Most physicians are not qualified to perform induced abortions. All pharmacists are qualified to dispense birth control.
But that’s not particularly helpful for someone in a small town that only has one pharmacy. I agree that for the most part, market action is preferable to gov’t action, however there are just times when the market is not efficient.
If the Muslim is the owner of the grocery store and refuses to stock liquor, no problem. If you own the library and refuse to stock fiction, no problem. If you or the Muslim are employed by others, you must conduct your business as they have instructed you or face termination.
Also, what if you live in a more conservative area and the big mega Wal-Pharm has opened up and is able to drastically reduce prices to get more business? Within a year they become the only game in town. Ideally, the market place would be preferable, but unfortunately in the real world it doesn’t always work.
Well, the question has been asked – is one pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception better or worse than no pharmacy at all?
You personally won those “victories”? Wow. :dubious:
Note that according to the National Women’s Law Center, seven states explicitly forbid pharmacies from refusing to fill valid prescriptions (which includes those for contraceptives). They cite four states allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for any reason.
"Most states in the US have regulations that implicitly impose a duty on the pharmacist to dispense all legally valid and medically
appropriate prescriptions regardless of their personal beliefs. Seven states also explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to
ensure that valid prescriptions are filled. Seven states have policies that prohibit a pharmacist from obstructing patient access to
medication or from refusing to transfer or refer prescriptions to another pharmacy. Only four states permit refusals without any
patient protections.
© 2009 National Women’s Law Center; January 2009 update
Here’s an article about the situation in Virginia (one of those four states where pharmacies can get away with refusing to fill prescriptions for anything at all on the basis of “conscience”). There are supposed a grand total of 7 pharmacies nationwide certified by an anti-abortion rights group for refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions.
“Earlier this year in Wisconsin, a state appeals court upheld sanctions against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a woman and wouldn’t transfer her prescription elsewhere…The Virginia store’s policy has drawn scorn from some abortion rights groups, who have already called for a boycott and collected more than 1,000 signatures protesting the pharmacy…Robert Laird, executive director of Divine Mercy Care, believes many of the estimated 50,000 Catholics within a few miles of the store will support its mission and make up for the roughly 10 percent of business that contraceptives represent in a typical pharmacy.”
So, the bottom line is how many pharmacies will write off at least 10% of their business, not counting the sales lost when customers boycott their stores. I’m betting not all that many.
Interesting how certain right-wing elements get all up in arms about the government getting in the way of the doctor-patient relationship, but don’t see a problem with the pharmacist obstructing health care.
Show me a pharmacy that has closed because its principals didn’t want to supply birth control and that question will deserve an answer.
Through licensing, the government kinda owns the entire pharmaceutical industry. You work at their discretion.
In other words, you oppose racism, but sexism and religious bigotry not aimed at race is fine.
That is exactly the sort of reasoning that could have been used to excuse segregation. What if there aren’t any pharmacies that will dispense what you need/want? What if you need that medicine right now?
As for my opinion; I think they should be required to dispense any legal product they have, and to keep in stock commonly in demand products like birth control pills whether they like it or not. And if they refuse, they should be banned from any aspect of medicine whatsoever, since they clearly are willing to put their prejudices above peoples medical needs.
Nonsense. You can just subsist on the people who need medicine to function, or survive. And you’ll be hurting people in the meantime. The free market model doesn’t work with medicine, for that reason among others.
That’s an argument for nationalizing the industry then. If private industry simply refuses to do the job properly, that’s the point where you just have the government do it instead.
What if to be able to use the term “Library” I have to get certification from the state and promise to carry both fiction and non-fiction. A few years down the line I ‘see the light’ and convert and now realize that fiction is the root of all evil. I stop carrying fiction titles. The state has to study the problem or perhaps the state now has officials sympathetic to the view that fiction is evil and don’t do anything about it. Or the case gets stuck in the court system for years/decades while both sides argue and bicker before deciding what the term ‘library’ means. Whie all that is going on, how many Joe Smoe’s are left out in the cold while unable to get access to what they want.
Well, only dirty whores read fiction anyway, so it’s no problem.
Some here seem to think a pharmacist should be let go if they refuse to sell birth control. Continue debating the moral virtue of that but realize it is not likely! Pharmacists are in very, very high demand. I seriously doubt any company would fire a pharmacist for refusing to sell a single product.
I have known of pharmacists that have been caught stealing drugs or having open affairs with the techs and yet they keep their jobs.
On a related note, should pregnant pharmacists be punished if they refuse to sell certain drugs because of the harmful effects handling them could potentially have on the fetus (like finasteride).
Assuming that there’s a real danger, then no, that’s different. A genuine, objective threat to health isn’t the same thing as an arbitrary principle you are imposing on someone else.
I’m actually neither right-wing or conservative, but what I oppose is the government interfering with the pharmacist’s right to condust business as she sees fit. She’s not “obstructing health care” unless she is the only possible source of that presciption, which would be very rare.
If you want to talk about nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, that’s a debate we can have and I might not even object (but good luck convincing the Republicans!). But as it stands currently, the industry is not nationalized.
Why would the government have an interest in abridging your rights like that? People can get their fiction elsewhere. Joe Smoe can get his condoms or oral contraceptives (well… not his) at another pharmacy – even if he has to drive to the next town over.
Well the government interferes with the pharmacist’s “right” to conduct business as she sees fit in multiple ways. The government makes her serve black people, for example. It requires her to be qualified, for example. It stops her spiking the antibiotics for the kids with that extra little kick of angel dust. None of these things are considered radical infringements on the pharmacist’s “right” to conduct business as she sees fit.
But tell her she has to provide people with birth control pills, and suddenly the world is ending.
That’s life. Suppose this small town didn’t have a pharmacy at all? Can we forcibly relocate Chicago pharmacists to Homer, Illinois (a town with neither a pharmacy nor a public transportation system)? Is it wiser public policy to prefer no pharmacist at all in such a town versus a non-contraception-selling pharmacist?
As to Villa’s claim, supra, that no First Amendment right is implicated, I direct him to Yoder v. Wisconsin (Amish not required to comply with Wisconsin’s law requiring either public or private secondary education for religious reasons). Here a law of obvious social value was held not to apply as an impingement of free exercise rights. Note also that this holding by the Supreme Court is one that allows the rights-exercising party to affect the lives of another (namely, for parents to keep their high-school aged children out of any form of high school).
Why should he have to drive to the nect town? And what if the next town has the same laws? What should he/she do then?
Or a Jehovah Wintness doctor who refuses to give blood transfusions?
Imagine - a doctor who is also Christian Scientist. Not too swift.
Why would anyone go into a job, knowing what the job involves, if they have some religious/philosophical/ethical objection to what the job entails?
Would a conscientious objector volunteer for the Marines? Would a devout anarchist join the Police Department? Would the CEO of PETA work in a meat packing plant?
If you KNOW the job conditions, and if you KNOW you object to them. DON’T Take the job.
And I’d like to direct Kimmy_Gibbler to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), a much more recent case, and, especially given the fact that the opinion was written by Justice Scalia, who I would inform Kimmy_Gibbler is still on the Court, unlike any of the Justices who ruled on Yoder, seems likelty therefore to give a better indication of the Court’s current position on Free Exercise issues.
While Smith doesn’t explicitly overrule Yoder, it makes such a decision much harder to contemplate in the current environment. To look at the case very narrowly, while a state may choose to accomodate a person’s religious beliefs and exempt them from a law of general applicability, there is no requirement to so do. So if a law of general applicability required pharmacists to fill properly issued prescriptions for oral birth control, for example, there is no constitutional requirement to allow the pharmacist a free pass on said law for crying religion.
I’d also like to direct Kimmy_Gibbler to the states that, as mentioned, have laws requiring pharmacies to dispense such products. I am not aware of a successful federal suit under Yoder invalidating such laws, but perhaps Kimmy_Gibler can direct me to one.
It’s certainly regulated, though, which means that in choosing to be a pharmacist you have explicitly accepted the government’s authority to tell you how to do business. If you don’t like that, well, my boss tells me that if I want to be employed, I have to do my work. Can I decide otherwise on a whim? If I can’t, why can they?