When they’re in the business of dispending medication, they’re in the business of dispensing medication. Dunkin Donuts is not emergency birth control. That’s a really shitty way to dismiss how women are being treated in this scenario.
Wow. Do you really think that everyone has a car or access to a car? Some people live out in the country. Some women are in abusive relationships. Some women get raped.
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
“The stores in Belleville, Randolph, Rio and Poynette - the only pharmacies in those towns…” Companies specialize in small-town pharmacies
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.
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. 
There won’t be more abortions; they’re practically impossible to get 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.
Ahem. Pay attention to what is being discussed. It’s not always limited to the OP. Here, let me remind you so that you will not continue to “babble”.
We were talking about comparing a pharmacist’s ability to opt out of providing certain medications with the idea of forcing them to refrain from providing another medication.
We are discussing (at least in part) the hypocrisy of allowing pharamcists to refrain from giving people medications for “religious” reason, while simultaneously trying to cockblock doctors from giving needed treatment to patients unless they first recite a state enforced expression of religious doctrine. In both cases, the state is enforcing a religious agenda and impeding civil liberties.
But that side discussion was about something else. It was about the idea of forcing doctors to not provide viagra to men if they won’t provide the morning after pill to women. A stupid idea.
And as much as I oppose this particular law, it still is not requiring doctors to lie. Al they have to say is what I posted on page 1 of this thread. Something like: The legislature of this state has determined that human physical life begins at conception, and I am required by law to inform you of that determination.
That is not a lie.
It’s not a lie if they’re allowed to say it’s the legislature’s determination, not their own, but it’s stilll an infringement on privacy and doctor patient privilege. More significantly, it’s unconstitutional for the legislature to make that determination in the first place. It’s a clear violation of Establishment.
I don’t see it as necessarily an Establishment violation, since it’s not an expressly religious belief. You’d have a hard time in court even with an impartial judge.
That doesn’t make it anything other than a stupid as hell law on the order of “the legislature has determined that pi equals three”.
No, it’s not. Doctor patient privilege is about your doctor keeping your medical information confidential. Are you just throwing random arguments out there to see if anything sticks?
I don’t think it is, and I don’t think the SCOTUS would rule so. But if you know of an existing ruling claiming it is, I’d be interested in seeing it.
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.
If you think about it for five seconds, you’ll figure out that the state can’t enforce this law without intruding on that confidentiality.
SCOTUS has already done so.
Cited above. Good old Roe.
The SCUTUS will ask if this new law places an “undue burden” on the woman seeking an abortion. This law is not stopping any women from getting an abortion. The question will be if it is too big a speed bump. Since the SCOTUS upheld PA’s “informed consent” and 24-hour waiting period in Casey, it’s unlikely that they would find this law to be an “undue burden”.
If you think about it for 2 seconds, you’ll see that a patient can talk about what a doctor has or has not told her. And whether or not this law is enforceable or not is not the issue anyway.
I’ll see your *Roe *and raise you one Casey.
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?
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.
If you think so, then the law is unenforceble. So what? Laws don’t get struck down just because they are unenforceble.
You’re right, it is a completely different issue. *Roe *is about forbidding abortion, which this law doesn’t do. So the argument in *Roe *doesn’t apply here. The argument since Roe, is the “undue burden” rule. If a 24-hour wait is not an “undue burden”, then the doctor saying one sentence about what the legislature has done certainly is not an “undue burden”.
I already said I don’t support this law. But that doesn’t mean I think every bogus argument against the law is correct. Under the current laws of the US, and under the current precedent set by the SCOTUS, this law is not unconstitutional. Further, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional under my interpretation of the constitution, either. Would I like it to be unconstitutional? Yes. But that would require a different constitution.
I don’t think it’s unenforceable. I think they’ll just enforce it regardless of Constitutionality.
No, Roe is about intruding on the right to privacy, and the part I quoted doesn’t just talk about abortion, nor does it qualify that point as requiring an “undue burden.” It just says a state can’t use its own subjective “theory of life” to intrude on rights of citizens, period.