No, I can’t, because I know that they do. One is my cousin, who was a student at California University of Pennsylvania, and did not have a car. She was but one of many. There are two pharmacies in California, PA which is in a rather exurban, isolated area. One, the small, locally owned pharmacy, does not fill prescriptions for HBC and the college health service and the local doctors tell patients that. What do you think happened when the chain pharmacy hired a new head pharmacist who liked to play delay and obfuscate games with HBC prescriptions?
If X were true, then there would be a problem. In this case X is if there is only one pharmacy in town. Well that isn’t good enough. You need a one horse town where the pharmacist is a religious whacko. I haven’t seen any examples of this sort of situation. You are creating a sense of urgency with a hypothetical situation.
Ahh, yes it was. The pill is different than pork and I suspect that the courts would find that refusing to sell the pill is different than discrimination.
I think we have gotten to the point where we can agree that it is up to the state. I don’t think we have much of a debate anymore. The answer is that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense the pill unless the state tells them otherwise.
I have no idea what happened. A spike in condom sales? A spike in pregnancies and abortions? A spike in cold showers?
This is similar to villa’s arguments above. There are a few differences here, not the least of which is that birth control is legal, while shooting your husband is not. Also, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, there are other uses for the birth control pill aside from contraception, and the pharmacist does not know why the pills were prescribed.
But I do see a clear difference between giving you pills and telling you where you can get them. If I give you information (about where the pill is available), what you do with that information is completely up to you.
But fine, if you’re so concerned with his integrity – then don’t require the pharmacist to provide a referral either. Just put a sign on the door and at the counter.
First, what is the action? The pharmacy is deliberately not acting. Second, you have not established discrimination, unless the pharmacy is selling birth control to someone else. Maybe if they carried condoms but not the pill you would have a case.
If a company never hires ANYBODY, is that a case of discrimination?
That’s one of the most weasly descriptions I have ever heard. I told you from the first moment that was the legal situation. You spent pages denying it. So I guess, yes, “we have gotten to th[at] point” that you mention. :rolleyes:
There were two debates:
(1) Should the government require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for birth control?
(2) Can the government constitutionally require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for birht control?
I guess I should celebrate you finally noticing the answer to (2) is yes. (1) is still very much a matter of debate - I happen to think the answer is yes, but I can see why people can think the opposite in good faith.
I don’t see a difference. If I sell you the pills, then what you do with the pills is completely up to you.
If I give you pills, then what you do with the pills is completely up to you. You could use them as doorstops in a doll house for all I know. Its a bogus distinction.
I wasn’t the one suggesting that he should have to give a referral. I believe you were. I was trying to point out how it is an indefensible contradiction. And if you mean a sign on the counter, why should a private pharmacist be required to have his property used to advertise a place where people can get a product he finds sinful? It is still involving him in the sin.
The thing is, you think the government can require referrals, or signs, because you accept that the government has a right to act to require the pharmacist to be involved in some way with the supply of birth control.
I think a pharmacist could legitimately defend the selling of the pill by saying to himself “I don’t know what she’s using them for; that’s her business.” So I think we agree on that.
I can also understand the train of thought that says “I don’t want to be in the business of profiting from birth control. I won’t sell it, and if someone asks for it, I’ll direct them elsewhere.” It would not be a crisis of conscience to refer the customer in this line of reasoning.
And, as I said pages ago, the reason for not selling BC is a red herring. I really don’t care if it’s a religous argument if it’s because the pharmacist’s brother operates an ice cream truck and needs a constant supply of new customers. The pharmacist’s motivation is completely irrelevent in my view.
I wasn’t saying he should, I was saying it was reasonable to require.
Actually I just meant a sign indicating that birth control was not sold here, I wasn’t thinking the sign would include directions to the competing pharmacy.
Well clearly the government can do these things, because some states have passed laws restricting the rights of the pharmacists in some cases. But I don’t think the government should. However, requiring signs or referrals is less of an abridgement of their rights than requiring them to carry the contraceptives is.
Well, if a bartender refuses to serve you because you are black then that is still discrimination even though the abrtender is pointedly not doing something. In this case, I suspect taht the pharmacist would refuse to fill the prescription even if a man showed up with the prescription. The impact of the refusal to fill the prescription may have a more profound effect on women but that doesn’t make it discrimination.
Wait a minute I said more or less the same thing that you have been saying all along and somehow it is weasely when I say it? WTF?
And what would be the good faith reason for thinking the opposite?
It is weaselly when you spend pages arguing something that is palpably wrong, then turn round, when you finally realize the error of your argument, and portray it as coming to a point of agreement. The impression you gave was that you were presenting it as a middle ground reached over discussion.
I think it is possible, in good faith, though incorrectly, to think that a pharmacist’s individual moral code, however foolishly grounded in my opinion, should permit him or her to refuse to stock a particular medication. I don’t think it is necessarily based on a negative view towards women, though the effects are definitely negative to women. However, often in this thread, that negative view of women was demonstrated.
I’m sorry, I thought realizing my error was the perfect time to drop my argument. Should I have stuck to my guns and pointed out all the reasons why I would distinguish the Employment case from the current case? I can if you want. I just thought that the analysis in the Employment case (if extended to this case,and like I said, the cases are distinguishable) was applicable enough to the current case to make my argument weak enough not to pursue. Or am I supposed to endure some walk of shame before I can drop my argument? I don’t post here very often so I don’t know the protocol. Am I allowed to call you a twit in great debates or do I have to take that to the pit?
I think it is more accurate to say that often in this thread, a negative view of women was PERCIEVED.
Don’t be a poor winner.
Don’t demonstrate it and I won’t perceive it. Promise.
A lot of young women were incapable of getting medication that they were prescribed by their health care providers, had to try to get rides to the next nearest pharmacy, 25 minutes away, had to try to get prescriptions filled and mailed to them by their parents and were otherwise inconvenienced and subjected to addition expense to satisfy the whims of one woman who shouldn’t have taken a job in a pharmacy in a college town and thought she wouldn’t have to fill birth control prescriptions.
interesting note: Catholic Pro-life pharmacy goes out of business in VA
It shows two things:
- They stuck to their guns. Many people here said these type of guys would compromise.
- If the business model doesn’t work, buh-bye.
More correctly, we said enough of these guys would compromise to avoid areas being devoid of pharmaceutical access. Which I think hasn’t been disproven yet.
And no love lost in its passing.
That’s why I said “IF”. IF means it IS hypothetical, for the sake of argument. Is it possible? Yes it is. Is it probable? No it’s not. I live in the L.A area, so here it’s no problem. IF I lived in NoPlaceTown BibleBeltStateInMiddleONowhere, then it might be an issue.
But then, there is the whackjob who will a) refuse to sell and b) refuse to refer or transfer and c) takes the prescription - and that has already happened (as cited by somebody else).