Pharmacy and Religion

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BrandonR

There are plenty of small towns in this country where people might not have access to numerous pharmacists. These small towns are also more likely to have the kind of demographic where a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control would be present.

I do not believe that a hypothetical future injury that may occur if someone shoves it down the slippery slope is enough to truncate first amendment rights. Show me a few cases where a woman was unable to get the pill because of this behaviour and we will be having a different conversation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

Garbage. The First Amendment doesn’t extend to forcing your beliefs on others by refusing to do your job, in a government licensed job at that.

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.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jsgoddess

Isn’t something that just happens to screw over one specific population consistently just a little troubling to you? I mean sure, I’m just a woman, and these are just my, um, lifestyle choices. Me with the not-wanting-to-have-a-child-or-an-abortion lifestyle.

Show me a few cases where a woman in the USA got screwed over and it might in fact bother me but right now you seem to be happy to push aside first amendment rights without showing any harm because you don’t lkike the idea of pharmacists exercising their religious conviction by not selling the pill.

I don’t agree with what these people are doing but I think they have the right to do it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Jackmannii

Nah, both are fun. :dubious:

You need to bronze some of these arguments for posterity.

Well one would land you in jail for murder the other one would not. You still don’t see the difference?

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Show me a few cases where a woman in the USA got screwed over and it might in fact bother me but right now you seem to be happy to push aside first amendment rights without showing any harm because you don’t lkike the idea of pharmacists exercising their religious conviction by not selling the pill.

I don’t agree with what these people are doing but I think they have the right to do it.

Seriously - how would an example help you? (And wait, weren’t there a couple in the OP? Sure, those are employees doing it, but…)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

One is “attempted murder”, and the other is “depraved indifference to human life”? And both are disgusting.

OK, but only one is illegal.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CrazyCatLady

Actually, if the end results of action or inaction are the same, and you could reasonably foresee that, the law doesn’t really treat it all that differently. In your drowning baby example, you’d probably still be going to trial for your role in the baby’s death, it’s just a matter of whether you were charged with murder or depraved indifference manslaughter. Hell, in some jurisdictions I think the charge can actually be bumped up to murder in depraved indifference cases.

Its been a while since law school but there was no duty to rescue in any state in the union at the time. Perhaps things have changed

And surely you’re not arguing that every inaction is right and just and morally acceptable. Just because you didn’t actively engage in harming the baby, that doesn’t make it okay to watch it crawl off the pier to its death.

Noone said that it was OK to watch a baby crawl off a pier and I’m not supporting refusal to sell the pill on moral grounds. I am saying that we must defend the first amendment rights of even those we disagree with.

[begbert2]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I am saying that we must defend the first amendment rights of even those we disagree with.

Please please please, for the love of Thor, Vishnu, The Cheese, the FSM, and Satan, address posts 515 and 520.

[wonky]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You are not treating pregnancy when you are prescribed the pill. It is a contraceptive.

You aren’t treating heart attacks and stroke when you are prescribed Zocor. Avoiding a life-changing event is a real medical issue. Yes, even for women.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@YogSosoth

I do, and many agree with me. Many also don’t, which is why we’re having this discussion. I’ve laid out why I think so already.

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.

I disagree

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.

You’re going to have to explain to me exactly what you mean by that

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.

The fact that discrmination goes on and you ask me to provide examples where it was widespread is irrelevent. Those women should never have been denied in the first place. It matters little if they walked across the street the next minute and got a year’s supply of the stuff. The fact is the pharmacy, or the pharmacist, was not upfront about his religious bigotry and through this caused the woman undue burden. You wouldn’t be speaking the same way if a black guy was refused service by a white pharmacist even if he could have gotten the drugs somwhere else.

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.

Or forcing them to get pregnant by refusing them contraceptives.

Please provide a few examples of women who were forced to get pregnant because some pharmacist didn’t sell them the pill?

Despite what the religious claim, there’s no inherent wrongness in having sex and using contraceptives.

Agreed.

If he forces that change in the woman’s behavior, then it is he who has intruded into her life. Her use of contraceptives has no impact on his life whatsoever, and he should stay out of it

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.

The intent is to prevent woman from having sex and not getting pregnant, and the motive of that is religious bigotry. That’s a pretty clear case of discrimination right there.

I don’t think anyone with any legal training would say this is a clear case of discimination. This simply isn’t a discrimination case no matter how much you want it to be.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

I said they shouldn’t be able to refuse to prescribe the pill for religious reasons. Your response is talking about something completely different and irrelevent to that point; why did you say it?

Oh OK. Then I guess I would say, how do you overcome their first amendment rights?

So your point is, that if we compell all the Jesus pharmacists* to quit retail out of protest for selling the pill, we’re not even forcing them out their field? Great! So what’s the problem?

Your forcing them to choose between their faith and their job of choice without providing any argument that overcomes their first amendment right.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

So stop spinning. Putting aside how worthlessly pathetic and pedantic the ‘arguments’ against that have been, it was a frikking quip! Are you that desperate for things to hang arguments on?

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’ve yet to see an argument that the pharmacists aren’t themselves directly violating the first amendment by using their government-liscenced position to enforce their religiously-motivated lifestyle of “don’t use contraception” on others. I would see restricting such behavior on the pharmacists’ part as enforcing the first amendment, not dismissing it; in fact, why are you dismissing the customers’ first amendment rights?

I’m not kidding. Make an argument here.

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.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

I don’t see how.

Seriously! The catholic church requires that their priests do caholic priestish things. Is that a violation of their first amendment right to be an atheist? No, because nobody’s forcing them to be a priest, but if they become a priest, then being religious is part of the job - or at least they have to act that way while on the job.

I think that acting like an atheist (or at least making decisions like an atheist - ie based on a scientifically supportable rationalist basis) could very easily be considered part of the job description of a pharmacist. They don’t have to actually be an atheist, mind you - but no slipping frog spleens into the pill mixes for their chakra-aligning value, or whatever. The saving grace here on a constitutional front is that nobody’s forcing a person to be a pharmacist.

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.

[Skammer]

@CrazyCatLady

Prescribing birth control pills is something that every single person who has managed to drag themselves through a medical school is trained and qualified to do. It is an effective treatment for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and for various minor to major gynecological unpleasantries, which is in the patient’s best interest. 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.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the pharmacist who does not stock bith control should not be required to provide a referral.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

I still don’t understand what your position is.

I think Thomas Jefferson got it right. I think you preserve the first amendment unless you can show a reason not to.

In other words we’ve already established what you are, and now we’re only haggling about the price, so to speak.

I think the price for which the first amendment gets “trumped” is if there is evidence that people are really being denied acess to birth control.

The thing is, though, wether a law is morally/legally/ethically justifiable has nothing to do with how many people’s behavior would be changed by it

In this case you have a constitutional amendment (the first one in fact) that behaviour, I have not seen any justification for ignoring that amendment yet.

At what point does your thinking diverge with mine on this specific line of argument?

I put the first amendment ahead of my personal beliefs.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

Seriously - how would an example help you? (And wait, weren’t there a couple in the OP? Sure, those are employees doing it, but…)

If you could show me that this was actually a problem with real consequences then this world move from the realm of hypothetical problems that would not be sufficient to overcome the first amendment into something in which the state might have a legitimate interst in regulating.

I believe the OP was talking about employees doing something that was illegal here. Not returning scrip is more than refusing to sell. If you are the only game in town, that is also a different case. But if the pharmacist can point you to the CVS across the street where they will fill your prescription then…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jsgoddess

You aren’t treating heart attacks and stroke when you are prescribed Zocor. Avoiding a life-changing event is a real medical issue. Yes, even for women.

Aren’t you treating a heart condition when you prescribve Zocor. Anyway let me take back what I said about pregnancy and medical consition because it is obviously being misconstrued and is muddying the waters. I was talking about therapeutic uses of the pill and other drugs versus non-therapeutic uses of the pill and other drugs.

[SteveG1]

I wonder.

Now various websites and news outlets are reporting that doctors and pharmacists are deciding to not take care of Obama supporters. I’d say that new aspect could or maybe should be added to the discussion. It looks like it’s going beyond religious beliefs, into political leanings now.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@SteveG1

I wonder.

Now various websites and news outlets are reporting that doctors and pharmacists are deciding to not take care of Obama supporters. I’d say that new aspect could or maybe should be added to the discussion. It looks like it’s going beyond religious beliefs, into political leanings now.

April fools day was yesterday wasn’t it?

Nevermind…
OMFG you’re right:

Jack Cassell: Doctor Refuses To Treat Obama Supporters

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.

[Skammer]

@SteveG1

I wonder.

Now various websites and news outlets are reporting that doctors and pharmacists are deciding to not take care of Obama supporters. I’d say that new aspect could or maybe should be added to the discussion. It looks like it’s going beyond religious beliefs, into political leanings now.

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.

ETA: never mind, I actually read the story now