Well, what if I own a gunstore and I refuse to carry automatic weapons or teflon coated bullets. I’m sure I might need use them to defend my home from a horde of kevlar vested robbers but I think that I would be an accomplice to crime and copkilling.
Yeah, this is the part of your argument that I have trouble responding to. I think a state might be able to force dispensation of the pill on these grounds.
I am pretty sure that maintaining your first amendment rights doesn’t require you to change profession if there is a conflict.
Does a high school science teacher have the right to refuse to teach the full curriculum if parts of it oppose his or her religious beliefs?
Well, if you haven’t been following as closely as you wanted to you might have missed where everybody on the board (including me) said that you can make it illegal to refuse to return scrip.
I want an example of where a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the pill (but returns the prescription) has effectively denied access to birth control.
If the employer experiences undue burden after the application of reasonable accomodation then that teacher must comply or be fired. Nothing is absolute.
God, man, I answered this later in the post. You don’t need training and a license to sell an axe, so there is considerably less need to make sure that those who can sell it, do.
Okay, at least here we’re talking about another item that not just anybody can sell. Progress!
Next we have to ask ourself if there is a societal benefit to be drawn from selling the product. With the contraceptions, that’s somewhere between “probably” and “undoubtedly”, especially once you factor in the ones with other uses. With AK47s and teflon bullets, the answer’s more in the range between “hell no” and “what are you smoking, and where can I get some”. So since expected societal benefit matters when making slight nudges to the first amendment (like that fascist restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater), I’d say that the contraceptives could be pushed through and the guns might not be.
Interesting. How would you craft a law to force this dispensation, without forcing all dispensation of these types of contraceptives?
Sure it does - depending on the job. Religious pacifists in the army, anyone?
ETA: and teachers, apparently. Nothing is absolute.
Thanks for not reading my post. I already said that you agreed that the pharmacist withholding the prescription was acting inappropriately.
Are the examples in the OP not sufficient examples?
This request is worthless. This thread has already covered the issue of bc pills prescribed for therapeutic purposes. Therefore, the mere refusal to supply the prescribed medication is the harm and access to other forms of contraception is worthless to some patients. Since the pharmacist has no way of knowing why the pill was prescribed, they should just issue the prescription.
As to your first amendment issue: please provide an example of a pharmacist in the state of NJ (where they have a duty to fill valid prescriptions) who has suffered an abridgment of his/her right to practice their religion.
Heh, I was tempted to ask for this myself, but I didn’t want to validate the approach of demanding cites while discussing rights.
If he says that the unsung christians who quietly dispense prescriptions against their will are oppressed, then people who avoid buying contraceptives because their pharmacy is run by a god-botherer are also oppressed. Including cases where the product would be sold to them if they went!
Is there any need at all?
I’m pretty sure you need some type of license for a hardware store in most places.
It’s not your place to decide what this person’s job is, nor, in most cases, is it the government’s place. It’s also not your place to decide if he considers himself morally culpable for actions that he enables. That’s between him and his god, something covered in the Bill of Rights.
And like many things in this world, that’s not the pharmacist’s problem. By opening a pharmacy, he doesn’t then take on the responsibility for all the drug needs of the town. If the only bank in town won’t give you a loan at any price are you up the creek without a paddle? No, you go to another bank in another town and try there. The same with a pharmacy. It can be a pain to deal with, and might cause you all sorts of trouble, but life sometimes does that.
Can you do more than “state” that the pharmacist has no first amendment right here. I mean considering how muxch you have taken me to task for not breaking everything down for you, can you lay out why there is no first amendment right? As far as I can tell you seem to think people abandon their first amendment rights when they choose a career and that is clearly incorrect…
I’m not talking about what will draw professional censure–I think we can all agree that an action can be well within the letter of the law and yet be totally in opposition to the spirit of the law.
And letting your own personal opinions trump the well-being of your patients is, indeed, in direct opposition to the spirit of medical ethics.
And you have yet to demonstrate that NEED. That is why I keep asking for examples where this behaviour has effectively denied access to birth control.
So you would grant protection to a vendor who reduses to sell an item you don’t care for and force another vendor to sell an item that you like? There is an explicit right to bear arms in the constitution, the right to contraception is inferred. It seems like you apply the dfirst amendment based on how much you agree with the choices being made. That is antithetical to first amendment jurisprudencwe. You should not care what is being said, only whether there is a restriction on them saying it. So far I have not heard any compelling reason to restrict the pharmacist from saying it.
I don’t know if I would ultimately force pharamcists to dispense borth control pills under any scenario but at least there is some argument with the therapeutic use case. Your arguments have been mostly whiny “I wnat what I want, when i want it and screw anyone erlse’s rights” hogwash.
Jeez do I have to say everything three times using really small words?
First lets use a different example because the army is one of the palces where you don’t have first amendment rights. A soldier doesn’t have the right to say whatever he want. He cannot picket the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in his spare time, he cannot refuse to follow orders and simply quit.
But lets go with a religious whacko teacher who insist on teaching hisotry as if the world is only 5000 years old. The school district cannot fire her because they think she is an idiot for believing that the world is only 5000 years old, they have to prove that they cannot make a reqasoanble accomodation that would avoid an undue burden. You obviously can’t have her teach ancient history but if she can also teach chemistry then you have to do that. If she opens her own school, then she can teach that the eatrth is 5000 years old and that early man rode around on dinosaurs. In the case of the pharmacist the employee pharamicist has a first amendment right to not dispense birth control pills and absent a law on the matter, the employer must make reasonable accomodations to avoid an undue burden and if that is not possible, they may fire them. If that pharmacist opens their own pharmacy across the street, they can stock they don’t have to worry aboutn getting fired and they only have to worry about the outcome of the debate on this thread.
No, I don’t think so, because we already have a laws that prevent pharmacists from stealing scrip. We are talking about a law that would require pharmacists that would otherwise return scrip unfilled to stock and dispense birth control pills.
Like I said, I still have trouble dealing with the therapeutic use issue and frankly you are the first one to bring up the theratpeutic issue in response to my request. I think that a state law or regulation that required the birth control pill be made available for purchase because of its therapeutic value would probably be able to withstand constitutional challenge but not for any of the reasons that most of the proponents of forcing pharmacists to dispense would want.
As for the harm to the pharamcist. We are discussing a state action that would force a pharmacist to act contrary to their religious beliefs. That is the harm of adopting the position proposed by some on this board.
I don’t think so. I have to colpy by a code of ethics as well and at times those ethical rules trump my personal opinion but there is always an out. There is always a way to ethically and responaibly transfer my responsibility to another professional that is willing to do what I am not.
You have trouble dealing with it because the pharmacist should not be making medical decisions based on their religious beliefs. Since the pharmacist is not privy to the reason a prescription is issued, they should quite making guesses that potentially impact a person’s medical condition.
And there apparently isn’t a single pharmacist in NJ that found it harmful. No one has challenged the constitutionality of the requirement that they fill valid prescriptions. Therefore there is no harm to their ability to freely practice their religion. No one is saying that they cannot picket outside an abortion clinic, no one is saying that they can’t call the women getting bc prescriptions “whores” in their own mind, car or home. There is no harm, therefore fill the damn prescription.
Having totally given up on the (IMHO obvious) argument that Supreme Court precedent allows a state to require dispensing such drugs as part of licensing requirements, what really gets my goat is how these “reasonable” accomodations are (a) utterly selfish; and (b) impinge on the co-workers of the poor flower .
If there are 2 pharmacists present, the suggestion is always that one of them can be the person to prescribe these nasty, evil, wicked drugs. But what that means is that the religious pharmacist can only work when there are 2 pharmacists on duty - which means the crappy shifts, the graveyard ones, where only one pharmacist is on duty, end up automatically covered by the employee willing to fill all prescriptions.
This happens in all sorts of professions. A person may not want to work on Saturdays - why should they receive preferential treatment in terms of time off because it is for religious reasons as opposed to the die-hard Notre Dame fan who has finally got season tickets?
In every situation, someone is going to be inconvenienced. Even if there are always two pharmacists on, the customer is inconvenienced (however slightly) by the “righteou” pharmacist having to pass it on to the other pharmacist. There is always a loser. And ensuring that the religous beliefs are always on the winning side is, IMHO, the essence of establishment. Unfortunately case law disagrees with me at the moment. But, as I said earlier, case law also allows states to refuse to exempt people from generally applicable laws based on religious disagreements.
You don’t need a special liscence to sell an axe. Any retailer can. Which is not the case for prescription pharmaceuticals.
And putting aside the axes, for contraception, a prescription for a contraceptive is a document certifying the need for the contraceptive.
This is one of the cases where it’s the government’s place.
And whether he thinks he’s the condom police is subordinate to whatever the government decides on the matter - regardless of what he and his imaginary friend think.
And sometimes the government decides to do something about the problems of society. Sure, if it doesn’t, then I can be screwed over by somebody who discards his professional obligations in favor of his superstitions. Which is an argument for why the government should step in.
Here ya go:
The NEED in question is the need for birth control. (Or axes.) Contraceptives have been cited as the most popular selling item from pharmacies. Also, doctors prescribe the things - documented need. This need is undeniable.
Whether there is a need to use the government to get the religious people to act like professionals is of course a separate question; one that’s irrelevent to the discussion of whether the government could exercise power to bring the deviating physicians in line. Which is why I continue to blow off your red herring calls for cites.
First amendment jurisprudence says it’ll illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. When you pretend that the laws don’t respond to societal need you demonstrate have no goddamn idea what you’re talking about. (Not to mention you’re demonstrating complete incomprehension of the twisted and thorny mess that is second amendment jurisprudence.) EPIC FAIL.
And your arguments are nothing but hoary red herring bullshit and complete incomprehension of the extents of government authority. “The pharmacist cannot be controlled! He must prevail! Yaahh!” Please. :rolleyes:
In other words: “Sure it does - depending on the job.” Exactly like I said. Do I need to say it three times using smaller words?
Yah it do - fer sum jobs.
Yah it do - fer sum jobs.
Yah it do - fer sum jobs.
Are we clear now?
And yes - they only have to worry about whether the government decides to impose laws constraining the choices of pharmacists. You are exactly right.