You do realize that these laws generally protect the individual against his or her employer?
Once again, you are being completely disingenuous here. This isn’t about condoms. Or Kleenex. Or aspirin. Or Preparation H. All of those products can be purchased in a non-licensed store. There is no law that I am aware of anywhere requiring them to be stocked.
What this debate rests on (presuming we are talking about whether the store should be required to supply contraceptives rather than the way more common situation of an individual employee) is whether accepting a role as a licensed supplier of products controlled by prescription permits the government to require that you supply all products so controlled.
If this were, say, radio frequencies, and there was some limit to the number of stations that could broadcast, then the argument makes sense: we have only X number of frequencies, so we must ensure that at least some, if not all, serve the public interest.
But there is no such limit. The government merely certifies that these are people that have the knowledge and skill to safely dispense medication – it doesn’t have to ensure that each is willing to dispense all medication.
This is using the government’s power to force individuals to work for what they see as the “good” of society. That should not be government’s function.
It is a common enough item to be expected. Unless you want to define pharmacies by counting which of the hundreds of types of medicines they carry, which is a pretty lame obfuscation tactic. Why not say restaurants are only restaurants when they serve specific types of foods?
A pharmacy sells pharmaceuticals, of which contraceptives is a common part of. Remove that, and remove it for religious reasons, and you might as well call yourself a bible prayer cure club
First off, a doctor isn’t the middleman between an abortion and the woman. For that analogy to work the pharmacist would have to make the drugs himself. And second, if a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion, he shouldn’t list it on his offered services. All of the women cited in the stories were completely taken by surprise when they got up to the counter and were denied service. If your religious pharmacist doesn’t want to sell certain items, they should put a big sign outside that says it. They are trying to have it both ways: the regular pharmacy customers and their religious views. They know that if they advertise the fact that they don’t sell certain items, their business will lose money and they’ll be seen as the nutcases they really are
Their deception of those who need medicine is a despicable pushing of their views on everybody else. It’s said that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The pharmacists are not entitled to their jobs as pharmacists but are to their religion. If religion is interfereing with the job, then you quit the job. You don’t try to tailor the job to the religion.
Women are entitled to shop in a store without being discriminated against based on what they buy. You could say they can simply shop somewhere, but to force that infringes on their rights. They are not the ones who have to change, the pharmacists are
Why? Are licensed doctors required to practice medicine? Or, perhaps more relevant, may they open a doctor’s office that specializes in only one type of medical care? What if its a small town that doesn’t have a general practitioner?
It might not seem radical to you, but it seems pretty egregious to me.
But you’re arguing that a restaurant has to serve all kinds of food. It’s a bad analogy.
So you would have no objection if the pharmacy had a sign on the door that said:
ATTENTION CUSTOMERS: Please be aware that this pharmacy is unable to fulfill prescriptions for contraceptive pharmaceuticals, including “the Pill” and “morning-after” type drugs. We regret any inconvenience this may cause.
Some kind of warning, and everything would be fine? All right, I think it’s unnecessary but I’m okay with that.
This view is absurd. No one has the right to shop for all items in a particular store. if they did, I could sue Best Buy for failing to stock that Firefly DVD I wanted.
You will not be successful in most states in trying to push the view that, merely by becoming a pharmacist, a person is obligated to serve the nebulous “public interest” by selling what the government tells them to sell. There are states, dominated by the left, where people do accept the viewpoint that pharmacology, or I imagine any occupation, exists to serve the public good, and therefore may be dictated to about what they sell, or don’t sell. But there’s really no principled distinction between this, and a Stalinistic approach that forces people into professions for the good of the state, or that forces writers to write for the good of the state, or dancers to dance for the good of the state.
The idea that an individual may be constrained in his free exercise of choice to serve, by force, the “good” of his fellow citizens, is a frightening one.
Uh no. I only brought that up when the suggestion came up that a pharmacy can have drugs to sell and not sell them to certain people and still call themselves a pharmacy. With the restaurant analogy, I specifically said that they’d be lying if they didn’t sell food AT ALL. I would be equally against a restaurant lying to it’s customers if it did not sell something on it’s menu to certain populations. That would be the correct analogy
Actually yes, I’d be fine with that. Let people know how they operate the place and the people can choose whether or not they want to partake in its services. I would be ok with a Muslim-operated taxi service that is easily recognizable and publicizes it’s policy of no dogs. Personally, I see them as no different than the KKK, but that group, despite their evil, should be allowed to exist since they don’t really make any bones about their racism
The whole debate is about whether it should be a requirement of licensing. My God, do you really think you have proved anything by saying “You want to make something a requirement of licensing. It’s not the requirement of licensing at the moment. I win!”
As far as I know, they are not. And licensed pharmacists are not required to practice either. And you are right, the second situation is indeed more relevant. I certainly think that a doctor has an ethical obligation to provide care he or she is capable of giving to a patient in need of that care, if there is no simple alternative for that patient.
Shoudl that be a legal requirement of the doctor’s licensing? Well, doctors are a different case - to the best of my knowledge (and I am open to correctiong from pharmacists here) there is no specialist skill set required to dispense contraceptive drugs in response to a prescription that are not required to dispense antibiotics, for example.
if you want a debate, though, on whether doctors as a requirement of their licensing should be required to do pro bono work, or whether there should be a legal obligation for doctors to provide care within their skill set, then start that thread. Not all professions should come with the same requirements.
You misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) my argument. I am not saying that the pharmacy’s business is contraception based on cites and historical trends. I am arguing that it should be declared the pharmacy’s business by governmental fiat. There is a demonstrated demand for contraception and a proven social good to having ways to avoid and prevent unwanted pregnancy. And I happen to feel that that government good alone is sufficient justification for the government to step in and ensure that contraception is available to those who want it. And since they already regulate licensed pharmacists up the yin-yang, it’s natural and intuitive to extend that regulation a little further to assure that religious bigots don’t use their position of government-authorized power to inflict their personal religious morals on those around them.
So. You pretend that we have to tolerate the tyrannical religious bigotry or lose our heart pills, which is red-herring bullshit. On the other hand, it is an indisputable fact that the government can use the law to prevent this sort of religious tinpot dictatorship (since they’ve done it in places), and I argue that they should do it in more places, in the interest of the greater social good for everyone who doesn’t laud people being able to force their religious morality on others. Not exactly the same sort of argument, is it?
I’ll take it. Liquor stores are clearly regulated.
But no one thinks that my getting my Scotch, if I want it, is the business of the government to ensure. If I whine that I live in a small town, and we only have one liquor store which doesn’t stock my 18 year old Glenmorangie, I will be met with supreme indifference from the populace.
But somehow, contraceptives are the business of the government. Somehow, it’s so important that citizens be able to get their hands on contraceptives that it becomes a government mandate to do something about it. Indeed, to hear some people talk about it, it’s damn near a civil RIGHT to be able to buy contraceptives when you choose to.
I don’t accept that view. More to the point, most of America doesn’t accept that view.
But some states do. And this is why federalism is such a good thing. Those states that feel as though mandating pharmacists’ sales of contraceptives are free to do so. It’s certainly legal to do so; it doesn’t offend the Constitution. (Although I wonder about all those folks that think the Constitution’s “spirit” should be consulted at times like these – what have they to say now?)
And the states that don’t, won’t. People that believe contraception is civil right may gravitate to those states to live; pharmacists that believe in personal responsibility and freedom will gravitate to the states that support those values. Such is the beauty of our system.
I already said that if they refused to sell to certain people, I would have a problem with that. I’m under the assumption that they refuse to sell contraceptives to anyone, which I am fine with. And I don’t mind putting up a sign on the door – it might even help business in some cases, for example a heavily Catholic neighborhood.
Yep. Because you have now reasonably accurately summarized my words. Isn’t it a nice feeling?
I am against government action forcing individuals to work for a subjective view of the good of society. I don’t say I’m totally against it, but someone advocating it has a huge bar to overcome.
Not because I agree with the merits of it – obviously I do not – but because it clearly and unambiguously lays out the position taken. It lays bare the matter for disagreement. It is a masterpiece of clarity.
Slight tangent - something I touched on earlier that probably got lost in the scramble…
Am I correct in assuming then you oppose the laws you earlier referred to as “victories” that grant individual employees exemptions being required by their employers to sell such products? (Unless I am misreading and misremembering those laws).
Where do you stand on their constitutionality? I agree with your comment above that laws requiring pharmacies to sell contraceptives are constitutional; I would think you would argue that laws exempting an individual from discipline from an employer for this are constitutional but unwise.
I’m troubled by their constitutionality. I think they would be found constitutional under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, but seem to be to be unconstitutional preferences given to religious belief (as opposed to, for example, political or economic belief that contraception is wrong).
What huge bar has been overcome with regard to criminalizing and prosecuting prostitution, drug use, or atypical sexual practices? You’ve posted in support of all three here in the past.
So your point of disagreement is that you think the social need for accessible contraception does not justify preventing religious tinpot dictatorship/the individual right to choose the products religious people sell in their government-licensed pharmacies?