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.
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.
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”?
More babbling, and an attempt to avoid actually making an argument.
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.
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.
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.
Pharmacists have been trending female for decades.
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.
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.
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.
targetting requires intent. You have never gotten anywhere close to proving there is a discriminatory intent.
That’s irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.