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.
No, but it certainly addresses discrimination based on gender. Can you honestly say you believe that isn’t the case here?
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.
I can’t believe you honestly think this is the part of the issue that’s at question, here.
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.
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.
Der Trihs will not rise to the challenge of backing this up, any more than he’s responded to previous such requests.
I don’t understand your question.
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.
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)?
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? –
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.
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
“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.
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 (very very long & in-depth)
State Policies in Brief as of June 1, 2008 – Refusing to Provide Health Services, See also: State Policies in Brief as of June 1, 2008 – Emergency Contraception
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)?
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.”
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.
If one provides products for men, but refuses to provide products for women due to religion, how is that NOT discrimination ?
Nothing discriminatory about it. Men can’t get Plan B either, and women can have all the Viagra they want, I guess.
Are condoms products for women?
Ah, well, there are nonpharmaceutical solutions to that problem!
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.)
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.