# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/541 "2010-04-02T20:09:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > April fools day was yesterday wasn’t it? > > Nevermind… > OMFG you’re right: > > [Doctor Jack Cassell Tells Obama Supporters To Seek Help Elsewhere | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/jack-cassell-doctor-refus_n_523076.html) > > This is once again an example of extreme stupidity and I probably don’t want this guy treating me anyway but I think he is probably allowed to say whatever he wants. He’s probably a semi-retired, one foot in the grave old guy who can’t believe that some black guy stole his country and another black guy probably stole his remote control. I was sort of questioning if I should say anything because a) Huffington does have a liberal bias (that’s why I liker her, but still…) b) Yesterday was All Fools Day. But it does seem to be for real. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/542 "2010-04-02T20:13:10Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > So, barring any medical contraindications like blood pressure or clotting problems or drug interactions…yes, the general agreement among doctors is that you have an ethical obligation to either write for the pill or provide a referral for same. OK. So as long as they provide a referral, they can refuse, right? I never said the first amendment is absolute. Will they lose their license if they refuse to provide that referral? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/543 "2010-04-02T20:42:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oh OK. Then I guess I would say, how do you overcome their first amendment rights? > > Your forcing them to choose between their faith and their job of choice without providing any argument that overcomes their first amendment right. They don’t have a first amendment right to be a bad pharmacist. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Your side of the argument has not presented a single arugment that overcomes the first amendment or do you think the bill of rights is optional if you don’t like the results. You must be a Republican. I’m pretty sure this is supposed to be an ad-hominem - apparently a double-duty one, since you’re apparently insulting both me _and_ republicans each by association with the other! That’s actually kind of commendible, in its own way. They don’t have a first amendment right to use their government liscence as a platform to force other people to comply with their own religious beliefs. **The first amendment is against them, not supporting them**. There is only one difference between this and cops manually forcing you to go to church: the cops are fully employed by the state, and the pharmacists are merely _licencsed_ by the state. Unless **you** can show that this difference is significant, then we have a textbook cut-and-dried unambiguous case of first amendment violation, as sure as if the president declared Catholicism to be the state religion. So you better focus on that arguement right quick, because until you can show that the pharmacists aren’t acting as agents of the state in _any_ way, your arguments from the first amendment are laughable, ignorant, and self-sabotaging. There is literally nothing to take seriously there until you can show that the pharmacists are the _victims_, and not the _problem_. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Aside from the fact you are presenting a very strained interpretation of the application of the first amendment, noone is forcing anyone to do anything here. I’ve probably asked a dozen times but show me a few cases where women have been denied access to the pill because of this. Heck show me two. If you can show me that anyone is in fact being forced to not use contraception then I will rethink my opinion. This whiney crap asking for examples is red herring horseshit. You don’t have an argument so you’re hiding behind requests for unnecessary examples to dodge having to admit that these pharmacists don’t have the right to be allowed the _opportunity_ to become a threat to the distribution of contraceptives. Seriously. This is complete bullshit. Here’s how it could go down if I _gave_ you examples: Case 1: You: Show me examples! Me: Here are examples! You: Okay you’re right I concede, because the pharmacists don’t have a right to block contraception distribution and should be stopped. Case 2: You: Show me examples! Me: Here are examples! You: I see your examples and don’t care about them because because the pharmacists **do** have a right to block contraception distribution! Ha! See the commonality between the cases? _The presence of the examples doesn’t do shit for the argument_. Either they have the right to do it or they don’t, and that’s the determining factor. Whether they are, at the moment, engaging in the activity is completely irrelevent. I’m tired of the bullshit. _Pretend_ there are examples and move on to the actual argument you want to make, if any. Quit stalling. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I will put forward the example of the obsttrician who doesn’t perform abortions (and noone forced him to become and obstetrician) as an example of someone who can refuse to do something that is customary in their profession and is protected by the first amendment. If the pharmacist is an employee and if an undue burden could not be avoided by a reasonable accomodation then yes the pharmacist could be fired regardless of their beliefs (I can think of at least 2 ways to prevent undue burden with reasonable accomodations), this is why you might be able to fire that athiest priest. If the pharmacist owned their own pharmacy then absent some showing of compelling state interest or actual (not hypothetical) harm to others, I don’t know how you overcome the first amendment. Abortions are special cases. (Was it you who admitted that, or somebody else? I forget.) Try again. And stop pulling this bullshit about examples. This whole _discussion_ is hypothetical. Unless you’re a legislator or something, preparing to make an acutal law? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/544 "2010-04-02T20:48:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > There is only one difference between this and cops manually forcing you to go to church: the cops are fully employed by the state, and the pharmacists are merely _licencsed_ by the state. You’re joking about that, right? ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/545 "2010-04-02T20:59:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK. So as long as they provide a referral, they can refuse, right? I never said the first amendment is absolute. Will they lose their license if they refuse to provide that referral? Provided their refusal doesn’t put an undue burden on the patient, yes. Definitions of undue burden vary–it’s usually considered in terms of how far away from the next nearest provider the patient is. AFAIK you won’t lose your license, but I don’t know of any state that protects your job if you refuse to provide treatment within your expertise and in accordance with the standards of care for personal reasons. And the patient is, of course, within his or her rights to file a complaint with your state’s medical board, which may or may not lead to varying levels of censure short of revoking your license, depending on the specifics of the case. If your refusal to provide care results in what they call “negative patient outcomes” you can also find yourself looking at a lawsuit, which looks good neither to future employers nor the carrier of your malpractice insurance. There is one other situation in which you may refuse care that I forgot to mention earlier–when a patient has been dismissed from the practice for behavioral reasons such as being verbally abusive, physically threatening, or otherwise generally disruptive. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/546 "2010-04-02T21:20:34Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > April fools day was yesterday wasn’t it? > > Nevermind… > OMFG you’re right: > > [Doctor Jack Cassell Tells Obama Supporters To Seek Help Elsewhere | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/jack-cassell-doctor-refus_n_523076.html) > > This is once again an example of extreme stupidity and I probably don’t want this guy treating me anyway but I think he is probably allowed to say whatever he wants. He’s probably a semi-retired, one foot in the grave old guy who can’t believe that some black guy stole his country and another black guy probably stole his remote control. He’s not particularly old. He was [licensed in Florida in 1985](http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00Profiling/profile.asp?LicId=37855&ProfNBR=1501&Lookup=TRUE). You can see his picture [here](http://www.fhwat.org/FindaDoctor.aspx) if you enter his first and last name - I can’t link directly to his physician profile, unfortunately. Full head of apparently natural black hair. > [@Skammer](#): > > If they’re denying service only to Obama supporters (how do they know 😕?) _that’s_ discrimination. Although possibly not illegal I guess, since political affiliation is not a protected class. His practice is in Mount Dora, Florida - a Tea Party kind of town. If there are more than a dozen Democratic voters in the whole town I’d be surprised. There are four other urology practices 10 miles away, though no others in the same town. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/547 "2010-04-02T21:49:29Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > You’re joking about that, right? No. What is (theoretically) happening here is that the pharmacists are using their position of authority to control the behavior of the hoi polloi to make the hoi polloi act in a manner consistent with the pharmacist’s beliefs. The pharmacists’s aren’t satisfied with not using contraception themselves; they want to stop other people from using contraception _too_, for personal religious reason. If a cop was rounding people up and locking them in the church, they’d be similarly using their position of authority to control the behavior of the hoi polloi to make the hoi polloi act in a manner consistent with their (the cops’) beliefs. The difference here, of course, is that the cops are agents of the state, and the pharmacists aren’t…maybe. If they’re not, then they’re not bound by the first amendment, and may legally abuse their pharmaceutical authority to tyrannize the populace as they wish - and their choice to tyrannize is protected by the first amendment. To they degree they _do_ weild governmental authority, though, they _cannot_ play tinpot theological dictator. So it comes down to which side of the first amendment they’re on. There has been a rampant _assumption_ that they’re the victims; that government laws made regarding them would be first amendment violation. But if their liscensing status draws authority from the state, then the fact that they’re operating under a liscence may mean that they’re drawing authority from the government - that the government is ‘respecting’ their establishment of pharmacy. Which means that they goverment is _bound_ to make sure that pharmaceutical establishment is not a religious establishment too. I’m tired of this assumption that the pharmacists are the victims here. I want to see arguments for their separation from the state before I accept it. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/548 "2010-04-02T21:56:54Z")
I started a separate thread (in the Pit) about the doctor with the anti-Obama sign [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558280). ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/549 "2010-04-02T22:05:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What is (theoretically) happening here is that the pharmacists are using their position of authority to control the behavior of the hoi polloi to make the hoi polloi act in a manner consistent with the pharmacist’s beliefs. The pharmacists’s aren’t satisfied with not using contraception themselves; they want to stop other people from using contraception _too_, for personal religious reason. No, that is not IMO a correct interpretation of events. The pharmacist doesn’t want to be involved in an action that is prohibited by his religious beliefs. He’s not controling the behavior of the public since they can get their birth control elsewhere, he just doesn’t want to be involved in the process himself. If they were taking steps to prevent customers from getting the pills elsewhere then you might have a point, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/550 "2010-04-02T22:08:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The first amendment extends as far there is no compelling state interest and no actual harm to others. A licensed professional can refuse to do all sorts of things beased on religious conviction. Abortion being the most obvious example. There IS a compelling state interest; protecting women from persecution at the hands of religious bigots. The law has caved in to the woman haters but that doesn’t make it right. And just like you want to have happen with contraception, the result with abortion has been to make it very hard and more expensive for many women to get abortions. But then, they aren’t really people now, are they? Their rights don’t matter at all; only the rights of Christian bigots matter. A doctor or pharmacist should be required to do his job right, even if his self indulgent fantasies demand otherwise. If he is unwilling to place scientific facts and professionalism above religion, then he is unqualified for the job. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Cite that I said “Pregnancy isn’t a Real medical issue”? (Hint: I didn’t) Oh, please, you did, and three different people called you on it; you just studiously ignored all three of us. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > While I hypothetically think that pharmacists should have the right to refuse selling the pill for moral reasons I don’t think those moral reasons can overcome legitimate medical ones (and not the sort of medical reasons that Der Trihs talks about (like when he says that getting pregnant is medical), I mean real medical ones). > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Disgusting. Why don’t just you cut loose and start calling women names like “sow” ? Pregnancy not a “real” medical issue indeed. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Wait, what? > > You don’t think pregnancy is a real medical issue? > [@villa](#): > > Well it isn’t like it happens to real people with real rights and all. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/551 "2010-04-02T22:08:25Z")
> [@](#): > > If they were taking steps to prevent customers from getting the pills elsewhere then you might have a point, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. It’s at least [one](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html) case: > [@](#): > > Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control. He also declined to transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy and refused once again when the woman returned to the store with police. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/552 "2010-04-02T22:20:51Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > No, that is not IMO a correct interpretation of events. The pharmacist doesn’t want to be involved in an action that is prohibited by his religious beliefs. He’s not controling the behavior of the public since they can get their birth control elsewhere, he just doesn’t want to be involved in the process himself. If they were taking steps to prevent customers from getting the pills elsewhere then you might have a point, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. You don’t know their intent. And I think it’s ridiculous to _assume_ that no theistic people have a desire to control the behavior of others. That’s contrary to all evidence! On the other hand, am I assuming that all pharmacists who might theoretically refuse to sell contraceptions are doing it for the sole purpose of controlling the behavior of others? Nope - I’m speaking to the general case, and we’re still deeply lodged in theoretical-land. The issue isn’t wether there _are_ cases of malicious pharmacists trying to control others; it’s whether they have the _right_ to turn their establishment into one that limits its customers to a catholic contraception regimen. And if they’re agents of the government, they **don’t**. Religion can’t dictate their behavior _at all_, in that case. So yeah. I’m not interested in being sidetracked by the theoretical Jesus pharmacist who hands the scrip back with a polite reccomendation that the customer take it to Pagan Pills next door. I want to address the question of whether they have the right to first-amendment protection at _all_ - to either shut down the distracting claims they do, or to definitively end the debate in their favor. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/553 "2010-04-02T23:42:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, please, you did, and three different people called you on it; you just studiously ignored all three of us. You’re wrong. Check your own quote. That’s it, carefully…one letter at a time…you can do it. Check the bloody names in your own bloody quotes. Don’t gotta thank me. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/554 "2010-04-03T00:02:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think anyone has provided a first amendment analysis of why we can force a pharmcist to stock and sell the pill. If they did then I either missed it or it did not address the hurdle that needs to be overcome before you place these sort of requirements on private actors. Uh, I think I HAVE and you simply disagree with it. Don’t pretend that just because you don’t support my arguments that I haven’t made any. We can force a pharmacist to stock and sell the pill because his refusal also interferences with the buyer’s rights, it’s also discriminatory, and the government doesn’t like that. Therefore, my argument is, he should be forced to stock and sell those items. The hurdle you speak of, that you think is a problem, is an obstacle only because you ignore the woman’s rights to not be discriminated against. You may not think that’s discrimination, but I do, and I have good reason to do so. Again, don’t say that you don’t think anyone has provided analysis. I have, many others have, you don’t agree with it and that’s fine but don’t pretend analysis hasn’t been given > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you disagree that you havean overly broad definition of discrimination or that this does not constitute disparate impact? Well it doesn’t really matter, they are one and the same. The only reason you would think this was discrimination was because of the disparate impact. Disparate impact has been applied in the employment setting, it has never been (as far as i know) applied to force a private party to sellsoemthing or engage in other activity they find morally reprehensible. I do not agree that my definition is overly broad. In an employment setting, it most certainly has been applied to either force a private party to do something they find morally reprehensible. The army forces you to kill sometimes and even though we have consciencious objectors, it’s not that easy to simply say you’re against killing and leave it at that. The reason we don’t have MORE examples is because most people don’t object to something they signed up for. It’s only recently that pharmacists decided to take this stance. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I mean that the number of people who are affected by an action doesn’t matter unless you can prove that there is discrimination. This isn’t about discrimination, this is about first amendment rights and its limits. Trying to shoehorn discrimination into this debate is somewhat silly. > > This simply isn’t the same thing as segregation and Jim Crow no matter how much some people want to paint it that way. This argument that this sort of stuff is discrimination has been tried in the past and courts have laughed at it (you think the pro-choice cases never brought up the disparate impact issue?). This is about first amendment rights and whether or not there is enough here to overcome those rights. The effect of pharmacists being able to refuse certain types of medication that is used by certain populations doesn’t hint at a slight intrusion into the realm of discrimination to you, really? I know you want it to be solely about the first amendment, and I’ll agree that it’s a part of the issue, but you and I differ in that you see no discrimination and I see some. The real world effect of the pharmacists is that women, not men, are being forced to either not engage in a behavior, or do it and take a chance on the consequences. And if I agree to only limit this to first amendment, then what? All religious persons should be given special leeway in their jobs to follow whatever doctrine their religion demands? If Catholic doctors and nurses refuse to perform an abortion when a woman is rushed to the emergency room and it’s a life or death situation, that’s ok? Or let me use a more extreme religious example: There are some extremists who do not believe in modern medicine and instead use pray to achieve health. Many kids have died to these parents. You want precedent? These people were sent to [prison](http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/beagleys_face_sentencing_today.html) or will shortly be sentenced. They did not get off scot free. Their religion did not save them. At the bottom, the article cited another case, that of the Worthingtons. Raylene was aquitted but Carl was [convicted](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/07/24/2009-07-24_ore_faithhealing_pair_acquitted_of_manslaughter_.html). Yes, the conviction was of a lesser sentence, but if you read the article, it was because they were able to convince the jury that they thought their kid had a cold. They did not use the defense that their religion allows them to kill their kid. In fact, in that same article, it says that “The trial was the first under a 10-year-old Oregon law that bars legal defenses based on religious practices in most abuse cases.” The first amendment doesn’t cover these idiots because they tend to keep killing until someone forces them to stop. The article mentions that this church, the Followers of Christ, had killed before. So I did a little digging. Turns out, [they may have killed over a dozen kids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ). And that’s only the ones they know of. Fuck the pharmacists. If your religion is affecting other people at your job, then you quit, no exceptions. Don’t take the job if you don’t want to do the job. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Please provide a few examples of women who were forced to get pregnant because some pharmacist didn’t sell them the pill? I used that as an extreme example of what you would allow to happen. I’m unaware of it ever happening, only that the women were denied medication. Doesn’t mean anything to me though, if someone denied me the right to buy something because of religion, they’re wrong, plain and simple > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So even without any evidence that this is actually causing women to become pregnant, you think the way forward is to force them to do something contrary to their religious convictions. It is forcing them to change their behavior due to religious bigotry. It doesn’t matter if it’s something big like getting pregnant, or something small like having to walk across the street. It is wrong ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/555 "2010-04-03T04:00:59Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > If they’re denying service only to Obama supporters (how do they know 😕?) Hell if I know, maybe it’s got something to do with auras or something mumble mumble. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/556 "2010-04-03T04:06:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s at least [one](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html) case: > [@](#): > > Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control. He also declined to transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy and refused once again when the woman returned to the store with police. I think for that, he should lose his license, at least. It’s one thing to refuse to fill the prescription and give a referral. It’s a whole “nother thing” to confiscate or “not transfer” that prescription. I think whatever side of the argument people are on, we should agree he crossed the line. Big Time. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/557 "2010-04-03T04:17:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s at least [one](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html) case: As a pharmacist (to be), this is going over the line. I don’t care what your beliefs are, you don’t want to fill something, fine, I can accept that. What I can’t accept is not agreeing to transfer a script to a different pharmacy. As far as I’m aware, there are no laws protecting him from this… At least, there isn’t in Georgia. There is no reason a floater pharmacist should refuse to transfer a script. For this, I do hope he gets censured by his state board of pharmacy. ETA: I agree with **SteveG1** , for that, he did cross the line, and that’s coming from a pharmacist (to be). ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/558 "2010-04-03T04:37:08Z")
> [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](#): > > There is no reason a floater pharmacist should refuse to transfer a script. For this, I do hope he gets censured by his state board of pharmacy. He [did](http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Penalty_for_pharmacists_refusal_upheld_0326.html), though he didn’t lose his license.. Can’t figure out whether he was forced to pay $20,000 in costs as originally ordered by the state licensing board. His Facebook page is the fourth or fifth hit if you Google his name. I was tempted to message him, but didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/559 "2010-04-05T14:01:57Z")
I think we have indeed been talking about the pharmacist who says “I’m sorry, I don’t carry this. Here is your prescription; you can get it filled at the CVS down the street.” ISTM this is the more common scenario. The example you gave of the pharmacist who refused to return or transfer the script crossed the line. I still wouldn’t liken him to cops who force you from going to church, but at that point he has interfered with the customer’s right to obtain birth control. Someone who just does not stock or sell it has not interfered with the customer’s right to obtain them, nor has the pharmacist attempted to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/560 "2010-04-05T15:24:04Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I think for that, he should lose his license, at least. It’s one thing to refuse to fill the prescription and give a referral. It’s a whole “nother thing” to confiscate or “not transfer” that prescription. I think whatever side of the argument people are on, we should agree he crossed the line. Big Time. Absolutely. THIS is a situation which fits the “right to swing ends at your nose” model perfectly. His right to swing ended at refusing to fill. When he confiscated the prescription, his fist impacted the nose. So to speak. Reprehensible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=29)