They clearly haven’t, since states have found it necessary to extend abortion “conscience clauses” to cover pharmacists over the last 15 years.
OK, so when you say monopoly, I assume you aren’t really talking about Monopoly - Wikipedia (because that would be silly) but about Government-granted monopoly - Wikipedia. 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.
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.
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.
But you’re discharged, so you’re no longer a “government employee”. That was the jumping off place from your post earlier:
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?
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.
Thanks for this information.
Huh?
States have extended those laws in order to combat contrary moves made by administrative bodies.
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:
States have extended those laws in order to combat contrary moves made by administrative or judicial bodies.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I asked him for a policy argument.
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.
I think the first amendment has been around for at least as long as Griswold has.
Since government already regulates pharmacies, I don’t get what the big deal is?
Yes, it is. My constitutional argument was made in post 217:
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.
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.