# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/101 "2010-03-28T21:49:56Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > And you can not direct me to a case where those laws have withstood challenge. Nevertheless, a law requiring pharmacists to dispense contraceptives and abortifacients is not a “neutral law of general applicability.” It is rather a law designed to suppress the exercise of a particular religious view. Would every pharmacist be required to so dispense? How about the pharmacist at a geriatric center? Must she carry such medications, inventorying them and keeping them current? Well, given the fact that groups don’t like these laws, and they are still on the books, it is at least _prima facie_ evidence of their constitutionality. It is not a law designed to suppress the exercise of a particular religious view. It simple isn’t a case like _Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah_, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which is one of the few times (if not the only one) where a Court has invalidated a seemingly generally applicable law as targeted against a particular religion. That law was pretty obviously targeted at Santeria. Laws like this have a purpose expressed in them - of ensuring the availability of a legal product from a state-regulated supplier. That’s a legitimate government interest. That ensuring that interest is met conflicts with some people’s religious beliefs is neither here not there under governing law. There just isn’t a history of animus towards the religious beliefs at stake here unlike in _City of Hialeah_, where the court saw the law as being directly targeted at an unpopular minority religion. As for the way the laws work - I don’t know. I haven’t look at them in detail, and indeed said earlier in this thread that I wasn’t aware of the way they worked. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The law is quite obviously a reaction to the religious beliefs of others. Indeed, people here have justified it by saying “your beliefs should not affect my ability to get these medications.” But as _Yoder_ makes plain, and as _Employment Division_ did not touch, it is perfectly acceptable for one person’s religious beliefs to have consequences for another. What is not acceptable—expressly unacceptable in both _Yoder_ and _Employment Division_—is to craft a law directed toward suppressing the exercise of specific religious views. > > Nor, by the way, is _Yoder_ an anomalous case that could be overruled in one fell swoop; it represents a culmination of case law, including the famous Jehovah Witnesses cases such as _Barnette_ (JW student cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Although _Employment Division_ did not sustain a religious exemption, the fact pattern are vastly different. In _Employment Division_, a religious exemption was requested to permit engagement in what is otherwise socially disruptive, criminal activity. Here, the proscribed conduct is one component of a (anti-religiously motivated) regulatory scheme and whose defiance, that is, refusal to sell these medications, is not considered anywhere near as antisocial behavior. The fact you keep calling this an anti-religiously motivated law shows you don’t understand the case law underlying this. It simply isn’t. It has an impact on some people more than others because of their religious beliefs, but the state legislature didn’t sit down and think “how can we screw over the Catholics,” for example. Instead they sought to ensure the availability of legal drugs. Which, I will say again, is a legitimate state interest. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/102 "2010-03-28T22:13:52Z")
This thread is a beautiful illustration of how those on the left do not deserve to be called “liberals”, as the term belies their actual statist authoritarian views. > [@Cumberdale](#): > > Anyway, if you feel the government has no business regulating pharmacists, why do you believe it should be allowed to regulate physicians? I don’t think the government should be allowed to compel physicians to act against their conscience. Fortunately, in the less-than-red state of IL, the [law](http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.)agrees with me, and from what I can tell, it would seem to apply to pharmacists as well: > [@](#): > > ``` > (745 ILCS 70/2) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5302) > Sec. 2. Findings and policy. The General Assembly finds and declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care. > > ``` > > (Source: P.A. 90‑246, eff. 1‑1‑98.) ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/103 "2010-03-28T22:27:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Is there a mistake in my figures? Or jusy a nice single point of data that doesn’t agree with it? > the total sales of medicines are 40 billion, are you saying contracpetives are 4 billon? I don’t know that you can equate total sales to how much money a pharmacy makes. I don’t know how it works in the US, but I’m in Canada and I’m pretty sure the pharmacy’s income is not related to the value of the prescriptions. Pharmacies dispense, rather than selling themselves; so they don’t make more money by selling an expensive drug than a cheap one. AFAIK, Pharmacies make their money on dispensing fees. Whether a prescription costs $10 or $1,000, the pharmacy gets the same dispensing fee. So maybe contraceptives are 10% of prescriptions dispensed by a pharmacy, but less than 10% of total prescription costs (since there are many drugs that are much more expensive than contraceptives). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/104 "2010-03-29T02:10:12Z")
There appears to be different lines of discussion in this thread regarding an individual pharmacist versus a business. The op was specific to a situation involving an individual employee who’s skill is licensed and is independent of what the business intends. If the business wishes to sell an item and the employee finds it objectionabl then it is reasonable for the business to see that as an “at will” arrangement. A business should be able to stock their shelves with whatever product they wish within the agreed permit to operate. If there is no agreement to stock a specific product type they should not be held to it for whatever reason chosen. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/105 "2010-03-29T02:15:21Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > This thread is a beautiful illustration of how those on the left do not deserve to be called “liberals”, as the term belies their actual statist authoritarian views. Only in the eyes of someone who thinks that only coercion by the government counts, and that it’s perfectly all right to coerce, harass or kill someone if you don’t do so for the government. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/106 "2010-03-29T02:19:48Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > This thread is a beautiful illustration of how those on the left do not deserve to be called “liberals”, as the term belies their actual statist authoritarian views. I self-describe as “liberal” and am in favor of letting the pharmacist decide what to dispense. I think you’re simply assigning the label “liberal” to people who’s opinions you don’t like. Many folks in this thread haven’t identified their political leanings. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/107 "2010-03-29T02:48:31Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I self-describe as “liberal” and am in favor of letting the pharmacist decide what to dispense. I think you’re simply assigning the label “liberal” to people who’s opinions you don’t like. Many folks in this thread haven’t identified their political leanings. Au contraire. I made the assumption that most of the people who have posted in favor of forcing the pharmacist to dispense would self-identify as liberal. I would not bestow that noble title on them as I feel they don’t deserve it. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/108 "2010-03-29T02:50:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Only in the eyes of someone who thinks that only coercion by the government counts, and that it’s perfectly all right to coerce, harass or kill someone if you don’t do so for the government. Why yes, that’s exactly what I believe. How did you guess? :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/109 "2010-03-29T02:55:48Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > Why yes, that’s exactly what I believe. How did you guess? :rolleyes: Because that’s how you seem to be defining the term. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/110 "2010-03-29T02:57:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because that’s how you seem to be defining the term. That it’s perfectly alright to kill, maim, torture, coerce, harass someone as long as you’re not the government? Where did I say that again? ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/111 "2010-03-29T03:01:44Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > That it’s perfectly alright to kill, maim, torture, coerce, harass someone as long as you’re not the government? Where did I say that again? When you said that people who want to make pharmacists do their jobs and dispense medicine to people who need it aren’t liberal. You are defining “liberal” as someone who is willing to let pharmacists harass, endanger and kill people. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/112 "2010-03-29T03:07:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > When you said that people who want to make pharmacists do their jobs and dispense medicine to people who need it aren’t liberal. You are defining “liberal” as someone who is willing to let pharmacists harass, endanger and kill people. That’s absurd. A pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives has done none of the above, certainly no more than the customer’s next door neighbour and mailman have. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/113 "2010-03-29T04:53:25Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > This thread is a beautiful illustration of how those on the left do not deserve to be called “liberals”, as the term belies their actual statist authoritarian views. I am also enough of a dangerous statist authoritarian that I don’t think public school teachers should be able to refuse to teach brown eyed children if they feel that is their religious requirement. Well, of course they can refuse to teach those children, but they should not expect to keep their position as a public school teacher if they do. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/114 "2010-03-29T06:21:38Z")
If your job is to do something, then you do it, or else get a new job. The religious pharmacist should be held to the same standard as the atheist priest. You sell that contraceptive, and you molest that choir boy, no exceptions, or else you get a new job, the end. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/115 "2010-03-29T06:45:01Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > That’s absurd. A pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives has done none of the above, certainly no more than the customer’s next door neighbour and mailman have. Wrong. They certainly are harassing their customers, and depending on circumstances could indeed be hurting or even killing the person in question. And your neighbor and mailman examples wouldn’t be comparable unless the neighbor and mailman are rooting through his/her medicines and dumping whatever they don’t approve of. ---
**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 29, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/116 "2010-03-29T13:26:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > …and here I was thinking that debating was about convincing others (or at least trying, even with a dumbass like myself), not to reiterate one’s beliefs and say you’re happy with them. You could at least humour me with a cite. I suppose I could. [Here’s one](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf) for the 12 million figure (warning: .pdf): > [@](#): > > The leading method of contraception in the United States in 2002 was the oral contraceptive pill. It was being used by 11.6 million women 15–44 years of age; it had ever been used by 44.5 million women 15–44 years of age. The second leading method was female sterilization, used by 10.3 million women. The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading methods in the United States since 1982. I’ll have to keep looking for one for the 32% figure. It’s something dimly remembered from training at Eckerd (I used to be a pharmacy technician). Would you like to provide one for your figures, while we’re at it? ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/117 "2010-03-29T13:26:42Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > This thread is a beautiful illustration of how those on the left do not deserve to be called “liberals”, as the term belies their actual statist authoritarian views. > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by Cumberdale > > Anyway, if you feel the government has no business regulating pharmacists, why do you believe it should be allowed to regulate physicians? > > I don’t think the government should be allowed to compel physicians to act against their conscience. Fortunately, in the less-than-red state of IL, the [law](http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.)agrees with me, and from what I can tell, it would seem to apply to pharmacists as well: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > JC Penney sold Eckerd to Rite Aid a few years back, and its stores have all been subsumed into the Rite Aid franchise, so it won’t be firing pharmacists anytime soon. > > Anyway, if you feel the government has no business regulating pharmacists, why do you believe it should be allowed to regulate physicians? If you’re going to quote someone, be sure to match it with the correct poster. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/118 "2010-03-29T13:57:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The fact you keep calling this an anti-religiously motivated law shows you don’t understand the case law underlying this. It simply isn’t. It has an impact on some people more than others because of their religious beliefs, but the state legislature didn’t sit down and think “how can we screw over the Catholics,” for example. Instead they sought to ensure the availability of legal drugs. Which, I will say again, is a legitimate state interest. Not my finest moment here, and certainly warrants way more investigation/analysis - this was a pretty snide post, and isn’t worthy of the argument. I’d like to file a motion to strike that post and replace with the below… There’s a definite case that has to be answered as to whether this is a neutral law of general applicability, and so presumably constitutional, or whether it is a restriction on religious freedom that would be struck. It isn’t, on reflection, a perfect fit with _Smith_, because the behavior that is being controlled here is somewhat specific to a particular religion, or at least is significantly less likely to be engaged in by a non-religious person. That makes it more like the anti-santeria legislation I mentioned earlier. There’s an overall problem in First Amendment jurisprudence, however, which makes it different to a lot of what the Court does. First Amendment cases, and in particular the religious ones, are notoriously inconsistent. Part of this, I think, is because of the very nature of _Lemon_ analysis, which is all over the shop, but it also shows an unwillingness to overrule cases in an area which touches on very deeply held beliefs. What I would argue we see is cases allowed to stand, but isolated back to their specific fact patterns - _Yoder_ being supplants by _Smith_, for example. Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to predict future decisions accurately, which leaves us with snout counting, and hence the preference for more recent decisions where current members of the Court were represented. So, back to laws requiring state licensed pharmacists to offer contraceptives, or to fill any prescription (barring side effects etc) presented to them. Courts have shown reluctance to presume an anti-religious motivation on the part of a legislative body (which is generally sensible because it isn’t present). Where the Supreme Court found one in _City of Hialeah_, the law, against ritual slaughter of animals, was pretty obviously aimed at a specific religion, Santeria, and that group had been shown to have been the subject of government displeasure before. While it was presented as a neutral law with a legitimate purpose - the protection of animals - it couldn’t be justified that way because the exceptions involved were too broad. For example, it was permissible to kill the animal in the banned way if it was eaten afterwards. So the law was struck. Here, on the other hand, we are looking at laws which are at least facially neutral. Absent evidence of antipathy towards Christianity in the areas where these laws are in force, or in the legislative history of the laws (not that the textualist wing will consider that), I don’t see that it will be considered an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. One thing that is clear in the precedents on freedom of religion is that while belief is protected, action is not automatically (for obvious reasons, such as human sacrifice). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/119 "2010-03-29T14:02:24Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > You personally won those “victories”? Wow. :dubious: Yes, I’ve been busy. But the frequent flier miles help ease the pain. What I mean, of course, is that the view _ **I** _ am arguing for here has won. > [@](#): > > So, the bottom line is how many pharmacies will write off at least 10% of their business, not counting the sales lost when customers boycott their stores. I’m betting not all that many. Yes, I agree. And that’s precisely the force that should be brought to bear: market persuasion. I have no heartburn at all with the idea that lost business will compel a decision to require employees to sell contraceptives or lose their jobs. I’m all in favor of that. I object to the government’s use of regulation to compel it. > [@](#): > > Interesting how certain right-wing elements get all up in arms about the government getting in the way of the doctor-patient relationship, but don’t see a problem with the pharmacist obstructing health care. There is a difference. An individual acting alone is entitled to do plenty of things that we wish to forbid the government from doing. A person may establish religion by putting a Nativity scene in his front yard; the government cannot. We don’t say in response that it’s “interesting” how the left wing objects to one and not the other, because we realize that the issue changes dramatically when it’s an action taken by the government. ---
**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 29, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/120 "2010-03-29T14:04:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I object to the government’s use of regulation to compel it. So what if every pharmacy in the Southeast decided to stop carrying birth control? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=7)