At least I expect that to be the way this is soon portrayed. In summary, a Federal judge ruled (for the second time) that Washington cannot force pharmacies to stock Plan-B if they do not want to. Needless to say, I think it’s a good ruling as no business should be forced to provide a product they do not wish to sell. Anyway, in my opinion, a better summary can be found here, especially as it relates to the HHS mandate. The pertinent part is quoted:
Any possible foreshadowing between this ruling and whatever ruling comes out of the HHS mandate, should it make it to the courts?
Not the original ruling, no. The original ruling has to do with a law Washington passed in 2007 which stated that all pharmacies were required to sell Plan-B. But the argument adopted by the state (it’s not discriminatory because it applies equally to everyone) has also been argued in regards to the HHS mandate, so in a way you could take the case as to giving insight into how a potential court would rule if the mandate ever progressed to the issue where it goes to court.
It’s to punish the woman of course. That’s all the whole “anti-abortion” movement is about.
Of course it is, that’s why they do it. Especially when they take the prescription from the women, then announce they won’t give her what’s on the prescription or hand the prescription back to her so she can go elsewhere.
As for me, I think that they should be forced to supply what women need regardless of their bigotry, and completely banned from all aspects of the medical industry for life if they refuse.
By which argument all pharmacists should be forced to keep their shops open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Because if they ever decide to close they are denying women treatment. They should also be forced to make house calls, because if they don’t then women who are housebound, or just don’t have the money for a cab, won’t be able to use the service . Not only that, but all treatments should be free. Because if you ask for money, some people won’t be denied the service. And so on and so forth for every circumstance that might prevent someone from utilising a service.
This is of course a total nonsense. Choosing not to offer a service is not denial of service. Denial of service refers to preventing someone from gaining access to a service that actually exists. It doesn’t refer to services that only exist in potentia.
Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
There is a very large difference between asking that a medication is kept in stock vs. compelling a person to make house calls.
No where did the law, nor I claim that, it was a fiction created in order to improve your argument.
A has position X.
B presents position Y which is a distorted version of X.
B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false.
Strawman
An intentional choice to not stock a medication due to non-business is an intentional act to deprive service.
They may have that right, we will see once this moves up, this was only a District Judge.
As someone who lives about a mile down the road from the grocery store that brought this suit, i’d just like to say that they’re easily the most expensive store in the entire Olympia area, that their products are on average $1-2 more expensive for the exact same products by the same brand than at their competitors, that their store brand is the same crap brand I can get for half the price at Grocery Outlet, that the times i’ve been in the store they never ever had enough cashiers on duty for the volume of customers they had, and that for those reasons I wouldn’t willingly shop there even if they weren’t anti-women jackholes.
There is a rather nice sushi counter attached to the building, though.
A false analogy, since being closed doesn’t discriminate. In order for that analogy to work they’d have to be closed only for women but still let men in.
The anti-choice movement is a hate movement, and closer in nature to the slavers than to the anti-slavery movement.
