would be much less in refusing the dong pills. It’s not going to result in any physical harm the way an unwanted pregnancy will. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/172 "2011-05-16T16:40:20Z")
> [@margin](#): > > Yeah, I’m sure you’d be this dismissive if it was your boner pills or blood pressure pills or whatever that they decided to phase out. It’s funny how it’s so easy to dismiss womens’ concerns. You know what you should do? You should lobby for nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry. That way government is involved and you have rights vis a vis the government, but right now you are trying to force private actors to stock a particular item and sell it to you even if that item is repugnant to them. Why not force doctors who provide medically necessary abortions to ALSO provide elective abortions? I’m starting to see why people are wary about legalizing gay marriage. People like you will want to force priests to perform gay marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/173 "2011-05-16T16:46:46Z")
Cite for anyone at all wanting to force priests to perform gay marriages? If you want to take such a libertarian approach to the pharamaceutical industry, then why should we schedule any drugs at all? Why require prescriptions for anything? Why should pharamacists even have to be licensed? Why should doctors have to be licensed? Why should there be any government oversight over any part of the health care industry? Personally, I’m all for socializing the whole kit and caboodle from the top down. Health care should not be a private industry. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/174 "2011-05-16T18:01:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Wiener pills can result in sinful fornication just like birth control pills. A case could be made that a pharmacist can refuse to fill boner pill prescriptions for unmarried men on religious grounds just as legitimate as refusing birth control to women. … I’ve only read the specific law of the state that the other thread was about but, it was extremely clear that the consciences of pharmacists that don’t want to sell “boner pills” or, say, drugs made from animals didn’t count for shit. Calling that law a “Conscience Clause” is a bald faced lie. CMC fnord! I’d link to the law in question, but I really don’t feel like searching that thread yet again and I’m learning the hard way that deleting bookmarks is really dumb thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/175 "2011-05-16T18:44:28Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > A quick google finds: > "126 Minnesota communities rely on a single pharmacy. " [http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/health-care/pharmacy-closures-threaten-rural-communities](http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/health-care/pharmacy-closures-threaten-rural-communities) > “The stores in Belleville, Randolph, Rio and Poynette - the only pharmacies in those towns…” [Companies specialize in small-town pharmacies](http://host.madison.com/wsj/article_fea56496-4f03-11df-a73b-001cc4c002e0.html) > > There are a lot of rural areas of the US that would have only one pharmacy in their community, whether or not they dispense contraceptives should NOT be left to the whim of the pharmacist. There are a lot of rural areas that don’t have any. Are you suggesting that we mandate service to rural areas the way we do with utility and phone and cable companies? You know, to make sure that everyone has convenient access to a pharmacy. Have the rest of the pharmacists in the country subsidize the pharmacists that are willing to serve in rural areas? Because if you are not willing to do that then I have trouble reaching the conclusion that you can force a private party to do anything in the name of improving or guaranteeing access. If you are willing to do that then the government can regulate all you want as a condition of that subsidy. Pharmacists have always been in short supply. Getting through a pharmacy program is about as easy as getting through an engineering program but without the glamour. Pharmacists get over 100K/year with a bit of experience, its tough for a small rural community to support that sort of income. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/176 "2011-05-16T18:46:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The most grotesque irony is that allowing these pharmacists to deny emergency contraception will actually _cause_ more abortions, because pregnancies will result that would not have resulted if they had just been mature, responsible adults and given these women what they needed instead of playing this malignant, vindictive game of “stone the whore.” Denying women emergency contraception _kills_ unborn babies. Pharmacists who deny women Plan B are abortionists. 🆒 That has ALWAYS been the case. The moment pro-lifers want to restrict birth control and sex education, they are increasing the number of abortions. Noone said they weren’t stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/177 "2011-05-16T18:51:34Z")
> [@margin](#): > > There won’t be more abortions; they’re practically impossible to get What? Really? > [@](#): > > and despite the protestations of the anti-choicers, they don’t do squat to help women with unwanted pregnancies, unless saying ‘you should have kept your legs closed’ counts as helping. Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/178 "2011-05-16T18:56:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Don’t be so sure of that. SCOTUS ruled in _Roe_ that the question is irresolvable and that “…we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” > > Indiana is using its own peculiar “theory of life” as a means to intrude on the right of privacy. I don’t see this as having very much to do with the privacy rights of the woman. Its the part where we force doctors to profess something that they have serious moral objection to. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/179 "2011-05-16T18:59:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The current SCOTUS tilts theocratic and doesn’t give a shit about what the Constitution actually says, so they may ignore the clear violations of the 1st and 14th Amendmnents and allow it to stand, but it’s still an unconstitional invasion of privacy to require a doctor to perform a religious recitation before giving treatment. > > I though you were a libertarian, by the way. why are you bending over backwards to defend the government’s ability to sit in on doctor-patient discussions? You realize that there is nothing “clear” about how Roe interprets the constitution, right? You realize that the state is not establishing a religion with this requirement right? There is nothing identifiably religious going on here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/180 "2011-05-16T19:03:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And if the patient doesn’t talk, the state can’t enforce. > > the issue is that it can’t be enforced WITHOUT an intrusion on privacy. > > Completely different issues. The _Roe_ ruling is right on point with regard to the state explicitly using its own 'theory of life" as an excuse to cockblock the rights of both doctors and patients. rights of the doctor? Here is the paragraph you are talking about: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [p163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.” I don’t see the part where they talk about the doctor’s rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=10)