Yeah, stop calling them pro-life until they start agitating against the death penalty, war, and other forms of Republican cruelty.
If people are really pro life they’d hand out birth control and promote sex ed. They don’t. In fact, they’re opposed to it. Look at this thread. Who else are these pharmacists targeting but women who wish to control their fertility? As I said above, perhaps an AIDS patient here and there, but they’re going after women and birth control That has nothing to do with libertarianism.
No, but a woman has to die before you can start claiming that women are dying. Heck, you can even just prove that a woman is likely to die.
No, it means he isn’t refusing to serve her because she is a woman. If you want to start bringing segregation lunch counter analogies into the mix then don’t be surprised when I show you how stupid those analogies are.
Are you maing this up or are you engaging in mind reading. Perhaps you have a cite to a pharmacist that refused to sell something to a woman because he didn’t think she was raped enough or the fetus is more important than the woman’s life.
Why would I do that. When preserving one person’s right does not infringe on another person’s rights, then why would it be necessary to choose between forcing a private party to accommodate a woman’s fertility choices and sewing her knees together. A woman has a right to be free from state interference with her to birth control. She does not have the right to enslave others to accomodate that right.
Go to another pharmacist. Why is it that complicated?
How is the Angela Carder case even remotely relevant or did you want to bring up an extreme example and pretend it was some sort of regular occurrence?
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.
I’m not saying they’re libertarians, you were. Perhaps I have you confused with someone else but you were the one that said these folks wanted to save these babies and then didn’t care if they starved after they were born.
And you don’t think there are pro-lifers standing vigil at executions in Texas? They don’t all get on a bus at the abortion clinic rally and head on over to the state penetentiary and a lot of them will tell you that there is a difference between a mass murderer and a baby.
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 am somewhat mystified as to why this specifies the duty to fill out of state ones but instate ones. There a note that suggest to me (a non-lawyer) that this is an addition to prior state lawon which is not included here. I can’t imagine that pharmacists would be held to a higher standard of performance for distant prescriptions than ones for the neighborhood, so to speak.
But it is clear they has a duty to fill all prescriptions, except under specified and limited conditions, and their own moral convictions were not among them.
Of course not. I was responding to Der Tris proclaiming to someone “You are just bending over backwards trying to pretend that this isn’t about persecuting women.” I don’t think it’s *about *persecuting women, at least not for a lot of people, but women are certainly the collateral damage.
Often gals? Gals? Wow, that’s not sexist at all. And prove it.
Their focus is not on gender? Really? Remind me again, how many men take birth control pills?
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. Oh, and by the way? Why bother becoming a pharmacist if there’s some pills you know you won’t give out?
I see you’ve avoided addressing the idea of proving that these guys have targeted anybody but women.
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? 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.
Agreed, and even if it was so, I don’t see how it matters. Just because some people live out in the sticks then every Business X must provide Service Y to anyone who walks through the door because an extreme minority of the country doesn’t have another feasible option?
That’s the trade off for living out in the middle of nowhere (and I’ve done it). There is peace and quiet, you can throw loud parties, scream at the kids all day, but you have to drive a long damn way to get to anything decent. You can’t live in the middle of nowhere and have a shopping center next door.
That magical pharmacy that is an oasis in the desert, the only one for 100 miles, could legally shut its doors, no? Then why can’t it offer a smaller selection of meds if it wants? A private business is not required to cater to the whims of every single person in any other scenario. Why this one?
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.
Sure I would be upset if they didn’t carry my medication. I’m upset that my town doesn’t have a Dunkin Donuts. Neither of these mean that a private business must be set up to accommodate my wishes.
Like others in the thread, I would like to know what damage is being talked about. Where exactly in this country can a woman live that there is not a pharmacy within a reasonable driving distance that will fill her birth control?