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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wrong. I listed each one.
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.
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.
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.
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.