# Pharmacy and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859 "2010-03-26T10:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/281 "2010-03-31T14:53:22Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I saw no “chapter and verse” in your posting, just unspecified references to legal codes. Discuss with particulars. > > Please also justify your statement that _more states agree with you_ on this issue than don’t. As noted, the NWLC finds an implicit requirement in the laws of the vast majority of states (in addition to those states that spell it out explicitly) that pharmacies dispense legal prescriptions as written. How do states that don’t have a “religious conscience” clause in their pharmacy regulations magically “agree with” you? Because, despite how you’d like the world to be, under the law, that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. This is why this “implict” notion is nonsense. No one can lose his license, or be subject to penalties, because he failed to follow an “implicit” requirement. And what’s this “discuss with particulars” garbage? You put out a general statement that the “National Women’s Rights Center” says there are four states with particular laws. You don’t even name the states, but your version is gospel. I name SPECIFIC states, and cite to specific numbered code provisions for those states, but that’s not good enough? I have to cut and paste each paragraph from each code in order to overcome your source’s vague reference to four states? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/282 "2010-03-31T14:55:46Z")
I’ll tell you one thing… I was mildly on the fence about this issue before this discussion, but the bland arrogance and intransigence displayed in this thread has opened my eyes. I’m not a pharmacist; I don’t even KNOW a pharmacist, but today I’m going to find an organization that’s devoted to protecting a pharmacist’s right to choose what products to stock and sell, and donate money to them. Yes. I have become Pro-Choice, insofar as pharmacies are concerned. You anti-choicers have really got my goat. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/283 "2010-03-31T14:57:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > A private individual putting a Nativity scene in his yard has not impeded personal exercise of religious freedom, and certainly not my access to health care. A private individual running a pharmacy who selectively denies filling prescriptions _is_ impeding access to health care and is certainly not “acting alone”. > > Capisce? The law makes a HUMONGOUS distinction between state action and private action. Capisce? Especially when that “health care” is not therapeutic, in which case there isn’t even a strong state interest. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/284 "2010-03-31T14:57:50Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > **Der Trihs** , I can’t decide if you are being intentionally obtuse or inflammatory, or if you’re really incapable of following this argument. Our hypothetical Catholic pharmacist is morally opposed to selling any type of contraception to anyone. A pharmacy opposed to contraception to the point of not filling oral contrception scrips is unlikely to carry condoms either. It’s not the same effect, of course, since you can get condoms in a box of Cracker Jacks, but it has nothing to do with discrimination against women. Of course you are so irrationally embittered against any hint of religion that you’re not happy unless you can call them misogynistic racist anti-semites at every opportunity. I’m pretty confident that even your side in this debate sees how ridiculous your argument of discrimination is. Like I commented above, if you can show me an example of a pharmacist giving birth control to a man but not a women, then you have an argument. Don’t bring blacks or Jews or gays into it; that’s an obviously irrelevent and insincere argument and you only do it to promote your religion-hating agenda, which is not the topic of this thread. I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse here, but **Der Trihs** believes (and I’ll admit to a lot of sympathy with him on this point, though not total) that anti-contraception as well as anti-abortion policies are motivated by discriminatory intent towards women. Even if they aren’t, it is indisputable that these actions have a disparate impact on women. Men are affected MUCH less by them. Where something you do has a massively obvious side effect to it, it is legitmate to at least question your purpose behind doing it, surely. Men do not (generally) take prescription only birth control. And as I said earlier, contraceptives are prescribed to women for non-birth control reasons. So you are presented with a situation where either women are denied medication their doctors have decided is important for their wellbeing because it MIGHT be used for a purpose the pharmacist has decided is immoral, or their privacy is invaded by an interrogation from the pharmacist on who they are screwing. Neither of these things happen to men under this system. > [@Skammer](#): > > I think just about everyone in this thread agrees with the second part - if your employer asks you to do something legal as part of your job, you do it or find another job. Unless there are states that require the employer to make a “reasonable accomdation” for your religion; I’m not sure if this would fall under that. > > I’m not sure there’s much more to argue here. Some people see a compelling state interest in forcing pharmacy owners to compromise their firmly held religious convictions and sell a product abhorrent to them. Others see no compelling reason when the product in question is generally available elsewhere and instead see it as a religious protection issue, not to mention free enterprise. I don’t see anyone’s positions moving. Well, everyone apparently agrees with that, but states have laws permitting employees to refuse to serve contraception against the policies of their employers. Every state has a law requiring the employer to make a reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs. It’s called the US Constitution. No one is suggesting a person be compelled to sell a product abhorrent to them. People, myself included are suggesting that, if you wish to enter into the state licensed profession of pharmacist, you should be willing to supply prescribed contraceptives. Filling prescriptions (absent interactions etc) is an integral part of being a pharmacist. What you are suggesting seems, to many people, like allowing a boxer to not be punched, or suggesting that someone should be a miner, but should be accomodated for their fear of going underground. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/285 "2010-03-31T15:02:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The job is a pharmacy. If the employer wants to open up a Drugs N’ Religion shop that specifically caters to a certain population, then I’m fine with that. But they should not be able to call themselves a pharmacy because one item that’s always available at a pharmacy is contraceptives. > > To remove an essential part of what a pharmacy sells and still pretend it’s just like all the others is a lie. It would be like a restaurant that doesn’t serve anything edible, or a music store that sells only books. Luckily, those things are not life and death. Medicine is > > If you want to open up a specialized store, fine, but you cannot call yourself a pharmacy. Nor shall anyone entering expect that you would have trained pharmacists behind the counter. What you want to do is get all of the benefits of a pharmacy while not really running one. Call yourself a drug store sans contraceptives, but not a pharmacy Until 1972 most pharmacies didn’t carry birth control pills and even today, birth control pills are rarely life or death medicine. One thing I always see at pharmacies is cigarettes, if a pharmacy refused to sell cigarrettes even though every other pharmacy in the country sold cigarettes, could it still call itself a pharmacy? ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/286 "2010-03-31T15:03:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > One freedom does not cancel out another. There is no freedom to force a store owner what to stock. We license and regulate food but we don’t dictate that Jewish or Islamic markets carry pork. Yeah but some people are trying to anaolgize birth control pills to insulin and other life preserving medications. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/287 "2010-03-31T15:05:13Z")
> [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](#): > > Then what would you call a pharmacy in a hospital, or a Long term care facility, or any of the other places that do not dispense birth control pills? There are many pharmacies that do not regularly dispense birth control pills, not because the pharmacist refuses to, but because there is no demand. > > If you try making a law to force pharmacies to stock contraceptives, what do you do about these types of pharmacies? This would cause a lot of money to be wasted in inventory that will just go out of date. Hostpial pharmacies stock birth control pills. They do have therapeutic value in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/288 "2010-03-31T15:14:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Until 1972 most pharmacies didn’t carry birth control pills and even today, birth control pills are rarely life or death medicine. They are literally life or death medicine. Not taking them, or not taking them properly (e.g. missing a pill by a day or even a few hours, depending on the kind) may mean an unintended pregnancy, which may lead to abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/289 "2010-03-31T15:20:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > So, women are free to use condoms just like homosexuals are perfectly free to get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. :rolleyes: The people on your side never have any new arguments. The fact is, we are talking about pharmacists refusing to give women contraceptives, not men. > > No, you don’t. You just make speeches pretending that you do, while supporting the right of religious bigots to prevent them from doing so. > > Of course it would be discrimination against men, but they wouldn’t do that because this is all about the religiously motivated hatred of women, not men. One-trick pony all the way. Gotta check your batteries on that mind-reading device of yours, it ain’t working. Don’t call me a liar. If a pharmacy owner is morally opposed to artificial contraception of any kind (e.g. a conservative Catholic) he will not carry any of them, none, nada, zilch. No pill, no condoms, no implants, no IUDs, no spermicide or whataver devices, pills, injection or any kind that are contracpetive, whether they need prescription or not, if they can be legally purchased. “Hatred of women”, you keep saying that, go on, it’s not like you might have some proof of that. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/290 "2010-03-31T15:21:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll tell you one thing… I was mildly on the fence about this issue before this discussion, but the bland arrogance and intransigence displayed in this thread has opened my eyes. I’m not a pharmacist; I don’t even KNOW a pharmacist, but today I’m going to find an organization that’s devoted to protecting a pharmacist’s right to choose what products to stock and sell, and donate money to them. > > Yes. I have become Pro-Choice, insofar as pharmacies are concerned. You anti-choicers have really got my goat. I want to make a donation a get the newsletter. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/291 "2010-03-31T15:24:52Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > No, if you are not willing to do your job because some superstition says so, then you need to find something else to do. Selling contraception is part of a pharmacists duty. First, calling religion a superstition is not going to get you very far in a debate about religious freedom. The debate pretty much is over as soon as you state that you think religions are just superstitions. Second, how long do you think birth control pills have been available? There are pharmacists who can still remember the hulabaloo when birth control pills first became generally available in the 70’s (and not widely prescribed until the 80s and 90s). ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/292 "2010-03-31T15:28:01Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The government controls (a) which products require a prescription; and (b) who is permitted to fill prescriptions. > > It therefore doesn’t seem unreasonable that the government should limit the license to fill a prescription to those people willing to fill prescriptions. It’s not a radical concept. If a product is freely available over the counter, I wouldn’t suggest making it a requirement of licensing that a store carry it. The licensing government in this case is a state government, there is no federal licensing of pharmacists. So you would leave it up to the states? We also limit the abilkity to practice medicine to people whoa re licensed to practice medicine. Do you think we should force people who can perform abortion to in fact perform abortions? ---
**Author:** ![Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirka_T_Bawa)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/293 "2010-03-31T15:41:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Hostpial pharmacies stock birth control pills. They do have therapeutic value in some cases. Not in the hospital pharmacies I’ve worked in. BCPs would be something the patient would bring from home, and not something that would be prescribed in the hospital. However, the hospital pharmacy I was at did stock and carry Plan-B, but the only place it was dispensed is the Emergency Room as part of a Rape kit. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/294 "2010-03-31T15:42:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Second, how long do you think birth control pills have been available? There are pharmacists who can still remember the hulabaloo when birth control pills first became generally available in the 70’s (and not widely prescribed until the 80s and 90s). What point are you trying to make with this? If someone is old enough to remember segregated schools, or not being able to sign a lease without their husband’s presence, what are they supposed to take from this? Surely you can see how controlling reproduction – if and when they choose to have children – has been fundamental to the freedom of women all over the world. And if you can’t draw a connection, well, I’d say that’s more of a debate-ender than calling religion superstition. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/295 "2010-03-31T15:56:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Again, how is the pharmacy supposed to know whether a birth control prescription is for contraceptive or therapeutic purposes? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > This is a very important point. I thought so too, but nobody seems to want to address it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/296 "2010-03-31T16:25:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I thought so too, but nobody seems to want to address it. I guess they’d rely on the same experts who can determine whether a woman wants an abortion to save her life or just for the fun of it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/297 "2010-03-31T16:35:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll tell you one thing… I was mildly on the fence about this issue before this discussion, but the bland arrogance and intransigence displayed in this thread has opened my eyes…-Yes. I have become Pro-Choice, insofar as pharmacies are concerned. You anti-choicers have really got my goat. Suuure you were “on the fence”. The opposing views were so narsty that they forced you into the same sort of ideology you’ve been pushing all along on this board. :dubious: Quite often I see posters in debates saying “Gosh, I basically supported you guys (or was undecided), but since you’re such meanies I’m now firmly in the opposition camp.” That’s a classic in the pantheon of sleazy debate tactics. There’s a well-recognized term for it. You could look it up. Sorry, but it remains indefensible to argue that since the vast majority of states don’t have a bullshit “conscience” clause in their pharmacy regulations, they therefore agree with you that pharmacies/pharmacists are entitled to pick and choose what drugs to dispense based on ideology. Have court cases been decided in all those states? No. > [@](#): > > And what’s this “discuss with particulars” garbage? You put out a general statement that the “National Women’s Rights Center” says there are four states with particular laws. You don’t even name the states Wrong. I listed each one. > [@](#): > > I name SPECIFIC states, and cite to specific numbered code provisions for those states, but that’s not good enough? I have to cut and paste each paragraph from each code in order to overcome your source’s vague reference to four states? Rather than expecting us to wade through the legal codes, yes, it would be nice if you cited what provisions you think support your argument. If they’re so explicit it should be easy. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/298 "2010-03-31T17:03:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll tell you one thing… I was mildly on the fence about this issue before this discussion, but the bland arrogance and intransigence displayed in this thread has opened my eyes. I’m not a pharmacist; I don’t even KNOW a pharmacist, but today I’m going to find an organization that’s devoted to protecting a pharmacist’s right to choose what products to stock and sell, and donate money to them. > > Yes. I have become Pro-Choice, insofar as pharmacies are concerned. You anti-choicers have really got my goat. You do this a lot. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/299 "2010-03-31T17:06:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The licensing government in this case is a state government, there is no federal licensing of pharmacists. So you would leave it up to the states? I think so. And yes, I realize states have that option and choose not to. I believe they are mistaken, however. I don’t think it is a federally based requirement that this happen. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We also limit the abilkity to practice medicine to people whoa re licensed to practice medicine. Do you think we should force people who can perform abortion to in fact perform abortions? When I answered pretty much the identical question earlier, I said if you want to discuss the regulation of doctors, open a thread about that. Different professions have different regulations. With abortion, the time issue is less likely to be of importance. However, the imposition on the patient is liekly to be greater - in much of the country one has to travel a great distance to get to a provider. It’s a situation I would have to consider, but I don’t think it is directly applicable here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/300 "2010-03-31T17:06:52Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Suuure you were “on the fence”. The opposing views were so narsty that they forced you into the same sort of ideology you’ve been pushing all along on this board. :dubious: Let me clarify. I was “on the fence” in the sense that I firmly supported one side, but did not extend any particular material support to the cause. So my “support” was limited to message board discussions and a general tendency to vote for people that would probably uphold the principle, but it certainly wasn’t on my radar as a litmus test, or even an issue I paid particular attention to. Now, thanks to this discussion, I intend to financially support an organizations that will further this cause, something I have not done before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=16)