# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/421 "2012-03-05T21:05:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Enacted by pharmacists who hate and want to punish women, no doubt. Contrary to popular disinformation, fascism is strict regulation of business. Businesses are regulated so strictly that they become de facto arms of government. Like: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And a pharmacist is an agent of the government, his job exists in the first place only because of the government. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I disagree that there is a distinction with a difference between a private employer setting the nature of their position and the government setting the nature of a state-certified position. … CVS saying that employees must hand out all valid prescriptions upon pain of firing is no more or less an issue of personal freedom than a state’s licensing body saying the same exact thing. > … > I would argue that it is perfectly valid for a state licensing agency to determine what behaviors are prohibited, and what are required. … This is not an issue of personal freedom, it’s an issue of an offer of employment being contingent upon obeying the rules and policies which are part and parcel of that position. Fascists believe that personal freedom is never a valid issue. Do you truly believe that Hitler and Mussolini answered to businesses and **de** regulated everything? ---
**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 5, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/422 "2012-03-05T21:13:29Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Contrary to popular disinformation, fascism is strict regulation of business. Also contrary to definition, historical precedent and common sense. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/423 "2012-03-05T21:19:33Z")
Definition of FASCISM 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, **severe economic** and social **regimentation** , and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or \*\*dictatorial control \*\* History: Do you truly believe that Hitler and Mussolini answered to businesses and **de** regulated everything? “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Albert Einstein ---
**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 5, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/424 "2012-03-05T21:28:35Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, **severe economic** and social **regimentation** , and forcible suppression of opposition Did you, or did you not notice that the portions you bolded are one out of many bits that all must be present? Do you really not understand what it means? [ > [@](#): > > b : any of a family (Felidae) of carnivorous usually solitary and nocturnal **mammals** (as the domestic cat, lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, cougar, wildcat, lynx, and cheetah) ]([CAT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cat)) See, a platypus is a mammal, therefore a platypus is a cat. QED. > [@ABraut](#): > > “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Albert Einstein “Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -Albert Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/425 "2012-03-05T21:57:17Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Do you really not understand what it means? I know it is **not de** regulation. I know it is not personal freedom. I know that what is being called ‘fascistic corporatism’ is the _inverse_ of fascistic corporatism. You are the one who’s convinced that it means these things that are, in fact, the opposite of the relevant components of fascism. I said “a fascist law”, not “complete fascism.” You replied “Enacted by pharmacists who hate and want to punish women, no doubt.” Implying that you believe holding personal freedom over legislative fiat was fascism. You’re **ignoring all parts** of the definition. Before people forgot what fascism really is, and leftists were still honestly praising it, The New Deal was widely regarded as fascist legislation, by proponents and opponents. In general, fascism is fiscally liberal (strict business regulation) and socially conservative (strict social regulation). It is a totalitarian/nationalist combination of left (fiscal) and right (social) philosophies. The basic combination of left (fiscal) and right (social) philosophies without totalitarianism/nationalism is called ‘populism.’ Mussolini was a Marxist, before he came up with “a third way.” ---
**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 5, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/426 "2012-03-05T22:01:15Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > I said “a fascist law” , not “complete fascism.” Which by your bombast, would seem to include any law that regulates business. Your dodge is also supremely boring. “I just said that they were instituting tyrannical policies, not that they are tyrants!” You could back down to a level of rational argumentation and claim that you don’t agree with the specific regulations that some are proposing for pharmacists. Or you can ramp it up and produce screeds about “fascism”. I do not have high hopes. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/427 "2012-03-05T22:07:59Z")
How is what I said any different than: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Enacted by pharmacists who hate and want to punish women, no doubt. aside from the fact that what I said is actually a component of fascism, of course? You still haven’t answered my question: Do you truly believe that Hitler and Mussolini answered to businesses and **de** regulated everything? ---
**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 5, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/428 "2012-03-05T22:15:50Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > How is what I said any different than[…] The thing I posted to mock the extremist bombast that made up your claim? I’d contend that it wasn’t any different. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/429 "2012-03-05T22:17:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Which by your bombast, would seem to include any law that regulates business. No, I’m talking about regulation, strict enough to make a business a de facto arm of government. As you, and especially Der Trihs, have said is the way you view pharmacist licensing. You still haven’t answered my question: Do you truly believe that Hitler and Mussolini answered to businesses and deregulated everything? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/430 "2012-03-05T22:22:43Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > It’s still passive. In order to completely prevent the possibility that a pharmacists might impose his ethics, by refusing to fill a prescription and being the only pharmacist around, you want to impose your ethics on all pharmacists everywhere. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? It’s not hypocritical, we have scenarios in which we have to choose to value a set of competing ethical standards all the time. The pharmacist has an ethical right to disagree with the application of Plan-B. The woman has the ethical right to determine her own health care choices. When those two come into conflict, we have to choose which ethical standard to support. It’s not hypocritical to impose ethical standards of practice on someone who chooses to negatively impact another person through the application of their own ethical standards. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am talking about doctors that are fully capable of performing an abortion but for religious reasons refuses to do so. Just as every doctor is not capable of performing an abortion, every pharmacist does not dispense drugs at your local pharmacy. We are talking about people who are in a position to refuse to do something. > > So why all the hatred towards pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B but not so much for the doctor who refuses to perform an abortion? I don’t think the scenario you’re trying to compare here actually exists though. You mean to tell me that a doctor would undergo training in practicing abortions, which involves performing an abortion, in order to then refuse to perform them for religious reasons? The doctor performing abortions analogy just doesn’t hold up because 1) this isn’t abortion and 2) every pharmacist is trained in performing this activity and a minority of physicians are trained in performing abortions. > [@Bricker](#): > > The goal of the profession is not public service. Like any profession, the goal is to provide a service that people will pay for. Pharmacists are not public servants. They are business people, and are in the business to make money. I have never stated that pharmacy is explicitly a public service. They are business people, but they are business people who work in the field of public health which means that the normal ethical standards of business don’t apply. Some of them do, sure. But we as a society hold people who work in this industry to a different standard, taking for example my reference earlier to requiring hospitals to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. We don’t hold other businesses to this standard, but when you are entrusted to providing for the public health, even if you also profit from it, your ethical obligations do not just stop at “make money”. > [@](#): > > They don’t violate anyone’s freedom. This is the worst sticking point. Violating freedom requires that they impede a course of action to which you have a right. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BUY PLAN B MEDICATION. That is, you certainly have a right to purchase it from a willing seller. But you don’t have a right to HAVE it, no matter what. Of course, you don’t have a right to buy Plan-B. Neither do you have a right to be a pharmacist. Or own a pharmacy. The state licenses you to be able to do those things, and holds you to standards of practice in order to have that privilege. In my opinion, part of those standards of practice is that you don’t get to refuse to provide care to patients for unscientifically supported religious reasons. > [@](#): > > A poor woman cannot demand that the pharmacist provide it at no cost, can she? No. She has no more right to buy it than she does to buy anything else: namely, her right ends at a consensual transaction. Nobody is arguing about providing care for no cost. I am arguing about providing care when people are willing to pay for it. So the non sequitor of demanding free care being the same as demanding care does not hold up. > [@](#): > > The underlying axiom you appear t be relying on is that the pharmacist is a public servant, required to place his business and personal needs below the needs of his customers. This is bull. Pharmacists are professional business people, and are generally entitled to run their business as they wish. > > THAT is my axiom. Again, not a public servant in the sense you’re trying to apply it. But they definitely do serve the public. What you stated here, that we are requiring him to “place his business and personal needs below the needs of his customers” should be changed to patients. A pharmacy has patients in addition to customers. If the issue were a simple business transaction, if he chose to refuse to stock gum or denture cream, fine. But you need a license to provide medications. A license provided to you by the state in which you operate. And your obligation is to provide medical care for the patients which live in the community you serve. If you refuse to do that, the state should not permit you to operate with their approval. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/431 "2012-03-05T22:34:27Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > It’s not hypocritical, we have scenarios in which we have to choose to value a set of competing ethical standards all the time. The pharmacist has an ethical right to disagree with the application of Plan-B. The woman has the ethical right to determine her own health care choices. When those two come into conflict, we have to choose which ethical standard to support. It’s not hypocritical, so long as it’s **your ethics** being imposed **on others**. Got it. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > … negatively impact another person through the application of their own ethical standards. That’s exactly what you propose to do. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/432 "2012-03-05T22:45:45Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > It’s not hypocritical, so long as it’s **your ethics** being imposed **on others**. Got it. > > That’s exactly what you propose to do. No, what I’m saying is that when two competing ethical standards are in conflict, it’s expected to have to pick one. I’m obviously making the case for why the one I uphold should be chosen. But it’s not any more hypocritical for example to require businesses to serve black people even if their owners have a very strong, deeply held belief in the inferiority of black people. They’re imposing an ethical framework in a negative manner on people. Society feels that it’s more fair to impose their ethical standards on the owners of that business, in order to prevent them from doing so. The business owner isn’t doing anything ACTIVE, but it’s still discriminatory and it’s still negatively impacting a person who is seeking services, and it is still more ethical to force that business owner to not be able to refuse service. I’m not saying that the two situations are analogous entirely, but this is a more similar situation when you’re comparing an actor/business owner who deals with the public who refuses to provide something to a member of that public, and the ethics of prohibiting them from engaging in that refusal. It’s more severe because refusing to provide medical care on a religious/ethical basis is worse than refusing to allow a black person eat at a restaurant. But it’s not inherently unethical to force a business to not be able to refuse to provide service due to deeply held personal beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/433 "2012-03-06T00:28:52Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > No, what I’m saying is that when two competing ethical standards are in conflict, it’s expected to have to pick one. I’m obviously making the case for why the one I uphold should be chosen. But it’s not any more hypocritical for example to require businesses to serve black people even if their owners have a very strong, deeply held belief in the inferiority of black people. Of course one of the standards have to be chosen, and of course you believe that the one you have chosen is the correct one. But that’s not the same as stating that pharmacists who refuse the sale are violating the ethics of the profession as determined by its leaders ( really as determined by one particular voluntary organization which turns out to not even agree with you). Requiring businesses to serve black people contrary to their deeply held beliefs would only be hypocritical if the rationale for the requirement was that racists shouldn’t impose their ethics on others. But that has never been the rationale for anti-discrimination laws.. You claim to have a problem with the pharmacists imposing their morals on others- but you don’t really have a problem with people imposing their morals on others. You would have no problem imposing your ethics on all pharmacists. That’s the hypocrisy. If you simply said you would weigh the competing interests differently than I would, I would still disagree with you. But it wouldn’t be hypocritical. > [@](#): > > The state licenses you to be able to do those things, and holds you to standards of practice in order to have that privilege. In my opinion, part of those standards of practice is that you don’t get to refuse to provide care to patients for unscientifically supported religious reasons. You mean in your opinion that should be part of the standards of practice- because it clearly isn’t part of them in every state now. > [@](#): > > You mean to tell me that a doctor would undergo training in practicing abortions, which involves performing an abortion, in order to then refuse to perform them for religious reasons? The doctor performing abortions analogy just doesn’t hold up because 1) this isn’t abortion and 2) every pharmacist is trained in performing this activity and a minority of physicians are trained in performing abortions. All OB/GYNs are trained in performing D&C’s , a technique that is used for elective abortions as well as for other reasons. Not all OB/GYNs perform elective abortions, and I am sure that some do not do so for religious reasons. Like pharmacists, OB/GYN’s are licensed by the state and may either have their own practice or be employees. It’s a perfect analogy. Do you believe OB/GYNs should be required to perform abortions? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/434 "2012-03-06T05:31:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Says you. > > I disagree. In how many restaurants do I need a prescription, provided by a highly trained professional to get a steak and salad? In how many grocery stores are the counter staff checking to make sure my milk and cookies aren’t going to interact poorly or contra indicated? If it is a legally obtained prescription, and absent any extraordinary problems in obtaining or keeping the medicine, then the pharmacy is under an obligation to provide it. Or to put it another way - what if a doctor refused to give you a tetanus injection because it was invented by a german for war time use? Isn’t this also an “ethical objection”? Wouldn’t you feel that he violated an obligation of all proper care to you? (and note, before you make the argument - I’m not talking here about a doctor that has built his brand / practise on not using any german invented products, so please don’t attempt to make that argument) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/435 "2012-03-06T05:34:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really? So if a doctor refused to perform an abortion, it would be unethical? If he refused for anything other than medical reasons then YES, it would be not only unethical, but also highly unprofessional and should lead to his license being suspended / revoked. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/436 "2012-03-06T05:43:57Z")
**Bricker** , I respect you a lot, your knowledge and skills are formidable. Although I don’t agree with your religious beliefs, you argue them well and also explain yourself well. It would be great if I could have your opinion on this… What matters more - how a law IS being used or how a law MAY be used? As an example - let’s say you give you ATM PIN to your wife. Your trust her explicitly not to empty your account. If something does happen - whose fault is it? Or to put it another way, if it were only one or two pharmacies in a big city refusing to sell, then it’s nopt much of a problem. BUT, once you allow a pharmacy to make decisions on what presriptions they will and won’t fill on their own beliefs rather than what the doctor prescribes and the rigours of state approval systems, what if EVERY pharmacy refused? This is possible under the law right? (if not likely). Would you then be ok with pharmacists being able to put themselves above the state legislature (which presumably represents the majority will of the people)? What if, instead of plan B it were children’s paracetamol that the pharmacy were refusing to provide - would that still be ok? Would it be ok to send a parent with a feverish kid hunting all over the city for a pharmacy that did provide it? ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/437 "2012-03-06T14:14:51Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > What if, instead of plan B it were children’s paracetamol that the pharmacy were refusing to provide - would that still be ok? Would it be ok to send a parent with a feverish kid hunting all over the city for a pharmacy that did provide it? What imaginary moral objection to giving acetaminophen† to children, could a pharmacists have? Children’s Tylenol is available at most convenience stores. † Paracetamol, known as acetaminophen in the United States ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/438 "2012-03-06T14:16:13Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > What imaginary moral objection to giving acetaminophen† to children, could a pharmacists have? What imaginary objection to selling Plan B could a pharmacist have? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/439 "2012-03-06T14:24:29Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > What imaginary moral objection to giving acetaminophen† to children, could a pharmacists have? Children’s Tylenol is available at most convenience stores. > > † Paracetamol, known as acetaminophen in the United States For a start it’s a religious objection, not a moral one. And secondly I see your question has already been answered. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/440 "2012-03-06T14:26:52Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > You claim to have a problem with the pharmacists imposing their morals on others- but you don’t really have a problem with people imposing their morals on others. You would have no problem imposing your ethics on all pharmacists. That’s the hypocrisy. If you simply said you would weigh the competing interests differently than I would, I would still disagree with you. But it wouldn’t be hypocritical. I have a problem with a person in a profession refusing to provide care for unscientifically supported reasons. I have never said that it’s universally bad to impose your ethics on someone else, unless that imposition acts as a barrier to medical care. That isn’t hypocritical because I’ve never stated point blank “imposing your ethics on others is bad” and then gone on to say that it’s okay when the state does it. I’ve said that pharmacists have a higher obligation to provide services than if they were any random business, because they provide medical devices and prescription medication, so we can’t treat them just like a business who has a consequence-free ability to deny services. > [@](#): > > You mean in your opinion that should be part of the standards of practice- because it clearly isn’t part of them in every state now. You throw out “in your opinion” like you’ve cracked some magical code of my argument, when I stated that in my own post. Obviously this stuff is all my opinion. Obviously I believe my ethical standards to be the one to be enforced. > [@](#): > > All OB/GYNs are trained in performing D&C’s , a technique that is used for elective abortions as well as for other reasons. Not all OB/GYNs perform elective abortions, and I am sure that some do not do so for religious reasons. Like pharmacists, OB/GYN’s are licensed by the state and may either have their own practice or be employees. It’s a perfect analogy. Do you believe OB/GYNs should be required to perform abortions? Plan-B is not abortion. Participating in an actual surgical procedure is not the same as handing someone a box with a pill in it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=23)