# "Pro-life" pharmacies **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 16, 2008, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086 "2008-06-16T06:42:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/121 "2008-06-17T21:14:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Nowhere does the federal constitution, or federal law, address recalciotrant pharmacists. **nyctea scandiaca** hysterically asks why allowing pharmacist choice doesn’t imply racial discrimnation, and that’s the answer. [/QUOTE] Only if one is using your there-is-no-morality-only-the-law attitude. I’m sure you’d have cheerfully defended slavery when it was legal. Just because the abuse of women has more support than racism in America doesn’t make it right. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/122 "2008-06-17T21:15:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Nowhere does the federal constitution, or federal law, address recalciotrant pharmacists. **nyctea scandiaca** hysterically asks why allowing pharmacist choice doesn’t imply racial discrimnation, and that’s the answer. [/QUOTE] No, but it certainly addresses discrimination based on gender. Can you honestly say you believe that isn’t the case here? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/123 "2008-06-17T21:40:22Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] No, but it certainly addresses discrimination based on gender. Can you honestly say you believe that isn’t the case here? [/QUOTE] While I agree this is based on a mindset towards women, it is going to be very hard to show that it is discriminatory against women in a legal sense, because the pharmacy is not providing condoms or female contraceptive methods. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/124 "2008-06-17T21:50:06Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] OK. Because in this country we have a comfortable majority consensus that racial discrimination should be prohibited by law. We do not have such a consensus about forcing pharamacists to dispense all products. In short, then: it’s not illegal because not enough people agree with her view. [/QUOTE] I can’t believe you honestly think this is the part of the issue that’s at question, here. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/125 "2008-06-17T22:36:36Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Only if one is using your there-is-no-morality-only-the-law attitude. I’m sure you’d have cheerfully defended slavery when it was legal. [/QUOTE] I’m sure he would not. He has many times shown that he is capable of recognizing bad laws or the need for better ones, for example in his support of equal marriage rights, and he also seems to adhere closely to a personal code which goes beyond an amoral legalistic perspective. I think saying he’d blindly support slavery is a pretty serious accusation and you should be able to back it up if you’re going to make it. Even in this case, he’s said that despite his Catholicism he doesn’t believe in denying contraceptives to anyone who wants them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/126 "2008-06-17T22:53:44Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Only if one is using your there-is-no-morality-only-the-law attitude. I’m sure you’d have cheerfully defended slavery when it was legal. Just because the abuse of women has more support than racism in America doesn’t make it right. [/QUOTE] What does make something right? Your opinion? We can debate endlessly what is the universal “right” for a given situation. We may never agree. On the other hand, the objective reality of what’s legal and what’s not legal is undeniable. And it cuts against you here, so it doesn’t surprise me that you wish to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/127 "2008-06-17T22:55:09Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] I’m sure he would not. He has many times shown that he is capable of recognizing bad laws or the need for better ones, for example in his support of equal marriage rights, and he also seems to adhere closely to a personal code which goes beyond an amoral legalistic perspective. I think saying he’d blindly support slavery is a pretty serious accusation and you should be able to back it up if you’re going to make it. Even in this case, he’s said that despite his Catholicism he doesn’t believe in denying contraceptives to anyone who wants them. [/QUOTE] **Der Trihs** will not rise to the challenge of backing this up, any more than he’s responded to previous such requests. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/128 "2008-06-17T22:56:11Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] No, but it certainly addresses discrimination based on gender. Can you honestly say you believe that isn’t the case here? [/QUOTE] I don’t understand your question. ---
**Author:** ![JayRx1981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71e660/32.png) [@JayRx1981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JayRx1981)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/129 "2008-06-18T00:30:48Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] If it wasn’t obvious, it wasn’t my intent to suggest a pharmacist should dispense drugs s/he knows will kill or injure the patient. Obviously, if I come in with a scrip for an antibiotic you know I’ll be allergic to, you’re not just going to send me on my merry way with death pills. Similarly, people have to pay for your service. [/quote] I gathered as much, but your statement did serve to show just how careful one would have to be in writing a law like this, else one could take it much further than it was intended to go (similar to Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban being briefly applied to non-married heterosexual couples in cases of domestic abuse). I don’t believe that a state _can’t_ require a pharmacist to dispense, but rather that the state shouldn’t because crafting a law that doesn’t overreach (or one that is so limited as to be useless) is incredibly difficult. Especially given that this particular “problem” is actually fairly limited in scope (you may hear about it often, but I assure you that the number of pharmacists who will not dispense plan b, let alone ALL contraceptives is fairly small) and I just don’t see the need for a law just yet. > [@](#): > > However, that’s a pharmacist’s job, and I would presume is part of the law and the various regulations that govern the profession. \*\*Moral \*\* judgments concerning medications are not, and should not be permitted by the licensing bodies. Would you hold the same position were the issue something like dispensing medications for euthanasia? How about a refusal to fill a prescription because a patient was incredibly rude to a pharmacist and/or his staff (I mean of the cursing/threatening variety, not the stand and talk on your cellphone loudly variety)? ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Cymbeline](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_cymbeline/32/9244_2.png) [@Green\_Cymbeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Cymbeline)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/130 "2008-06-18T02:44:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] We do not have such a consensus about forcing pharamacists to dispense all products. In short, then: it’s not illegal because not enough people agree with her view. [/QUOTE] That is changing - many states have adopted or are considering such laws on both sides of the debate. [From this article: Conscientious Objection: A Pharmacist’s Right or Professional Negligence?](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551238) – > [@](#): > > [As of 2006] Illinois passed an emergency rule in 2005 requiring a pharmacist to dispense contraception subsequent to a legitimate prescription. California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can refuse to dispense them only when their employer approves the refusal and the patient can still access the medication elsewhere in a timely manner. > … > [Also as of 2006]…11 proposed bills expressly prohibit the pharmacist’s right to refuse, or impose fines on those who do… Of course there are states which have the opposite laws – allowing pharmacists the “right to refuse” to fill prescriptions based on conscientious objection. So it’s a mix right now. (I am looking for more recent data…) It’s just like anything else, people will come around… blacks won their freedom from slavery; blacks and women gained the right to vote; anti-discrimination laws were passed; multi-racial couples gained the right to marry; gays have gained the right to marry in 2 states and I am sure that will eventually spread throughout the country. These things take time. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Cymbeline](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_cymbeline/32/9244_2.png) [@Green\_Cymbeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Cymbeline)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/131 "2008-06-18T03:00:27Z")
Here’s a bit more recent info. There may be more new laws passed during states’ 2008 session, I’m still looking… As of November 2007, from [here – Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Legislation](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ConscienceClauses.htm) “Duty to dispense” laws – Illinois requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. – California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner. – New Jersey prohibits pharmacists for refusing to fill prescriptions solely on moral, religious or ethical grounds (effective November 2007) My point is that, **Bricker** , the following statement isn’t exactly true: [QUOTE=Bricker] We do not have such a consensus about forcing pharamacists to dispense all products. In short, then: it’s not illegal because not enough people agree with her view. [/QUOTE] In these states, at least, it is illegal. I’m willing to bet that within the next 20 years, all the rest of the states will follow suit. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Cymbeline](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_cymbeline/32/9244_2.png) [@Green\_Cymbeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Cymbeline)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/132 "2008-06-18T03:25:02Z")
A couple more good links on this issue, since I was Googling anyway… [Pharmacists and the “duty” to dispense emergency contraceptives by Jennifer E. Spreng, J.D., Spring 2008](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6875/is_3_23/ai_n25432072/print) (very very long & in-depth) [State Policies in Brief as of June 1, 2008 – Refusing to Provide Health Services](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf), See also: [State Policies in Brief as of June 1, 2008 – Emergency Contraception](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_EC.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/133 "2008-06-18T03:58:53Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t understand your question. [/QUOTE] This pharmacy is apparently refusing to carry anything related to womens’ sexual health - but does carry ED medication. You don’t think that’s a pretty clear cut case of discrimination (actionable or not)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/134 "2008-06-18T11:09:24Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] This pharmacy is apparently refusing to carry anything related to womens’ sexual health - but does carry ED medication. You don’t think that’s a pretty clear cut case of discrimination (actionable or not)? [/QUOTE] No, unless you’re using the **Diogenes the Cynic** method of defining words to fit your argument. And if you are then I have no idea what you might mean by “discrimination.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/135 "2008-06-18T11:24:28Z")
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca] Here’s a bit more recent info. There may be more new laws passed during states’ 2008 session, I’m still looking… As of November 2007, from [here – Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Legislation](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ConscienceClauses.htm) “Duty to dispense” laws – Illinois requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. – California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner. – New Jersey prohibits pharmacists for refusing to fill prescriptions solely on moral, religious or ethical grounds (effective November 2007) My point is that, **Bricker** , the following statement isn’t exactly true:In these states, at least, it is illegal. I’m willing to bet that within the next 20 years, all the rest of the states will follow suit. [/QUOTE] So in three of fifty states, it’s true. (And even in California, the measure refers to prescriptions only - non-prescription items, such as condoms and the “morning after” pill are not covered by California’s law.) My statement stands. If your bet comes true in 20 years, I’ll certainly concede the point. RIGHT NOW, it being true in three-ish states, not fifty, I say that there exists no national consensus for your view. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/136 "2008-06-18T13:05:22Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] No, unless you’re using the **Diogenes the Cynic** method of defining words to fit your argument. And if you are then I have no idea what you might mean by “discrimination.” [/QUOTE] If one provides products for men, but refuses to provide products for women due to religion, how is that NOT discrimination ? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/137 "2008-06-18T13:18:13Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] If one provides products for men, but refuses to provide products for women due to religion, how is that NOT discrimination ? [/QUOTE] Nothing discriminatory about it. Men can’t get Plan B either, and women can have all the Viagra they want, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/138 "2008-06-18T13:35:55Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] If one provides products for men, but refuses to provide products for women due to religion, how is that NOT discrimination ? [/QUOTE] Are condoms products for women? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/139 "2008-06-18T13:42:46Z")
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca] Well I can’t answer that, but I do know how the pill causes the spread of STDs: It enables unmarried women to have unmarried sex \ and everyone knows that unmarried sex is sinful and results in STDs (and sometimes bastard children - oh wait, the pill _does_ prevent that). In other words, if women are able to control their bodies and their fertility, it will turn them into sex-crazed horndogs who will go out humping everything in sight. [/QUOTE] Ah, well, there are [nonpharmaceutical solutions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy) to **that** problem! ---
**Author:** ![starryspice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@starryspice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starryspice)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086/140 "2008-06-19T01:52:55Z")
[QUOTE=Icerigger] \ It was never about babies. [/QUOTE] Um, yes, it was. At least, for me it is. I am not Catholic and I completely agree with the OP. I love birth control and support it being dispensed to whoever needs it. However, this comment makes no sense to me. I am pro-life because I believe a fetus’ life begins at 10-14 weeks when the brain starts to function, and presumably the fetus can begin to feel pain. If I had my way, I’d make abortion illegal (except in the cases of incest or where the mother’s life is endangered) after 14 weeks. Probably most pro-lifers don’t think quite like me, but I do think the life of the baby is relevant to the pro-life movement. (But maybe not the Catholic pro-life movement.) [QUOTE=Der Trihs] And, there is the hatred Christianity has always shown women. [/QUOTE] Ha, that’s hardly something that Christianity can claim to itself. No religion has ever respected women as equals of men, not even Buddhism, and it could be argued that no society has either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-pharmacies/453086.md?page=8)