They're coming for your Plan-B

Contrary to popular disinformation, fascism is strict regulation of business. Businesses are regulated so strictly that they become de facto arms of government. Like:

Fascists believe that personal freedom is never a valid issue.

Do you truly believe that Hitler and Mussolini answered to businesses and deregulated everything?

Also contrary to definition, historical precedent and common sense.

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 deregulated everything?

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Albert Einstein

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?

[

](CAT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)

See, a platypus is a mammal, therefore a platypus is a cat.
QED.

“Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -Albert Einstein.

I know it is not deregulation. 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.”

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.

How is what I said any different than:

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 deregulated everything?

The thing I posted to mock the extremist bombast that made up your claim?
I’d contend that it wasn’t any different.

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?

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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?

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

What imaginary objection to selling Plan B could a pharmacist have?

For a start it’s a religious objection, not a moral one. And secondly I see your question has already been answered.

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 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.

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.