# They're coming for your Plan-B **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711 "2012-02-23T06:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**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:** [February 29, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/241 "2012-02-29T22:57:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, there was the Connecticut law about selling contraceptives that _Grriswold_ addressed. but you’ve put the shoe on the other foot: in this country, the default position is that people may do what they please. Why are you asking me for laws that explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to sell something? Absent a law compelling them to do so, pharmacists have always had that right. They clearly haven’t, since states have found it necessary to extend abortion “conscience clauses” to cover pharmacists over the last 15 years. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/242 "2012-02-29T23:02:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Nah, it’s an honest to goodness monopoly. Anybody who isn’t a licensed pharmacist cannot dispense medicines. More to the point newer competitors can’t just decide to forgo government approval and sell their services on the open market. 100% of those able to sell medicines must be licensed by the government. That makes it an ironclad monopoly. OK, so when you say monopoly, I assume you aren’t really talking about [Monopoly - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) (because that would be silly) but about [Government-granted monopoly - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly). in which case you are still overstating your case. Having licensing requirements is not what anyone considers a monopoly of any sort. Every state will license anyone that fulfills the requirements to become a pharmacist. Most states even have schools where they will teach you everything you need to know to fulfill those requirements. So a pharmacist has about as much of a monopoly on dispensing medicine as a doctor has on prescribing medicine or performing abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/243 "2012-02-29T23:56:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why are you asking me for laws that explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to sell something? Absent a law compelling them to do so, pharmacists have always had that right. No, I asked how exactly “the rules of the pharmacy game” were changed “in a way that was not disclosed to the existing pharmacists when they chose their professions” (to quote you). Since there hasn’t been any rule of licensure that permitted pharmacists to pick and choose what customers to serve based on “conscience”, states that have mandated the filling of legal prescriptions are not changing “the pharmacy game”; that’s nonsense. > [@Bricker](#): > > And the answer to your court clerk question is already given: they are employees. They are free to object; the court system is free to fire them. Similarly, if Walgreen’s says, “Fill Plan B orders,” and a pharmacist says know, Walgreens should absolutely be free to fire him. It’s a pity that businesses that used to discriminate didn’t pursue this dodge. The counterman at a restaurant could have said that his Bible-based religion made it a matter of conscience not to serve blacks, and if his boss didn’t want to fire him as a result, no problemo. How could you take away the liberty of the counterman by “changing the rules of the game”? Except we did, as a matter of both liberty and justice. > [@Bricker](#): > > I know you can still claim conscientious objector with respect to your selective Service registration, but was unaware you could volunteer for the armed forces but demand conscientious objector status. Cite? > **[404 Not Found ❮ GI Rights Hotline: Military Discharges and Military Counseling](https://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge/)** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/244 "2012-03-01T00:06:27Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > [404 Not Found ❮ GI Rights Hotline: Military Discharges and Military Counseling](http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-process) But you’re discharged, so you’re no longer a “government employee”. That was the jumping off place from your post earlier: > [@](#): > > Jackmannii]…being a government employee does not always oblige one to follow the government’s stated mission? For instance, even in the volunteer armed services soldiers can be granted conscientious objector status. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/245 "2012-03-01T00:19:56Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > No, I asked how exactly “the rules of the pharmacy game” were changed “in a way that was not disclosed to the existing pharmacists when they chose their professions” (to quote you). Since there hasn’t been any rule of licensure that permitted pharmacists to pick and choose what customers to serve based on “conscience”, states that have mandated the filling of legal prescriptions are not changing “the pharmacy game”; that’s nonsense. Um… what?!? The original state of the law was that pharmacists could refuse. While there was no explicit rule permitting it, the absence of a rule meant that they could. When the state changed it, they changed the rules. I don’t know how you could possibly mistake this. When Joe P. decided to become a pharmacist, the rule set in place permitted him to refuse to sell contraceptives – even though there was no explicit rule permitting him to refuse. That’s because in our country, we don’t need a law permitting activity for it to be legal. Surely you understand this point. If your town passes a law forbidding rose bushes on private property, you are entitled to characterize that as “changing the rules” even though there was no previous law explicitly permitting rose bushes on private property. If your employer announces that henceforth everyone must address him as “Sir,” on pain of firing, that’s changing the rules of your employment – even though there was no previous rule forbidding anyone from addressing him as “Sir.” Do you understand now? > [@](#): > > It’s a pity that businesses that used to discriminate didn’t pursue this dodge. The counterman at a restaurant could have said that his Bible-based religion made it a matter of conscience not to serve blacks, and if his boss didn’t want to fire him as a result, no problemo. How could you take away the liberty of the counterman by “changing the rules of the game”? > > Except we did, as a matter of both liberty and justice. Yes. Because we decided, as a society, that this was an issue worth infringing the personal liberty of the counterman. I don’t agree that the Plan B issue rises to that level. But states certainly have the plenary power to do it, if they wish. > [@](#): > > [404 Not Found ❮ GI Rights Hotline: Military Discharges and Military Counseling](http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-process) Thanks for this information. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/246 "2012-03-01T00:23:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They clearly haven’t, since states have found it necessary to extend abortion “conscience clauses” to cover pharmacists over the last 15 years. Huh? States have extended those laws in order to combat contrary moves made by administrative bodies. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/247 "2012-03-01T02:12:04Z")
No. The first conscience clause laws were passed in response to Roe v. Wade. They have been extended to prevent employers from disciplining pharmacists for “conscience-based refusals”, and because of the introduction of emergency contraception. It simply wasn’t an issue before. As far as I can tell, the first time the issue was litigated was 2002, when Neil Noesen was disciplined by the state pharmacy board for such a refusal (and refusing to transfer the prescription). From the WI Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the disciplinary action: > [@](#): > > There is no doubt about, or challenge to, the sincerity of Noesen’s > religious convictions under the first prong. However, the circuit court noted, the > discipline imposed here only requires Noesen “to make the extent of his religious > belief and objections known to his employer before the commencement of his > practice at the pharmacy. This will facilitate, rather than burden, [Noesen’s] > ability to exercise his conscientious objection in the future.” We agree with the > circuit court’s analysis—Noesen has not shown, as required by the second prong > of the test, that he is burdened by the application of a standard of care, WIS. > ADMIN. CODE § Phar 10.03(2), or the discipline imposed by the Board. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/248 "2012-03-01T02:22:26Z")
States have extended those laws in order to combat contrary moves made by administrative or judicial bodies. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/249 "2012-03-01T02:39:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Does your statement apply to doctors that will perform D&C procedures for miscarriages but not for abortions. Does your statement apply to lawyers who refuse to represent rapists. Does your statement apply to priests who refuse to marry homosexuals. If they start trying to bully people, then yes. If they are inappropriately using their power to further a political agenda, then yes. And I should think that any lawyer, or doctor would find their behavior unseemly in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/250 "2012-03-01T03:24:42Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > If they are inappropriately using their power to further a political agenda, then yes. I know! Like the way the Board announced a rule allowing pharmacists to refuse based on their conscience, and Governor Gregoire responded by reminding the Board that she could fire them all, and then demanding that they withdraw their rule and substitute the one drafted by Planned Parenthood. I mean, that’s just totally using power to further a political agenda, right? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/251 "2012-03-01T03:30:12Z")
The difference being that one political agenda is “don’t let pharmacists try to impose their religious views on other people’s medical treatments” and the other is “let pharmacists impose their religious views on other people’s medical treatments.” The two are not equivelant and are not “playing politics” in the same sense of the phrase, at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/252 "2012-03-01T04:00:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The difference being that one political agenda is “don’t let pharmacists try to impose their religious views on other people’s medical treatments” and the other is “let pharmacists impose their religious views on other people’s medical treatments.” > > The two are not equivelant and are not “playing politics” in the same sense of the phrase, at all. Or. The two views are “Government, don’t infringe on the personal freedom of people,” vs. “Government, infringe on the personal freedom of people.” All depends on how you phrase it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/253 "2012-03-01T04:08:34Z")
You’re mangling the word “personal” to try to make it mean “controlling what other people do.”. This is the fundamental flaw behind most claims that those unable to impose their religious views on others are somehow having _their_ religious freedom violated. Personal freedoms are, obviously, personal. Do you want to use Plan B? Then go ahead. Don’t want to? Don’t have to. Does Suzy want to use Plan B and you don’t want her to? No, it’s not your “personal freedom” to try to stop her from doing so. You can cast the discussion accurately, but trying to claim that Bob’s attempts to do his part to thwart Suzy getting her legally prescribed medicine is an exercise of his “personal freedom” is Orwellian. Bob giving out vicodin like candy to anybody without a prescription is no more his “personal freedom” than refusing to give legally prescribed medicines is. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/254 "2012-03-01T04:15:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view of wise social policy, we begin every consideration with the primary concept of preserving ordered individual liberty. If providing Plan B medication is a critical state goal, then the state should either perform it directly or hire agents to perform it on their behalf. This kind of solution preserves individual liberty – no one needs to accept a state job handing it out if they do not wish to; no business needs to accept a state contract to distribute it if they don’t wish to. Undoubtedly many will, and the state can fulfill its goal in that way. > > By piling a previously unstated legal obligation on pharmacists, the state restricts their liberty; it changes the rules of the pharmacy game in a way that was not disclosed to the existing pharmacists when they chose their professions. That’s a policy position, not a constitutional argument. And it’s much of the way to a (policy) argument for socializing pharmacies for the public welfare. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/255 "2012-03-01T04:16:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > States have extended those laws in order to combat contrary moves made by administrative or judicial bodies. If you mean Roe v. Wade, then sure. You’re looking at this from a rather strange perspective; let’s simplify. Griswold established that women had the legal right to obtain and use contraception. State laws establish that pharmacists must fill legal prescriptions. Absent a specific exemption, pharmacists did not have the right to refuse to fill a legal prescription. Conscience clauses are not restoring prior status quo, as you imply; they are granting a new right. > [@](#): > > That’s a policy position, not a constitutional argument. I asked him for a policy argument. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/256 "2012-03-01T05:55:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If you mean Roe v. Wade, then sure. You’re looking at this from a rather strange perspective; let’s simplify. > > Griswold established that women had the legal right to obtain and use contraception. State laws establish that pharmacists must fill legal prescriptions. Absent a specific exemption, pharmacists did not have the right to refuse to fill a legal prescription. I’m pretty sure that Griswold stood for the proposition that the STATE couldn’t interfere with a woman’s right to contraception. It didn’t impose a burden on individuals to facilitate that right. > [@](#): > > Conscience clauses are not restoring prior status quo, as you imply; they are granting a new right. > > I asked him for a policy argument. I think the first amendment has been around for at least as long as Griswold has. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/257 "2012-03-01T06:07:10Z")
Since government already regulates pharmacies, I don’t get what the big deal is? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/258 "2012-03-01T13:40:41Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > That’s a policy position, not a constitutional argument. > > And it’s much of the way to a (policy) argument for socializing pharmacies for the public welfare. Yes, it is. My constitutional argument was made in post 217: > [@Bricker](#): > > As I mentioned way back near the front of this thread, I think it’s absolutely within a state’s plenary authority to mandate such things for their pharmacists, as long as their mandate is narrowly tailored to achieve the legitimate state goal of making Plan B available to the public. > > I don’t think it’s wise policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/259 "2012-03-01T13:43:00Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’re mangling the word “personal” to try to make it mean “controlling what other people do.”. This is the fundamental flaw behind most claims that those unable to impose their religious views on others are somehow having _their_ religious freedom violated. Personal freedoms are, obviously, personal. Do you want to use Plan B? Then go ahead. Don’t want to? Don’t have to. Does Suzy want to use Plan B and you don’t want her to? No, it’s not your “personal freedom” to try to stop her from doing so. Right. I agree. If Suzy wants to use Plan B, go ahead. Pluck it from the tree on which it grows. But you’re not asking for Suzy to be able to do that. You’re mandating that I, Phil Pharmacist, to put it in a bottle and hand it to her. THAT is what you should not (in my view of personal freedoms) be able to do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/260 "2012-03-01T13:45:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > State laws establish that pharmacists must fill legal prescriptions. Absent a specific exemption, pharmacists did not have the right to refuse to fill a legal prescription. Cite? Sure, if that’s true, you’re absolutely correct. But I’m unaware of any such laws prior to the beginning of this _contretemps_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=14)