I am not “desperately refusing to understand” anything. Your analogy was inappropriate because it fails to take into account the numerous distinctions between showering and dispensing prescription drugs that have been discussed in this thread.
It wasn’t an analogy, in the first place. It was an explanation of how laws work, and you are desperately refusing to understand how laws work because nearly everything you’ve written is based on your misunderstanding of how laws work.
If it makes a difference, I don’t support “conscience clauses.” If I am a pharmacist that works for Acme Pharmacy, and the pharmacy decides to stock Plan B, then it is a business decision for the pharmacy to make. The individual pharmacist can’t defy his employer any more than a dancer at a strip club can refuse to take her clothes off and still keep her job, or the clerk at the convenience store who won’t sell beer.
What I find upsetting is a mandate from a state to a private business (even though licensed) that you must stock THIS particular medicine and you must dispense it whether you want to or not.
As far as living in the middle of the Bible Belt, that’s part of the deal. Would you mandate that every hospital perform abortions, because after all, it is likely that no hospital will in the middle of Mississippi?
Isn’t that the crux of the issue? " I disagree with plan B"?
Since when do you get to impose your religious beliefs on others? And make no mistake, by refusing to fulfill an otherwise legal, proper ( and maybe even required) prescription you are imposing your beliefs.
Where your free market analogy fals down, if restaurants are consumers, pharmacy is the farmer, then a pharmacist refusing to fill the legal and proper prescription is a bandit interdicting the highway. In hat situation wouldn’t it be proper for the state to act?
Well since they’re not an accessory to murder the point is somewhat moot.
But since we’re getting to define, by our own beliefs, what’s going to make us an accessory to murder.
Well then I’m just going to refuse to sell cars to them black folks.
Why?
Well, black folks, in my opinion (or under my “moral code”) are more likely to drink and drive. I believe drinking and driving is the same as murder. Therefore, by selling a car to black folk I am supporting murder. Is this ok?
And on a slightly different note -
When my wife and I were trying to conceive, she was taking Chlomid, I was taking ground up dog testicles (actually Testocaps).
Would it have been ok for the pharmacist to deny us this medicine based on their belief that mixed race couples shouldn’t be allowed to breed? Or would you have a problem with that?
And if you want to place the refusal to provide plan B as a “moral objection” - is it morally right to force a women to undergo a potentially life endangering 9 month pregnancy, and then impose a duty of caring for a child for 18 years on the basis of your religious beliefs?
If denying someone the choice of whether they want to give up 9 months of their life to your beliefs is Moral - then I guess forced labour for 9 months is also “moral”?
No. I won’t speak for Bricker, but the pharmacist is the guy who doesn’t provide change for the parking machine on the street. Damn, you sure would like him to give you some quarters, and he might be a real asshole for not giving them to you. But he doesn’t have to, the state shouldn’t require it, and you might have to pay the parking ticket.
Perhaps you’re right. Unfortunately, I’ll have to rely on people who know what analogies are to educate me.
Speaking of analogies, this one doesn’t work. The pharmacist is discriminating against the product, not against the customer. He’s not refusing to sell cars to black people; he’s refusing to sell cars to anyone.
Ideally yes, since that would make it impractical for the anti-abortion thugs to concentrate forces on their victims.
No they sell the same pills in another form as birth control.
It is only the “non-planning sluts” they are singling out.
This is absolutely what I also cannot understand about the position. It just looks to me like a chance for the pharmacist to basically say …
neener neener neener you slut - I am so much better than you.
In what sort of a world can a pharmacist really justify not selling plan B.
a) Do they really think that sex can ONLY be done for procreation?
b) accepting that people do sex for fun, then don’t you want to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible?
c) moving on from there, a lady screws up for whatever reason - what does less harm, selling her the Plan B, or forcing her to wait 6 weeks to have the baby scaped out? Or if that fails, bringing an unwanted kid into the world that is not going to be properly cared for…I simply don’t get it…
d) but then I’m not clever or enlightened enough by the light of god to understand such matters
I think you mean ‘someone who’ll tell me what I want to hear.’
That’s odd. Every example of a pharmacist refusing to sell something, that has been given on this thread, was of pharmacists who refused to sell birth control pills. What gives you the idea that they suddenly don’t mind selling birth control?
Really?
CMC fnord!
To the extent that there may be pharmacists who dispense birth control but not emergency contraception, I agree with you. Are there any?
My mistake. Now find one that actually supports the idea that pharmacists are refusing Plan B but not hormonal birth control.
“Make no mistake?” In fact, this is the very fact I deny. The pharmacist has no general obligation to fill an otherwise legal, proper ( and maybe even required) prescription. So you cannot transform his refusal into an imposing of beliefs. Inn fact, the correct thing to say is that he is not required to assist you. He’s not imposing his belief on you: you are free to do whatever you damn well please. But he doesn’t need to take any active steps to help you.
No, because the bandit stops all progress — he actively steps up to stop you; he interposes himself and takes active steps to block your path. If you try to go around him, he moves to block you; if you try to pass, he threatens you with harm. The pharmacist does not take any active steps at all. He just sits there.
Maybe we might imagine the pharmacist as a ferryboat captain, and the road to the market as needing to cross a river. Here we have a pretty good picture: the pharamacist/ferry boat captain doesn’t actively stop your progress, but he refuses to move you across the river.
And that, too, would normally be your right, as a matter of personal liberty. It’s the same concept: you don’t impede, but you take no action; you passively refuse to sell.
However, in the case of racial discrimination, our society has made a fairly unanimous, certainly super-majoritan determination that we won’t permit this. We have weighed the important interest in personal liberty against the important interest in racial equality and decided that racial equality tips the scales.
We have not made that decision in the case of Plan B access.
We could. In some states, indeed, we have, but it’s far from universal.
I argue that it’s an unwise decision.
Ummm…the individuals who’s case this entire thread was about sold hormonal birth control but refused to sell plan-b.
CMC fnord!