Wal-Mart pharmacist denies couple morning-after pill

[Scairp]

COLUMBUS — A woman has complained to the governor and an abortion-rights group about Wal-Mart workers who wouldn't give her morning-after contraceptive pills that don't require a prescription.

Tashina Byrd, 23, of Springfield, said the pharmacist "shook his head and laughed" when a pharmacy attendant asked this month about giving the woman and her boyfriend Plan B. The hormone pills can help prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

<snip>
Brent Beams, the pharmacist, told The Dispatch that he denied the couple's request for the contraceptive pills because "I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception."

After the pharmacist turned them down, O'Neill and Byrd asked for a store manager who "came over and said, 'The pharmacist has the law on his side,' " O'Neill said.

Isn't this a great country, where a Nazi pharmacist can deny someone an over the counter medication, just because he feels like it?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/01/16/ddn011607ohcontraceptive.html

Edited to add: So sorry everyone, I forgot this one of those newspapers who would like your personal info just read their questionable journalism. This is originally an AP story, so I will try to post that link instead.

Here we go:

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5940335

A local newpaper wrote an independant story on this incident and here is that link.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/01/15/SNS011607planB.html

[Warpy]

1. It's good she went to the media

now she needs to follow up with the state pharmacist licensing board.

If these pious clowns are too holy to do their damn jobs, then they need to find different jobs, far away from HUMAN BEINGS.

If we ever find one of these sanctimonious shitheads, we need to make a stink, threaten their licenses, threaten the store with pickets, whatever it takes to get these bastards away from where they can hurt us.

After all, the morning after pill PREVENTS abortion, and it's none of his damned business whether or not a couple is married.

[citygal]

2. Just mentioned this under another thread...

Some states (I think Illinois is one) have had to pass laws requiring pharmacists to distribute oral contraception and Plan B despite their personal, religious beliefs. Maybe a rendition of the US Supreme Court Casey decision should become requisite education for pharmacy training??

[Big Pappa]

3. What is

Wal-Marts policy on this? Are the pharmacists given carte blanch control over what they sell?

[cboy4]

4. I hope that pharmacist's ass gets fired. I don't know what it is

about pharmacists, but I've encountered so many who think they're physicians. :eyes:

Give me a break.

If they hate their jobs as much as they seem to, they should really find another line of work.

[Maine-ah]

19. I bet he has no problem handing out viagra.

[MADem]

129. Yeah, and if Jeeeesus wanted you to have a massive boner, he'd a GIVEN it to you "naturally" NT

[raccoon]

143. If he refused to dispense Viagra (that'll be the day), it'd make your

head spin to see how fast he'd be fired.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Fired? He works at Wal-Mart

He just made "Employee of the Month"

[BattyDem]

5. It's an over-the-counter drug!

If the pharmacist didn't want to sell it, the store manager could have. According to the article, the pharmacist refused to allow anyone to sell the drug to the woman ... and I think the manager should have fired him on the spot! The law may be "on his side" if he has a moral objection, but he does not have the right to prevent the store manager (presumably, his boss) or any other employee from selling it. AN OTC DRUG DOES NOT REQUIRE A PHARMACIST TO DISPENSE IT!

I'm so fed up with this "moral objection" bullshit! If you're a pharmacist, you should be LEGALLY required to fill all valid prescriptions and dispense all OTC medications that the store sells .... PERIOD! Why is this shit allowed? Can you imagine a sales clerk denying a pack of cigarettes, condoms or any other product to a customer based on nothing but their own personal morality? No employer or business would stand for that ... nor should they! :grr:

[orleans]

7. i can see it now...i'll go get a job at walmart and then refuse to ring anyone

up with the crap they want to purchase because i morally believe that no one should be shopping at fucking walmart.

[sandnsea]

8. me me me!!!

I'll take that job! :rofl:

That would be fucking hysterical. What the hell could they do. It's THEIR policy to respect the moral beliefs of their employees.

[liberalhistorian]

105. LOL!

Now, that would be something to see. Reminds me of the Onion article "Christian Scientist pharmacist refuses to fill any prescription for anyone!"

[Canuckistanian]

120. Nominated for post reply of the year!

Bravo!
:applause:

[MaineDem]

18. I believe that Plan B requires a pharmacist to dispense it

A doc's prescription isn't needed but a pharmacist is the only onw who can give it out.

He should have referred them to another pharmacist - either at the same store or near-by.

[SquireJons]

20. No, he shouldn't have referred them to another pharmacist

He should have dispensed what they asked for. If his religious beliefs prevent him from doing his job, then he needs to get another job. If a person is a pacifist, that pretty much disqualifies him from offensive military duty. If a firefighter thinks it's wrong to put out fires, then he can't be a fireman. If a doctor thinks it's ok to let people die who otherwise would have lived... well, hello medical malpractice suit... bye bye medical career. The analogies go on and on forever.

It's pretty simple.

[MaineDem]

23. Oh I agree with you

I wasn't giving my opinion I was stating what I believe to be WalMart's policy. THis has been discussed at length here in the past.

I'm not sure what state law says.

I think if people aren't able to complete the requirements of the job they should find another profession. So I completely agree with you.

[MrPrax]

25. Or a vegetarian running a steak house! n/t

[tanyev]

22. I just ordered some from drugstore.com.

Good to have it on hand, just in case.

[crikkett]

138. you can keep a spare set of bc pills around = same thing

I'm not a doctor! When I was in college the doc giving me bc pills sed I could take 4 at a time, then another 4 the next day, if I ever needed a plan B.

You should check it out. I've been out of college for some time now.

[BattyDem]

74. The article says a "pharmacy worker or sales associate" can sell it

The only "restriction" on Plan B is the age, so as long as an employee verifies that the purchaser is over 18, there shouldn't be a problem.

One of the links in the OP confirms that a phamacist is not needed. Another confirms that the pharmacist would not let ANYONE sell it to her. :grr:

"Bentonville-based Wal-Mart is investigating. Company spokesman Kevin Gardner says corporate policy says any Wal-Mart worker who does not feel comfortable dispensing a product can refer customers to another pharmacist, pharmacy worker or sales associate.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5940335


"Byrd said she was 'floored' when the pharmacist, Brian Beams, refused to allow anyone in the store to sell it to her."

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/01/15/SNS011607planB.html


Perhaps it can't be dispensed by anyone if the pharmacist doesn't give his permission ... but that sort of defeats the whole point of having an OTC medication. Why would a pharmacist have to "okay" it if a prescription isn't needed to purchase it in the first place? :shrug:


ON EDIT: I just did a Google ... ANY employee can sell it. A pharmacist is not needed. :-)

"The FDA requires that a health care professional must be available to answer questions if needed, but anyone behind the pharmacy counter will be able to sell Plan B over the counter (OTC) after seeing proof of age."

Princeton's Emergency Contraception Website
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/QA-OTC-access.html

[fudge stripe cookays]

94. Then that sounds like...

she might even have cause for a civil rights type case. If he was even preventing others from doing their jobs by selling her the Plan B.

I SO hope she gives him a GIANT legal kick in the ass. These people will never learn until they are all put in their place permanently. Can't handle the job description? Then don't take the fucking job. Simple as that.

[liberalhistorian]

107. He should have done his fucking job instead

of being expected to refer them to another pharmacist. What's even worse is when such objecting pharmacists actually confiscate the prescription itself so that the person has to go back to the doctor for another prescription. Fortunately, that's not common, but it's still absolutely infuriating when it DOES happen. And it infuriates doctors as well, they hate it when pharmacists intrude on their doctor-patient relationship and actually think THEY are the doctor instead of the pharmacist.

[volstork]

57. I COMPLETELY agree!

"I'm so fed up with this "moral objection" bullshit! If you're a pharmacist, you should be LEGALLY required to fill all valid prescriptions and dispense all OTC medications that the store sells .... PERIOD! Why is this shit allowed? Can you imagine a sales clerk denying a pack of cigarettes, condoms or any other product to a customer based on nothing but their own personal morality? No employer or business would stand for that ... nor should they!"

Just more hypocracy RE: reproductive rights and women's rights
Cigarettes are much more lethal than Plan B

[susanna]

101. You know, that's the best argument I've seen.

Not that I don't think the OP's pharmacist is a dimbulb (I do), but your argument is EXACTLY what we should be pointing out.

If pharmacists/clerks/etc want to preserve and sanctify life, stop selling the cigarettes and condoms. Easy enough. But they won't do THAT.

It has always been about controlling women. Period. Anyone who does not see that scares me.

[Doctor Venmkan]

176. Actually it's not "exactly" fully O-T-C

IIRC, you don't need a prescription but it still has to be sold by a pharmacist. Kinda like Robitussin with Codeine in some states.

EDIT - whoops, read some more into it. Maybe the "pharmacist approval" thing is just a company policy where I work.

Anyway, just skimming the topic I caught one case of generalized "pharmacist-bashing" in a comment that they think they are physicians.

The pharmacists I work for don't think they are smarter than doctors, but they DO know more about the DRUGS than the doctors do!

Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Not everyone behind a pharmacy counter is your enemy. The majority of them, including your friend D.V. here, SUPPORT use of Plan B!" ;)

[MADem]

6. When those newspapers want PERSONAL information, you should accomodate them

Name: Heywood Jablowme
Birthdate: Jan 1 1901
Address: 1 Main Street, Anytown, Algeria

You can be Ophelia Thigh, Jack Meoff, Hugh G. Rection, or any number of avid news readers. They've no call to be demanding that info, so give them crap for it.

Then post the info at www.bugmenot.com, where you can get user names and passwords to most sites of this nature.

This thing has lawsuit potential: Bentonville-based Wal-Mart is investigating. Company spokesman Kevin Gardner says corporate policy says any Wal-Mart worker who does not feel comfortable dispensing a product can refer customers to another pharmacist, pharmacy worker or sales associate.

[Bob Loblaw]

62. You can be Ophelia Thigh, Jack Meoff, Hugh G. Rection

I prefer the brother of the president that they don't talk about...

Adolph Oliver Bush.

[ProudDad]

114. FYI

They still get your I/P address when you sign up.

If Der Fatherland Securitat wants they can force the ISP to give up records of which computer they served out the I/P address to at the time someone signed up as Osama, etc.

Then Whoooooop -- off to Guantanamo. It's not likely 'cause you're pretty small fish.

--------------------------

Just remember, NOBODY'S anonymous on the internet unless you cover your tracks:

Anonymizers:

http://www.allume.com/win/surfingplatinum/

http://www.inetprivacy.com/a4proxy/review.htm

Just a couple to get you started...

[MADem]

128. If you use computers all over the place, they have trouble keeping up with you

http://tor.eff.org/

[ProudDad]

166. Another version of anonymizer

I remember this one now.


Funny how these threads can veer off sometimes...

[Heidi]

9. Recommended. And off to Greatest this goes.

:kick:

[intaglio]

10. I suggest someone check that "pharmacists" qualifications

Plan B does not cause abortion,

IT PREVENTS CONCEPTION

(note to self centre and relax)

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Yeah...

...you would sort of expect a pharmacist to know what "contraceptive" meant, even at Wal-Mart.

[harpboy_ak]

17. Right to lifers are against contraception

They object to Planned Parenthood clinics as much because of their birth control work as anything they may have to do with abortions.

Rabid LiferNuts are almost always Catholics or Evangelicals that are opposed to birth control.

[Megahurtz]

69. "Rabid LiferNuts" lol!

I think I'll keep that phrase!:D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

134. Errrrr... look below. -nt

[Tesha]

42. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

Even though your type is very large, unfortunately, you are
wrong for the definition of "conception" that most of us use.

If the ovum is already present, it can still be fertilized
by the sperm, even in the presence of the "Plan B" hormone.
That's the moment that most folks consider "conception".

In this situation, what happens next is that Plan B prevents
implantation of the fertilized ovum (now called a "zygote")
into the uterine wall. That's why the fundie whackjobs object
to it; they consider the loss of the zygote the destruction
of a human life.

Most thinking people don't draw this equivalence, and realize
that normal women spontaneously abort a large number of
zygotes anyway, but it really doesn't help our cause when
you SHOUT misinformation: Plan B only prevents conception
if ovulation hasn't yet taken place. Otherwise, it prevents
"implantation".

Tesha

[DemBones DemBones]

83. No, it causes abortion if conception has already occurred.

If conception hasn't occurred, it doesn't cause abortion (you can't abort a nonexistent pregnancy.)

But you can't tell which it has done.

Contraceptives are to be used when having sex, to prevent conception.

It's a misnomer to call this drug an "emergency contraceptive" when it's taken a day or two after sex.

[Beaverhausen]

84. WRONG!! It keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus

that is NOT an abortion.

God, I can't believe people still can't get this straight.

[DemBones DemBones]

91. If conception has occurred, a life is being destroyed

by preventing implantation. People don't like to admit this but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Solon]

98. That's your opinion, and that's all it is. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

106. Well. . .

my opinion is based upon earning two degrees in biology and then teaching biology for many years. After years of teaching what the characteristics of life are, there came a day when I had to admit to myself that life begins at conception. There is a new life from the time the sperm penetrates the ovum. A new life with all its genetic makeup programmed.

I wasn't at all happy about this realization because I knew very well that liberals are "supposed" to support legalized abortion on demand.

When I look back, I recall that In the Sixties, we liberals were all against war and against the death penalty because of the sanctity of life, and then suddenly we were being told that being pro-abortion was a liberal position. What happened to the sanctity of life? We weren't supposed to question that.

What happened to the sanctity of life?

Either all life is precious or no life is.

[Solon]

108. That's an absolutionist's argument, and logically inconsistant as well...

This lifeform you seem to think so highly of is a group of undifferentiated cells that are completely dependent on the body of another lifeform in order to be sustained. I have no problem with being more concerned with the life of the host than the life of the organism within her. We have two choices here, either the life of this fetus is paramount, or women are to relegated to second class citizen status, for if they cannot even be allowed to control their own bodies, what else are they?

[liberalhistorian]

111. Damnit, how many times does it have

to be said? It's pro-CHOICE, and NOT pro-abortion, GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE is "pro-abortion", not even the staunchest advocates of choice. I suppose you have a problem with women who have miscarriages?

[TankLV]

199. thank you for noticing that...

true feelings have a tendency to come out in the heat of an argument...

now we know what we've always suspected...

[jgraz]

124. hmm...which one of your biology degrees was in "sanctity"?

You're not making a scientific argument, you're spouting religious dogma. There is no biological justification for treating a fertilized egg as more "alive" than any one of the millions of intestinal cells you crap out every day. Do you hold a memorial service before you flush?

Your statement that "either all life is precious or no life is" is similarly absurd. Do you not kill mosquitoes? Do you avoid pulling weeds? How about washing up before dinner? Do you have any idea how many "precious" bacteria you're slaughtering with your callous use of soap and water?

If you want to adhere to dogmatic anti-abortion ideology, that's your business. Just please stop pretending that you have any scientific support for your beliefs.


Edit: I can't type when I'm annoyed.

[mondo joe]

152. Indeed. "Sanctity" is neither a scientific nor legal condition,

and a poor basis on which to determine either.

[Magrittes Pipe]

164. .

:toast: :applause: :yourock:

[smoogatz]

141. Then women who have abortions are murderers.

And they should be punished. That would be morally consistent with your position, no?

[asthmaticeog]

158. So you'd refuse tapeworm meds, then?

[AngryOldDem]

174. "Either all life is precious or no life is."

Please, do me a favor and remind most "pro-life" groups and activists of that fact. If anything sums up the loathing I have for most of the pro-life movement, it can be summed up in that statement. If truth be told, many "pro-lifers" make the same kinds of value judgments that they say many "pro-choicers" make when it comes to "protecting life."

Being "pro-life" is MORE than just being "against abortion."

If people are **truly** pro-life, they:

1) Do not support a war nor a president who continues to prosecute it.
2) Do not support the death penalty, and do not find ways to justify it that use what only can be called "pretzel logic." (Same goes for 1.)
3) Do everything they can to help those children who are already here. This attitude of "once you're born, you're on your own" is NOT "pro-life."
4) Do everything they can to help families, especially those who do not have the means (economic or otherwise) to raise children comfortably.
5) Work for other social justice issues, not only against abortion.

From where I sit, many self-described "pro-lifers" fall WAY short of the mark on all of the above. Sure, they march and raise hell and collect diapers and baby clothes for the nearest crisis pregnancy center, but when it comes to REALLY talking the talk, they are NOT consistent in their life ethic, either. The sanctity of life extends from cradle to grave, just as the late Cardinal Bernardin so eloquently stated in his "seamless garment" argument. (Further proof of some pro-life hypocrisy is the contempt that they have for this man. That makes absolutely no sense, unless your "seamless garment" begins with labor pains and ends when the baby is delivered.)

If I can be against abortion and rail against contraception, yet justify capital punishment, or a war, or turn a blind eye to a child growing up in a homeless shelter, am I not also making a value judgment on life? Am I not saying, in effect, that some lives ARE indeed more sacred than others?

Until the pro-life movement sees beyond its own political self-interest, then its message is nothing more than the proverbial sound and fury -- at least to me.

[Zhade]

213. Two degrees in biology?

Um, you're also one of those who thought Terri Shiavo still had a brain that could regenerate.

[liberalhistorian]

109. And what about all of those fertilized eggs

that, for whatever reason, fail to implant in the uterus and are sloughed off with the next period? That happens thousands of times each month, and the women don't even know it, there's no way for them to know it, really. It's said that, when a woman suffers a particularly heavy period, it's possible that that is the reason. It is not a conception until it is implanted in the uterus.

[JerseygirlCT]

194. Isn't that the medical definition?

I always thought so.

[ProudDad]

116. LIFE begins at BIRTH

And, of course, that's when the right-wingers lose any interest in the product...


I went to many colleges and never saw a foetus in any of the other classroom seats...

[jgraz]

125. I thought life began at 40...

[TankLV]

200. no - it's 55 now since I'm now 54...

I'm looking forward to my seniors' discounts that will start kicking in!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

133. Oh yes. A blob of undifferentiated cells with no nervous system feels pain and suffering.

You might as well tell me lettuce suffers when I eat it.

I can understand people that don't want abortions to happen after X weeks based on brain development.

But right after conception? That's insane.

Ditto for anencephalic fetuses. No brain => no personhood.

[JerseygirlCT]

193. Even accepting your definition of when life starts

(and that's certainly up for debate), is life "destroyed" every time an embryo fails to implant? This happens all the time and most often the woman is not even aware of it. Does that make it manslaughter instead of murder?

The drugs are legal, the choice is hers, the pharmacist needs to find a new field of work. Truly, it's that simple.

You, like me, are entirely free to make your own choices. (I suspect we'd make the same choice, actually). But that in no way gives either of us the right to make someone else's.

[TankLV]

201. and as usual, he's a man making "choices" for WOMEN...

typical ignorant fundy thinking...

[JerseygirlCT]

212. Well, it certainly makes it easier to be anti-choice

when it's never going to affect *your* body.

There are so many conditions that have to be *just so* for implantation (and therefore pregnancy) to take place -- as anyone who's experienced infertility can relate -- it's nonsense to think of pregnancy as starting from the second sperm meets egg.

I wonder how people who hold to that definition feel about IVF and other assisted reproductive efforts that create fertilized eggs which may or may not ever successfully implant? Is it different if someone really, really wants it to implant?

[Kellanved]

142. according to the WHO it does not

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs244/en/

--snip
Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) have been shown to prevent ovulation and they did not have any detectable effect on the endometrium (uterine lining) or progesterone levels when given after ovulation. ECPs are not effective once the process of implantation has begun, and will not cause abortion.
--snap

[AngryOldDem]

173. How soon do you think implantation takes place?

I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

I think it's a little disingenuous to say, as many pro-life people seem to, that pregnancy occurs as soon as intercourse ends.

But the bottom line is, this drug is legally available. People who want it should not be denied it because of someone else's personal belief system. And as for "conscience clauses," I don't have a problem with those, either. When I go to a pharmacy, I don't particularly give a damn about who fills my scrip, as long as it's filled correctly. If someone wants to pass off the job to someone else, cool. But DON'T deny me a drug that I want and am entitled to.

[ProudDad]

115. You are correct

It's a high dose contraceptive.

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/WhatIsPlanB.aspx

Of course, the pope wouldn't like that...

[Orsino]

161. Yes. The point that the news stories deliberately obfuscate. n/t

[Lasher]

12. I wonder how many Amish policemen there are.

Maybe this pharmacist is in the wrong line of work.

[donkeyotay]

73. This opens the door to employer discrimination against fundies

If I own a pharmacy and my morals and business plan call for all of my customers to receive the best service possible, shouldn't I be able to exercise my conscience and ask on the job application if there's any religious beliefs that would interfer with that goal. Fundies aren't the only ones with consciences.

[Lasher]

131. Questions of that nature are already asked, and they should be.

I don't think employers should screen people specifically on their religious affiliation (such as, "Are you a Catholic?") but it's ethical to ask if someone is willing to do what is required by the job.

For example, it is common for potential employers to ask applicants if they would be willing to work on weekends, evenings and holidays. Some people believe we should not work on the Sabbath (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday depending on belief). Employers are justified in asking this, particularly if the job in question often involves work outside normal business hours. One example would be a power company maintenance technician who is needed to restore service at all times.

I was trying to be funny about the Amish policeman, but that's another good example. If you're not willing to use means up to and including deadly force to subdue criminals, you don't need to be a policeman.

Likewise, pharmacists should be willing to dispense all products to customers unless it is illegal to do so, or if there would be harm to the individual such as can occur with overlooked drug interactions. If a drug should not be given to an individual, our government and not an individual pharmacist should control that.

Of course, the pharmacist is free to decide if he is willing to fill a legitimate prescription or sell the OTC drugs in question. But but it is not reasonable for him to expect immunity from the consequences.

Edit: Grammar improvement

[ProudDad]

117. What's this?

Clop, clop, clop --- Bam!


Clop, clop, clop --- Bam!


Clop, clop, clop --- Bam!







(An Amish drive-by)

[Mythsaje]

13. To the pharmacist..."Maybe you should mind your own FUCKING business

and let us mind OUR own fucking business. Get it? Fucking business? Oh, wait. Dispensing medication IS your business, vomit-for-brains. Why don't you do your goddam job, asswipe, and leave the moralizing to your self-loathing, hiding-in-the-closet, meth-addled preacher?"

They'd kick me out, I'm sure. But I'd love to see the expression on that guy's face before they did.

[XanaDUer]

14. Can these pharms be sued for child support?

I'd like to see that.

[mainegreen]

36. My thoughts exactly.

And pharmacists do have the pockets to support a kid or two.

[xchrom]

15. i don't think this guy is a pharmacist.

because plan b PREVENTS conception.

so there are three things wrong here -- his refusal, wal-mart's acquiessense to this man's whims, and this man's unsafe basic knowledge about what drugs do what.

[lowreed]

21. Guess he thinks life begins at orgasm...

Male orgasm that is.

[youthere]

46. If that's true it will soon be illegal to throw away a kleenex.

[crossroads]

96. LOL - Good one! nt

[jgraz]

126. Mine certainly did

[Blue Gardener]

16. Bravo to Ms. Byrd

For making an issue of it. I'm glad she didn't just walk away.

[AllegroRondo]

26. So if I were a Christian Scientist, could I refuse to dispense all drugs?

Christian Scientists believe that drugs or even visiting a doctor is against their religion, the only thing you can do for a sick individual is pray.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalFighter]

28. I don't want it to go this far. But maybe it has already happened...

if someone was denied a prescription and it resulted in their death. That may be the way to incite the citizens to demand the law require pharmacists to do their job as it should be not the way they want it to be done.

[fudge stripe cookays]

163. This could happen in my case...

I take birth control so that my ovaries don't explode from my endometriosis, not for contraception.

If I was in a small town and a pharmacist refused my prescription (wit no other place to obtain the drug), I would eventually require another emergency surgery to remove another ovarian cyst. The last one ruptured, and the pain was HORRIFIC.

Any pharmacist that tries this crap on me would be looking at the fattest lawsuit they had ever seen. And I would trumpet it from the rooftops. Nice, respectable, married woman needed BCP for a medical condition. Wal-Mart wouldn't know what hit them. And I'd get the lawyer to go for punitive damages so other employers would get the messsage.

[NoodleyAppendage]

29. FIRE THE DUMBASS. If he doesn't get fired, then it's time to picket the WalMart who hired him.

We cannot, and SHOULD NOT, tolerate the Dark Ages thinking, dumbasses in this country.

SHAME, DERISION, PICKETING, FIRING...it's high-time to take this country back from the Christofascists!!!

J

[TommyO]

50. Agreed!

If a pharmacist cannot, or will not, dispense legally prescribed drugs, or OTC drugs that require a pharmacist to dispense, then they need to find another line of work. PERIOD!

[LiberalFighter]

30. Laws as of October 2006

Laws

Arkansas § 20-9-1001 allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to perform abortion services and provide or dispense contraceptives in all or most circumstances.

California SB 644 Chapter No. 417 prohibits a health care licentiate from obstructing a patient in obtaining a prescription drug or device and would require the licentiate to dispense drugs and devices pursuant to a lawful prescription or order except in specified circumstances, including on ethical, moral, or religious grounds asserted by the licentiate.

Colorado Rev. Stat. 25-6-102 states that no private institution, it employees, or physicians may be held liable for refusing to dispense contraceptive supplies, procedures or information if their refusal is based on a moral or religious objection to such activities.

Florida 2003 Stat. XXIX 381.0051 states that physicians or other people may not be held liable for refusing to dispense contraceptive or family planning devices, services or information.

Georgia Admin. Code § 480-5-.03 provides that a pharmacist shall not be required to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive drug; provides that such refusal shall not be the basis for any claim for damages; provides for the duration of the effectiveness of the written objection; provides for related matters; repeals conflicting laws.

Illinois requires pharmacies to dispense contraception. Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) issued emergency rules that require pharmacies in the state to dispense FDA-approved contraceptives. If the pharmacy does not have the drug or a suitable substitute in stock, then the pharmacy must order the medication through standard procedures, transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy or return the prescription to the patient. The emergency rules will be in effect only for 150 days, after which the state is expected to begin the normal rulemaking process in order to make the requirement rule permanent.

Maine Rev. Stat. tit. 22, 1903 (1973) gives physicians and agents of medical and related facilities the right to refuse to provide family planning services when such actions would interfere with moral or religious beliefs.

Mississippi Code Ann. § 41-41-215 permits health care providers, including pharmacists or other pharmacy employees, counselors, social workers, health insures and health care facilities to refuse to provide medical services, including counseling and referral, on religious or ethical grounds (SB 2619).

South Dakota Codified Laws § 36-11-70 allows pharmacists the right to refuse to provide services.

Tennessee Code Ann. 68-34-104 allows physicians or any agent of such an entity to refuse to offer contraceptive services, supplies, or information if it interferes with a moral or religious belief. States that physicians or other agents may not be held liable for this refusal.

On June 1, 2006 the Washington Board of Pharmacy approved proposed rule language regarding a pharmacist’s responsibilities in dispensing a lawful prescription. This language would amend Washington Admin. Code 246-863-095 to prohibit a pharmacist from delegating the decision not to dispense prescriptions for any reason.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Nothing for Ohio, so this Christofascist is screwed...right??

I want this jerk to suffer legally, then we'll see how firm his convictions are on the matter.

J

[LiberalFighter]

33. It is probably just a list of states passing laws since 2005

[LiberalFighter]

32. Source

NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures

[AnneD]

34. Yes,

but let a nurse refuse to take care of a child molester or rapist had see how long it takes for her to get canned. Even a pt that is violent against said nurse or nurses in general. It can be measured in nano seconds.
If you can't be Professional, either find another profession or open your own independent pharmacy. In many rural areas, Walmart is it. To deny folks legally prescribed drugs in a timely manner is the same as denying them medical care-and that is criminal. End of Story.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Conscience clauses for pharmacists & Must-fill states

Source

[jgraz]

130. Is there anything more annoying than calling these obscene laws "Conscience clauses"?

Let's call them what they really are: "Subjugation of Women clauses", or "Fear and Hatred of Sex clauses" or maybe just "Sops to the American Taliban" clauses.

Seriously, would anyone tolerate a Muslim teacher who refused to allow girls in his class? The sickening analogies are endless. It's like the fucking "Handmaid's Tale" come to life.

:grr:

[SemperEadem]

157. they should be called medical obstruction clauses

because they are interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Pharmacists are not qualified to make medical decisions in the absense of a patient's medical history. That is text-book negligence and borderline malpractice to do so. He should be charged with practicing medicine without a license. The pharmacist is not an MD.

The answer is for the pharmacist to be eliminated from anything having to do with dispensing contraceptives--the patient should get it directly from her doctor and the doctor should be granted the means by which to do this.

[Neurotica]

196. I prefer to call them "refusal clauses"

It says exactly what the pharmacists are doing -- refusing to fill prescriptions that have been determined necessary by a woman and her physician. The pharmacist in this case is interfering in a private medical decision.

[LiberalFighter]

38. Pharmacists need not fill prescriptions they disagree with has far-reaching implications

Media Matters for America
A February 7, 2005, National Law Journal article illustrates that while the bulk of attention has been given to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, the potential exists for pharmacists to refuse to dispense a wide range of essential, prescribed medicine if advocates of the so-called "conscience clause" for pharmacists are successful; the article noted that in 2004, "a Dallas pharmacist refused to fill a mother's prescription for her son's Ritalin."

Though "conscience clause" advocates prefer to focus on birth control pills -- and the media reports that cover the controversy do likewise -- their position that pharmacists need not fill prescriptions they disagree with has far-reaching implications. By the same rationale, a pharmacist who believes, as the Rev. Jerry Falwell once claimed, that AIDS is "God's punishment for homosexuals" could refuse to fill a prescription for an AIDS patient. Pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for heart medicine for the elderly, antidepressants for a suicidal patient -- anything.

According to The Washington Post, "The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way." APA vice president for policy and communications Susan Winckler explained:

What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy. ... The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication.

[LiberalFighter]

39. The American Pharmacists Association needs to be hit hard on it's policy

[liberalhistorian]

168. WTF? He refused to fill a

goddamned Ritalin prescription? WTF is the problem with Ritalin? And WTF business is it of his if the child's doctor and parents made the decision for its use? This is the first I've heard of a non-contraceptive/reproductive-related prescription not being filled and I'm absolutely floored. Any fucking pharmacist that tried that with me or my family wouldn't know what hit him, I guarantee it.

What's next? A scientologist refusing to fill prescriptions for psychiatric drugs? A vegeterian refusing to fill a prescription for hypertension/heart disease medicine? And on and on and on.....................Where the fuck does it end? If you're gonna be a medical professional, then you damn well better be prepared to serve everyone, not just those you pick and choose. If you can't do that, don't pick a goddamned medical job.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Unless, they haven't revised Ohio Law this is the section they tried changing

§ 4729.16. Disciplinary actions.

(A) The state board of pharmacy, after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, may revoke, suspend, limit, place on probation, or refuse to grant or renew an identification card, or may impose a monetary penalty or forfeiture not to exceed in severity any fine designated under the Revised Code for a similar offense, or in the case of a violation of a section of the Revised Code that does not bear a penalty, a monetary penalty or forfeiture of not more than five hundred dollars, if the board finds a pharmacist or pharmacy intern:

(1) Guilty of a felony or gross immorality;
(2) Guilty of dishonesty or unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy;
(3) Addicted to or abusing liquor or drugs or impaired physically or mentally to such a degree as to render the pharmacist or pharmacy intern unfit to practice pharmacy;
(4) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor related to, or committed in, the practice of pharmacy;
(5) Guilty of willfully violating, conspiring to violate, attempting to violate, or aiding and abetting the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, sections 3715.52 to 3715.72 of the Revised Code, Chapter 2925. or 3719. of the Revised Code, or any rule adopted by the board under those provisions;
(6) Guilty of permitting anyone other than a pharmacist or pharmacy intern to practice pharmacy;
(7) Guilty of knowingly lending the pharmacist's or pharmacy intern's name to an illegal practitioner of pharmacy or having professional connection with an illegal practitioner of pharmacy;
(8) Guilty of dividing or agreeing to divide remuneration made in the practice of pharmacy with any other individual, including, but not limited to, any licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs or any owner, manager, or employee of a health care facility, residential care facility, or nursing home;
(9) Has violated the terms of a consult agreement entered into pursuant to section 4729.39 of the Revised Code;
(10) Has committed fraud, misrepresentation, or deception in applying for or securing a license or identification card issued by the board under this chapter or under Chapter 3715. or 3719. of the Revised Code.

(B) Any individual whose identification card is revoked, suspended, or refused, shall return the identification card and license to the offices of the state board of pharmacy within ten days after receipt of notice of such action.

(C) As used in this section:

"Unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy" includes any of the following:

(1) Advertising or displaying signs that promote dangerous drugs to the public in a manner that is false or misleading;
(2) Except as provided in section 4729.281 <4729.28.1> of the Revised Code, the sale of any drug for which a prescription is required, without having received a prescription for the drug;
(3) Knowingly dispensing medication pursuant to false or forged prescriptions;
(4) Knowingly failing to maintain complete and accurate records of all dangerous drugs received or dispensed in compliance with federal laws and regulations and state laws and rules;
(5) Obtaining any remuneration by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception.

(D) The board may suspend a license or identification card under division (B) of section 3719.121 <3719.12.1> of the Revised Code by utilizing a telephone conference call to review the allegations and take a vote.

(E) If, pursuant to an adjudication under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, the board has reasonable cause to believe that a pharmacist or pharmacy intern is physically or mentally impaired, the board may require the pharmacist or pharmacy intern to submit to a physical or mental examination, or both.

[LiberalFighter]

41. The language they tried to enact during 2001-2002 session

A BILL To amend section 4729.16 and to enact section 4729.162 of the Revised Code to provide that a pharmacist may refuse to dispense a drug on the basis of ethical or religious principles.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That section 4729.16 be amended and section 4729.162 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 4729.16.
(A) The state board of pharmacy, after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, may revoke, suspend, limit, place on probation, or refuse to grant or renew an identification card, or may impose a monetary penalty or forfeiture not to exceed in severity any fine designated under the Revised Code for a similar offense, or in the case of a violation of a section of the Revised Code that does not bear a penalty, a monetary penalty or forfeiture of not more than five hundred dollars, if the board finds a pharmacist or pharmacy intern:

(1) Guilty of a felony or gross immorality;

(2) Guilty of dishonesty or unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy;

(3) Addicted to or abusing liquor or drugs or impaired physically or mentally to such a degree as to render the pharmacist or pharmacy intern unfit to practice pharmacy;

(4) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor related to, or committed in, the practice of pharmacy;

(5) Guilty of willfully violating, conspiring to violate, attempting to violate, or aiding and abetting the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, sections 3715.52 to 3715.72 of the Revised Code, Chapter 2925. or 3719. of the Revised Code, or any rule adopted by the board under those provisions;

(6) Guilty of permitting anyone other than a pharmacist or pharmacy intern to practice pharmacy;

(7) Guilty of knowingly lending the pharmacist's or pharmacy intern's name to an illegal practitioner of pharmacy or having professional connection with an illegal practitioner of pharmacy;

(8) Guilty of dividing or agreeing to divide remuneration made in the practice of pharmacy with any other individual, including, but not limited to, any licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs or any owner, manager, or employee of a health care facility, residential care facility, or nursing home;

(9) Has Except as provided in division (C)(2) of this section, has violated the terms of a consult agreement entered into pursuant to section 4729.39 of the Revised Code;

(10) Has committed fraud, misrepresentation, or deception in applying for or securing a license or identification card issued by the board under this chapter or under Chapter 3715. or 3719. of the Revised Code.

(B) Any individual whose identification card is revoked, suspended, or refused, shall return the identification card and license to the offices of the state board of pharmacy within ten days after receipt of notice of such action.

(C) The board may not take action under division (A) of this section against a pharmacist for doing either of the following in accordance with section 4729.162 of the Revised Code:

(1) Refusing to dispense a drug;

(2) Terminating a consult agreement.

(D) As used in this section:

"Unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy" includes any of the following:

(1) Advertising or displaying signs that promote dangerous drugs to the public in a manner that is false or misleading;

(2) Except as provided in section 4729.281 of the Revised Code, the sale of any drug for which a prescription is required, without having received a prescription for the drug;

(3) Knowingly dispensing medication pursuant to false or forged prescriptions;

(4) Knowingly failing to maintain complete and accurate records of all dangerous drugs received or dispensed in compliance with federal laws and regulations and state laws and rules;

(5) Obtaining any remuneration by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception.

(D)(E) The board may suspend a license or identification card under division (B) of section 3719.121 of the Revised Code by utilizing a telephone conference call to review the allegations and take a vote.

(E)(F) If, pursuant to an adjudication under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, the board has reasonable cause to believe that a pharmacist or pharmacy intern is physically or mentally impaired, the board may require the pharmacist or pharmacy intern to submit to a physical or mental examination, or both.

Sec. 4729.162.
A pharmacist may refuse to dispense a drug if doing so would violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles. A pharmacist who has entered into a consult agreement under section 4729.39 of the Revised Code shall terminate the agreement in accordance with that section if the pharmacist refuses to dispense a drug prescribed for the individual who consented to treatment under the agreement.

Unless self-employed, a pharmacist who intends to refuse to dispense a drug for ethical or religious reasons shall provide to the pharmacist's employer a written statement of the basis for the refusal before receiving a request to fill a prescription for the drug. If such a written statement has been provided, the pharmacist's employer shall not discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or retaliate against or deny employment or promotion to the pharmacist solely on the basis of refusal to dispense the drug.

A pharmacist who refuses, in accordance with this section, to dispense a drug and the pharmacist's employer are not liable in damages for harm resulting from the refusal.

A pharmacist or employer may not be denied public funds on the basis of a pharmacist's refusal, in accordance with this section, to dispense a drug.

Section 2. That existing section 4729.16 of the Revised Code is hereby repealed.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Language they tried to enact in 2003-2004 session

A BILL

To amend section 4731.91 of the Revised Code concerning distribution of medication that will or may result in abortion or termination of life and performance of medical procedures that will or may result in termination of life.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That section 4731.91 of the Revised Code be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 4731.91. (A) No private hospital, private hospital director, or governing board of a private hospital is required to permit an abortion.

(B) No public hospital, public hospital director, or governing board of a public hospital is required to permit an abortion.

(C) Refusal to permit an abortion is not grounds for civil liability nor a basis for disciplinary or other recriminatory action.

(D) No person is required to perform or participate in medical procedures or distribution of any medication which will or may result in abortion or termination of life, and refusal to perform or participate in the medical procedures or distribution of medication is not grounds for civil liability nor a basis for disciplinary or other recriminatory action.

(E) Whoever violates division (D) of this section is liable in civil damages.

Section 2. That existing section 4731.91 of the Revised Code is hereby repealed.

[LiberalFighter]

Current language unless Ohio online is incorrect

§ 4731.91. Abortion; liability.

(A) No private hospital, private hospital director, or governing board of a private hospital is required to permit an abortion.

(B) No public hospital, public hospital director, or governing board of a public hospital is required to permit an abortion.

(C) Refusal to permit an abortion is not grounds for civil liability nor a basis for disciplinary or other recriminatory action.

(D) No person is required to perform or participate in medical procedures which result in abortion, and refusal to perform or participate in the medical procedures is not grounds for civil liability nor a basis for disciplinary or other recriminatory action.

(E) Whoever violates division (D) of this section is liable in civil damages.

[BattyDem]

75. Why are there special laws for pharmacists and other medical workers?

Why are they allowed to refuse to do their job based on their own moral and religious beliefs? Why is it only reproductive-related products and services that are involved? Is it because no one would stand for it if they refused products/services to men whose "morality" didn't meet their standards? :grr:

[liberalhistorian]

112. I wonder just how many of them

refuse to fill viagra prescriptions or ask if the man is married or single before filling the prescription? My guess is that the number is exactly ZERO.

[BattyDem]

113. Or gay?

Like pre-marital sex, homosexuality is a major sin to fundies, right? So how many pharmacists refuse to give Viagra to men that they know or suspect are gay? Do they refuse to sell condoms to single men or gay men? I'm willing to bet the answer is, "no" because if the answer was "yes," millions of single men would be SCREAMING about it!

Their "morality" seems a bit selective. :eyes:

[jgraz]

127. Medical workers should start refusing to treat Republicans

Let's see how long the laws stay on the books then...

[NewJeffCT]

167. Connecticut has a law on this

Not sure exactly how it is worded, but I believe any pharmacy that expects Medicaid reimbursement from the state must provide all legal medication.

[YankeyMCC]

37. The law says he can ridicule her by laughing? A**hats! nt

[Cass]

44. No one in the entire store was willing to give this couple the pills?

Company spokesman Kevin Gardner says corporate policy says any Wal-Mart worker who does not feel comfortable dispensing a product can refer customers to another pharmacist, pharmacy worker or sales associate.

So no one in the entire store was *comfortable* giving this couple the Plan B pills? These are over-the-counter pills for crying out loud. They didn't need that pompous ass pharmacist to fill a prescription for them so what is the explanation for this? I'm sick of this manipulative and controlling BS. Why does the pharmacist's belief take precedence over everyone else's right to purchase a legal over-the-counter product?

[MaineDem]

45. They are OTC in that a prescription is not needed

But they do require a pharmacist to dispense them.

[Cass]

48. I didn't realize that. Is that a state or federal provision, do you know?

IMHO, the law should read that if a 2nd pharmacist isn't available to dispense a product then the pharmacist on duty is required to do so. Letting these pharmacists refuse to dispense legal products when there is no one else available to do so is simply allowing the sacrifice of an individual's rights in order to honor another's religious beliefs. Some of these fundies don't believe in birth control at all. I'm curious what the law says about a pharmacist refusing to fill basic birth control pill prescriptions. What then? There needs to be a challenge to these refusal laws.

[MaineDem]

49. I think it's an FDA rule unless states have something different

Many states allowed Plan B before the FDA did so their laws may be different. But I do think they all require a pharmacist to dispense it.

[BattyDem]

76. According to Princeton's Emergency Contraception Website ...

ANY employee can sell it. A pharmacist is not needed for the sale. :-)

"The FDA requires that a health care professional must be available to answer questions if needed, but anyone behind the pharmacy counter will be able to sell Plan B over the counter (OTC) after seeing proof of age."

Princeton's Emergency Contraception Website
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/QA-OTC-access.html

[Cass]

79. Thanks for that info, Battydem. So a pharmacist is not needed for the sale after all.

I bet we could get these refusal laws repealed right quick if these moral guardian pharmacists started refusing to dispense viagra to unmarried men. Hoo boy, we'd see some action then.

[customerserviceguy]

47. Anybody here

in favor of making vegetarian and vegan markets sell meat?

I just want to know the depth of hypocricy here. Liberalized abortion laws were passed with conscience clauses (even here in WA state, the most pro-abortion state in the US) that assured people who had this peculiar belief than an unborn human being was a person, would be protected in their convictions. I'd never ask my vegetarian and vegan friends to cook me a steak when I went to visit their homes, why does the involvement of a commercial enterprise, which should be free to sell what it wants, within what's legal, be different?

[yewberry]

51. Your analogy isn't working for me. At all.

I wouldn't go to school to become a butcher and then refuse to sell meat to someone.

(And a PS--if vegan market sold meat, they would cease to be a vegan market. If a pharmacy sold Plan B to a couple who decided they weren't ready for the responsibility of parenthood, they would not cease to be a pharmacy, though they might cease to be chuckling twerps who try to impose their own belief systems on others.)

[phylny]

72. THANK YOU!

Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control pills or Plan B needs to go work for a Catholic Hospital where they won't dispense them anyway.

I would be FURIOUS if someone decided what I could and couldn't have based upon their beliefs.

[VegasWolf]

54. Fuckin' Jesus. You are comparing a steak dinner to a lifetime of raising

a perhaps unwanted child. Or, perhaps, you would simply wait until she becomes pregnant and then she have an abortion? How absurd.

[mondo joe]

58. False analogy. Try to be somewhat intellectually honest, please.

Vegetarian markets do no sell meat.

Pharmacies do sell prescriptions, including Plan B.

Furthermore, pharmacies and pharmacists are licensed to provide an essential service.

If you don't want to fill prescriptions DON'T WORK IN A PHARMACY.

[customerserviceguy]

146. How many of these pharmacists

started to work in that field since the development of the abortion drugs? I agree, if one has ethical concerns about having to dispense what one does not agree with, then one should not go into that particular industry, or should select an employer that shares that philosophy.

But what happens when the circumstances change?

[mondo joe]

149. One has to be responsible for his or her own convictions.

There is no call to take it out on others.

If you object to handling meat and your formerly vegan employer starts to sell it, you have a choice: get over it or leave the job.

If you object to Plan B (which is not an abortificent) and your employer sells it, you have a choice: get over it or leave the job.

[Shakespeare]

187. THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT AN ABORTION DRUG!

Jesus fucking CHRIST I wish people wouldn't buy into the anti-choice propaganda. :banghead:

There is NO EXCUSE for that pharmacist's refusing to dispense an ITC drug. None. What. SO. EVER.

[smoogatz]

59. Hm. That's a tough one, all right.

Here's an even better analogy: what if you went into a steak house and ordered a steak, but the waiter refused to sell it to you because you were overweight, and all that cholesterol would probably contribute to your early demise. He's acting in your best interests, according to his personal moral code. If he served you the steak, he'd be partly responsible for killing you, after all. Let's say you call the manager to your table and complain--but the manager says the waiter is acting according to his conscience, which is protected by law. Sorry, no steak for you--he offers to bring you a nice salad instead. Now, let's up the ante: let's say you or your spouse (whichever is female) has a tubal pregnancy. These are common, extremely dangerous to the mother, and have zero chance of leading to a live birth. You rush to the hospital, and the ER doc says--"Gee, I'd like to help you, but in ending your (or your wife's) tubal pregnancy, I'd be taking an innocent life. Can't do it. Here's a couple of aspirin--lots of luck!" The next hospital is miles away, and you have no guarantee that the ER doc there will say anything different. On the way to a third or fourth hospital, your wife dies an agonizing death. Is the ER doc protected under "right to conscience" laws? Should he/she be?

Now, let's try this on for size--and I know it's a challenging concept for fundie moron freeptards to get their little pinheads around: a pharmacist is allegedly a medical professional--a vital link in the supply chain between the doctor, the drug-makers, and you. Is it their job to pass moral judgment on you, the patient, or is it their job to COUNT THE FUCKING PILLS and hand them over, as prescribed (or "over the counter," in this case)? Think hard, now. Your answer will say a lot about you.

[HockeyMom]

82. They will wait until you tube bursts

Been there, done that. That way it is left up to god to "kill the baby."

Catholic Hospital, Queens, NY, 1983.

[DemBones DemBones]

103. Diagnostics are better now so

they don't have to wait. It wasn't just in Catholic hospitals that they waited, either. I was in a public hospital and they waited for two days. Exploratory surgery endangers the embryo if the pregnancy is normal, so OB-GYNs avoided surgery until they were sure the pregnancy was in danger, which often meant waiting until the tube burst. It's supposed to be the worst pain there is and I can believe that, can't you?

[HockeyMom]

159. They had Sonograms in 1983

The hospital said they had to SCHEDULE me for one. Yes, that is what they said.

Pain? My tube had already burst before I went to the hospital. The pain was worse than childbirth. It was only on my left side and shot down my leg. I had been bleeding for 10 days since getting my "period".

My doctor, as soon he learned of my symptoms, put me in the hospital and ordered an immediate Sonogram. He told me he thought it was an ectopic pregnancy right away. Apparently, the "professionals" in the hospital didn't think so. Perhaps their religion clouded their thinking? As the nurses kept telling me, and I do QUOTE, "We don't do ABORTIONS here."

[smoogatz]

144. Good God.

If that isn't the definition of wilfull medical malpractice, I don't know what is. Holy shit.

[DemBones DemBones]

86. Few, if any, people would argue

that a mother's life should not be saved when she has an ectopic pregnancy or any other life-threatening condition. Pro-lifers know that some pregnancies cannot be saved, and tubal pregnancies are in this class, usually to the sorrow of the parents. Perhaps someday surgeons will be able to relocate these pregnancies but that would require very early diagnosis and techniques not yet developed.

Not all ectopic pregnancies are in the tube, however, and you are incorrect in stating that these pregnancies "have zero chance of leading to a live birth." Some ectopic pregnancies develop normally in the mother's abdominal cavity and a healthy infant is delivered. There was a story in the news about such a case within the past year. It's not common, but it happens and makes the news every few years.

But this case involves a couple wanting "emergency contraception" (a misnomer -- contraception is used while having sex, not a day or two later), not a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. The so-called "emergency contraception" will cause an abortion if the woman has conceived. (If she hasn't conceived, it won't, obviously.)

The pharmacist should be able to follow his conscience about supplying this drug, just as a vegetarian or vegan should not be forced to kill an animal or to eat meat.

People who go into medical careers are supposed to be concerned with saving lives, not taking them.

Why are "pro-choice" people so angry when a medical professional acts on his or her CHOICE not to provide abortions?

[yewberry]

92. Truly?

"Why are "pro-choice" people so angry when a medical professional acts on his or her CHOICE not to provide abortions?"

Because they're making the choice for other people who may not share their beliefs.


And "The pharmacist should be able to follow his conscience about supplying this drug, just as a vegetarian or vegan should not be forced to kill an animal or to eat meat."

And that is why I do not work in a steak house. You see, I know that I have moral questions about meat. How long would I keep that job if I refused to sell something that I believe is wrong for me to sell? Not very long--and that is why I haven't chosen to go into that line of work.

If the pharmacist (or any medical professional) refused to provide medical care/assistance in an environment where a consumer had no recourse, that pharmacist is wrong. If an individual is unwilling to provide what a customer needs, then he or she might do better to work somewhere that his or her opinions wouldn't be a problem, like a Catholic hospital or a mail-order prescription service.

I agree that no one should be forced to do anything that they believe is morally wrong, but that pharmacist had all the power in that situation and clearly had no problem wielding it. The store should have had a procedure in place to handle his unwillingness to do his job.

[grizmaster]

100. again a false analogy

You said,

"Why are "pro-choice" people so angry when a medical professional acts on his or her CHOICE not to provide abortions?"

The correct analogy would be a doctor who chooses to become an abortionist then refuses to perform abortions. The pharmacist's central function is to make sure a doctors prescription is filled properly. A pharmacist that refuses to perform the main function of the job is no pharmacist at all. And like doctors can choose professions other than abortionist, pharmacists can make other pharmaceutical career choices which will not put them in the position of denying patients of the care prescribed by their doctor.

[smoogatz]

140. Exactly right.

Some other useful analogies:

A Christian Scientist becomes an MD, but refuses to prescribe medication or otherwise treat his patients, except according to the tenets of his faith.

A Quaker volunteers for the Marine Corps, but refuses to fire his weapon at other human beings when ordered to do so.

A Buddhist takes a job as an exterminator, but refuses to kill insects or rodents.

A vegetarian takes a job at MacDonald's, but refuses to serve hamburgers.

These people would all be entirely entitled to act on their beliefs, it seems to me--but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fired for failing to perform the basic functions required by their jobs. A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication as prescribed by a doctor, NOT to decide whether that medication is morally fit to be dispensed, NOT to pass judgment on the patient. A pharmacist who refuses to provide legal, prescribed (or over the counter) medication based on his personal moral judgment is choosing not to perform the basic functions required by his/her job, and probably ought to seek another form of employment.

[Solon]

102. OK, this is getting ridiculous...

The pharmacist should be able to follow his conscience about supplying this drug, just as a vegetarian or vegan should not be forced to kill an animal or to eat meat.

OK, what the fuck is this, no offense to vegans or you, but if a vegan works for a slaughterhouse, they WILL be "forced" to kill animals, that's just a fact, and too bad for them if they don't like it, if you can't do the job, don't WORK at the job. As far as the eating meat comment, name me ONE time a "pro life" pharmacist was REQUIRED to TAKE the medication they dispense, and I'll eat my fucking hat, talk about misrepresenting facts, or should I call it lying? I guess some of God's Commandments are more important than others, at least to some "good Christians".

[ProudDad]

118. Maybe because it's not HIS FUCKING CHOICE

It's the CHOICE of the woman who has to carry the baby...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

136. Try again, ma'am. Here's how people like you want things to be:

http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/10/abortion_in_el_.html

[smoogatz]

145. Three things--

First, I specifically said "tubal pregnancy" as opposed to "ectopic pregnancy" because it's my understanding that tubal pregnancies never result in live birth, ever, and because they are particularly dangerous to the mother. But if pro-lifers are to be morally consistent (and they never are), then they would have to balance the possibility that the mother might die against the certainty that the fetus will be killed if the pregnancy is aborted. Given that choice, don't you have to take your chances with the mother's health? I mean, a miracle could occur and result in the tubal pregnancy somehow relocating to the uterus, right?

Second, since analogy is apparently lost on you (except when you choose to make a poor one to upport your own argument), let's talk about this particular pharmacist--whose job it is to provide safe, legal medications (as determined by the FDA) as prescribed, or as requested by the patient, in the case of over-the-counter drugs. No one is asking him to "provide abortions." Plan B is not an abortificant, and will not terminate an existing pregnancy. You say you're a scientist, so you should know that the medical definition of pregnancy includes both fertilization and implantation. If you choose to ignore that fact and make your own, religion-based argument that a fertilized egg is "a life," then you do so without the backing of the medical community. It may be a potential life, but so is every sperm and every egg. The pharmacist makes the same error: if he/she is, as you say, a "medical professional," he is withholding a safe, legal medication from a patient solely based on his/her personal, non-medical decision to do so. That's a violation of professional ethical standards--or should be. I don't have the right to decline to do my job because I don't feel like it; not if I want to keep my job.

Third, this canard about the pharmacist's situation somehow being analogous to forcing vegetarians to eat meat is just ridiculous, and I wish pro-lifers would stop trying to pretend that it means something. It doesn't. Nobody forces you to become a pharmacist in the first place--you make a decision to count pills for a living. Here's a better analogy, for obvious reasons: a vegetarian takes a job at McDonald's, but refuses to serve hamburgers. The vegetarian believes strongly that eating meat is murder, and will not be a part of it. At the same time, the vegetarian finds McDonald's to be an excellent place to work, and has no wish to quit and work elsewhere. The customers are irate: they want their hamburgers, a product which is entirely legal and not at all morally objectionable from their point of view. What should the manager do? Isn't the vegetarian entitled to his/her beliefs, and to act on those beliefs in the public sphere? If you're morally consistent (and since you raised the vegetarian comparison yourself) your answer to this question should equate precisely to your position on pro-life pharmacists and Plan B. How do you solve the manager's dilemma?

[customerserviceguy]

147. Thank you

I believe that "choice" is a meaningless buzzword, just as the fundies call themselves "pro-life". We use language to demonize the other side.

In this particular case, the state law apparently allows for a conscience clause. Abortion laws that were enacted by statute rather than by judges have often allowed for exemption for people who believed that conception rather than birth was the demarcation point of being a person. Military draft laws have allowed consciencious objectors to serve in non-combat roles. What's the difference here?

[mondo joe]

148. The time to choose whether you are willing to do the job or not is when you

want to become a pharmacist.

Your analogies continue to be bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

178. Ok, what if you chose to be a pharmacist

back when drugs were ONLY for the purpose of healing people, and not killing what you believe to be a person? I do agree, I can't see why anyone who believes that humanity stretches back before birth would become a pharmacist these days...

[mondo joe]

181. Then you have to make a choice. What if you chose to be a pharmacist

before AIDS and now you are supposed to dispense medication to gay men with AIDS, even though your religious beliefs say they should die for their sins?

What if you became a teacher before integration and your religious beliefs say race mixing is wrong?

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THE JOB, CHOOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[smoogatz]

150. The difference is obvious.

Or it should be, anyway. In the case of the military draft, two things: first, the draft is compulsory. As far as I know, there's nothing compulsory about being a pharmacist. No one makes them do it. Second, COs are, as you say, allowed to serve in non-combat roles. Pharmacists who object to dispensing certain medications are still allowed to interact with the public and pretend to be actual pharmacists--they're not put in other, non-pill-dispensing roles. If they were, there'd be no controversy as far as I'm concerned. As for your abortion law argument, it's not clear enough to respond to. What are you trying to say? That doctors have the right not to perform abortions? Of course they do. They also have the right not to pull teeth or spay your cat: medicine is a highly specialized discipline. Should we then have specialized pharmacists? Some who hand out certain kinds of pills, but not others? Others (Christian Scientists, perhaps) who refuse to hand out pills at all? Hey, why not. Nothing ridiculous about that.

On edit: it's truly remarkable how poorly thought out your arguments are. These analogies of yours are completely absurd. What is it about fundies and critical thinking? I guess if you'd been trained to think you probably wouldn't be a fundie.

[VegasWolf]

160. Exactly. Therein lies the crux of the problem! If one has been trained with critical

thinking skills, then one can no longer be a fundie. One must step out from their cocoon of "belief" and address the world rationally!

[customerserviceguy]

179. I'll have you know

I'm not a fundie. As a matter of fact, I'm proud to call myself an atheist.

I guess you pigeonhole everyone who thinks differently from you as a fundie. Well, some of us can make a decision about who is a person, and who is not, without regard to being told what to think by a preacher.

Is it inconceivable for you to imagine someone that wants to expand the definition of personhood, from an ethical perspective that is inclusive of those in the "gray" areas? Well, meet me, your first non-fundamentalist supporter of personhood for preborn human beings.

[mondo joe]

182. It's tragic to find such an illogical and fallacious atheist.

Believe whatever you like about personhood.

It has nothing to do with your bizarre and fallacious analogy about vegan markets being forced to sell meat.

NO ONE IS FORCED TO BE A PHARMACIST.

No one.

If you don't want to meet the functions of the job, do something else.

[customerserviceguy]

185. I see

So you set the standards for what "all atheists should believe". You're no better than a TV preacher...

[mondo joe]

190. Now you're misstating yet again.

You can BELIEVE whatever you like.

I expect atheists, however, to use reason and logic.

[customerserviceguy]

205. Clearly

you think that the only reasonable and logical position possible is that personhood begins at birth. I consider the people who came up with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be among the most reasonable and logical people of their era, but even they had problems with figuring out who was to be a full person, and who wasn't.

[Zhade]

214. He's not an atheist, he's a rightwing troll.

Actual atheists, like myself, would never say we "believe" something, because atheism isn't about belief - it's a LACK of belief.

[Scout]

183. there is NO WAY to grant "personhood" to a fetus/embryo/zygote

without compromising a woman's constitutional rights. It cannot be done.

[customerserviceguy]

186. That was the same argument used

when "granting" personhood to slaves was done. The people who "owned" them thought they were losing the constitutional rights to property.

You've stated the bottom line well, there is no amount of evidence that could be amassed to prove personhood for a living unborn human being, because it would necessarily deprive a woman of a property right. Unless we were to recognize that there were two persons, with potentially conflicting rights, which is not something people talk about here.

[Shakespeare]

189. That argument is completely inapplicable. COMPLETELY.

There is NO accurate comparison between a slave and a mass of cells inside my body. The slave is sentient being completely capable of surviving in the world, entitled to his or her own individual rights.

An embryo, zygote or fetus that is NOT yet a sentient being and is existing only because it has the protection of my womb, does NOT.

It is obscene to suggest that that mass of cells is a "person."

[customerserviceguy]

206. They have one similarity

The two entities have both been denied personhood by decisions of the US Supreme Court. It almost could have gone that way with gay people, as well.

[mondo joe]

191. False. The right to abortion does not rest on the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus.

The fetus occupies and is dependent on the mother's body.

If she wants it removed, it's her body - just as if she were having sex with a man and wanted to stop. It's HER body.

Personhood is not an issue.

[Scout]

198. Fine, then show me how constitutionally it can be done.

And by the way, the slaves were not INSIDE the body of their "masters."

So prove to me how legally, constitutionally full personhood and rights can be granted to an embryo without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman. I double dog dare you.

[customerserviceguy]

207. Laws "force" duties on people all the time

If a woman chooses to have a child, the man who is the father of that child (whether he chose to want to impregnate or not) will owe child support for next eighteen years. Parents have duties to support their offspring.

If a child resulted from a willful, deliberate act, then the people who created that child have responsibilities towards it. We're just arguing about when those responsibilities begin.

[Scout]

216. you obviously have not the faintest clue what you are talking about.

SHOW ME how legally, constitutionally, a fetus/embryo/zygote can have the same full rights as a woman.

I don't want to hear any more crap about the slaves, and gay people ... we're talking about one "being" living INSIDE the uterus of a woman. Prove to me how it can be legally done, without infringing on the rights of the woman.

I double dog dare you.

[smoogatz]

184. Oh, please.

Atheists are rationalists, and there's absolutely no rational process by which anyone can declare that all women must be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, whether they want to or not. And there's certainly no rational process by which anyone can support a pharmacist's refusal to dispense safe, legal, over-the-counter medications to persons of legal age to receive them. Even if there was, I doubt you'd be capable of formulating and expressing it--if you're an atheist, you're far and away the dumbest one I've ever encountered. "Preborn human beings?" Come on--that language is right out of the fundie nutcase playbook, as are all of your pinheaded arguments. Nope, I was right the first time. You're a fundie, you're just too craven to admit it. Stop making the baby Jesus cry.

[customerserviceguy]

188. Admit it

you just can't deal with an atheist that doesn't fit the mold that you've figured they all come from. I don't presume all religious people to be identical thinkers, why should anyone presume that all atheists believe exactly the same things?

When kings, legislatures, and even direct votes of the people have expanded the definition of which living beings with the 46 human chromosomes are persons, they've tended to be right, when they've restricted that definition, they've tended to be wrong. My beliefs are in line with that logic.

The best way to deny someone's personhood is to label them subhuman. It's happened throughout history, and it happens today.

[mondo joe]

192. Again, false.

Abortion rights is not based on "personhood" or the lack thereof.

You might get further if you abandoned your blatantly false arguments.

[customerserviceguy]

209. I understand your argument perfectly

So called "abortion rights" (a much nicer way of saying simply 'abortion') indeed do not address the question of personhood. Neither did the Dred Scott decision. When living beings with the 46 human chromosomes are "inconvenient", their personhood is denied or at least severely compromised.

Only "persons" are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[smoogatz]

197. If you knew the first thing about atheism, you'd know it's not based in belief.

Atheists don't "believe" anything. That's what makes them atheists. They have opinions, which are subject to change given new and compelling evidence. The fact that you speak of atheism as a set of beliefs proves one of two things: either you're lying about being an atheist, or you're the dumbest atheist I've ever encountered. Either way, it's not a flattering picture.

As for your assertion that the elevation of the fetus to personhood is somehow a rational, ethical, non-religious conclusion you've come to: bullshit. If you elevate the fetus to personhood, you erode the personhood of every woman capable of bearing children. If you declare the fetus a full-fledged person, you reduce every woman on the face of the planet to livestock or childbearing machines, whose primary (only) function is gestation and childbirth. No rational ethicist would consider this an acceptable conclusion. But, surprise surprise, it's perfectly all right with fundies.

And you still haven't explained why, if you're not a fundie, you use their ridiculous language: "pre-born person" is a dead giveaway. If you're not a fundie, why do you use fundie-specific language to make your arguments? No self-respecting atheist would even consider doing such a thing.

Finally, since you're such a hotshot rational ethicist, maybe you can explain your position a bit further. If abortion is murder, then it necessarily follows that women who have abortions are murderers--just as a mafia boss who hires an assassin to wipe out a competitor is guilty of murder. If that's the case, then women who have abortions must, ethically speaking, be tried and imprisoned for murder. It's the only ethically consistent position you can take, if you believe that abortion is murder. So, do you believe that women who have abortions--any and all abortions--should be tried and imprisoned for murder?

[customerserviceguy]

210. Again, here you are

telling atheists what they do and don't believe. What does mark atheists apart from religious people, is that they don't base anything on blind faith, they see evidence, they talk with others, they draw their own conclusions. They certainly are capable of making ethical decisions in this way. I'll acknowledge that the majority of atheists are pro-abortion, but I reached my own conclusions my way, and I happen to be anti-abortion.

As for your arguments about elevating the unborn to personhood, and eroding every woman's personhood, that sounds suspiciously like the arguments the fundies use against gay marriage. Somehow, the gay couple down the street being able to marry "destroys" marriage for the rest of them. And as for my choice of words, you hide behind the Latin word "fetus" in order to dehumanize the unborn. Ever send a gift to a "fetus shower"? This entire debate is filled with linguistic abuse to demonize the other side. It's little wonder that any compromises are possible. Each side uses language in the same way as the NRA gun owners, and the gun-banners use when "talking" to each other.

As for what would happen to women who have had abortions, well, I don't believe in trying and sentencing every poor person who steals a loaf of bread. If we had a society that truly embraced the choices of supporting one's own child, or being able to have an adoption policy that encouraged openness, then there would be a lot less women feeling like they were stuck in a tough position. I suppose if abortion were made illegal again, each case would be decided on its merits, I suspect that most would fare better than I would, if my vegan friends were to outlaw my eating meat.

[smoogatz]

211. Christ on a motherfucking soda cracker.

Okay, I guess it's option two--you are, in fact, the stupidest atheist I've ever encountered. Congratulations. What sets most atheists apart from "religious people" is their lack of religion, aka "belief." But whatever--let's look at the rest of your idiotic arguments, most of which sure look like fundie projection to me:

First, my argument that elevating the fetus to personhood erodes the personhood of women is NOTHING like the dumbass fundie argument that gay marriage erodes straight marriage. The gay marriage argument is based in magical thinking, and is therefore highly unlikely to be correct. My argument is based on simple biology: human fetuses require the use of the human womb in order to survive, at least for 23-26 weeks or so. Only women are capable of carrying a fetus to term. If we grant all fetuses personhood, and the rights and priveleges attendant on "persons" under the law, then once a woman is pregnant she has absolutely no say over what does or doesn't happen to her body--the law has determined that she will bear a child, whether she wants to or not. So you tell me--is a person who does not have the right to control their own body really a person? Or has their personhood been undermined?

As for your argument about the use of the word fetus: I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary. My use of it is lingustically and scientifically correct. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem, not mine.

And finally, there's your craven and hilarious ducking of my challenge to your moral consistency. I didn't ask you about poor people stealing bread, you fool--I asked you about women who, according to YOU, commit murder. Should they be treated as murderers under the law, or not? If not, how is that a morally consistent position?

[TankLV]

204. but a mass of cells IS "subhuman". Period. IT'S NOT HUMAN!

It is as "human" as your fingernail cells...

[TankLV]

203. sure you are - just because you say so on the "internets"

[SemperEadem]

162. incredible

you write: "Why are "pro-choice" people so angry when a medical professional acts on his or her CHOICE not to provide abortions?"

because he/she is not acting on HIS/HER choice: he/she is imposing upon the choice OF ANOTHER PERSON THAT HE/SHE IS NOT LIABLE FOR OR OBLIGATED TO. He/she is making medical decisions in the absense of knowing the other person's medical history. That's called practicing medicine without a license and it's against the law.

you write: "People who go into medical careers are supposed to be concerned with saving lives, not taking them. "

Pharmacists are not MD's. They don't practice medicine and are barred by the state from doing so without a license to practice. Also, you assume that a life has taken place with 100% certainty. There is no certainty that there was conception.

However, all of your put on arguments fall flat on their faces in light of this one glaring fact: HE IMPOSED HIS WILL UPON OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD/COULD HAVE GIVEN THE WOMAN THE PILLS. He made this about him. Sure, he can obstruct and object for himself, but if he is not the store manager, then he does not have the right to dictate to the store manager who sends for someone else to give the pills for which she has a legal prescription when the law clearly says that a pharmacist does not need to personally fill it.

[JerseygirlCT]

195. And presumably, a vegan wouldn't seek a job as a butcher,

either.

As to your last, because the choice in question belongs to the woman, not the pharmacist. The pharmacist is completely free to choose what to do with his own body, however.

[TankLV]

202. your use of quotes around PRO-CHOICE tells us a lot....

"thank you"...

[alarimer]

215. They are not allowed to force their beliefs down

other people's throats! How fucking difficult is it for you pro-lifers to understand? IT IS NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS WHETHER SHE WANTED EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION OR NOT! It is not your place to decide for other people.

I hope someone refuses to fill a prescription for you someday and maybe you will understand.

The pharmacist is paid to do a job and if he cannot or will not do so for whatever reason, he should lose his license. He is nothing but a fucking lowlife ignorant judgmental prolife asshole.

[Solon]

60. No hypocrisy, just two really bad analogies...

You compare doing the JOB of a pharmacist with CHANGING the business model of a business, a Vegan marketplace will NOT sell meat, period. However, at the same time, if a Vegan worked for a butcher, and refused to sell meat, they would get their asses fired, as they should, if you can't do the job required, you don't work there, pretty simple, yes?

You then compare this to asking an INDIVIDUAL to do something they may not like in THEIR OWN HOME. Homes are RESIDENCES, not Businesses. Businesses are much more highly regulated than homes, to give an example, you, personally, are exempt from following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you are not obligated to invite over anyone of a different race, creed, or national origin to your home. Yet, if you start a business, and tried the same thing, you will get your ass sued, and, hopefully, your business license pulled.

By the way, this doesn't apply to subletting, being a landlord, or selling your home, the Fair Housing Act covers those issues.

Commercial enterprises, specifically those considered "open to the public" i.e. do NOT carry restrictive membership lists, are regulated in a myriad of ways that you do not have to follow outside this field. More so when it comes to health care, there are ability to pay exemptions in Emergency Rooms, even at private hospitals, Pharmacies are licensed by the state to allow them to sell certain drugs, and usually the ONLY restriction they are allowed to place on the selling of drugs is if they conflict with your current medication.

Besides, these "conscience clauses" can and will be, abused. If a pharmacist is a member of the KKK, they could refuse to administer drugs to treat Sickle Cell Anemia, a disease that affects mostly African Americans. As long as he simply refuses to dispense the drugs to everybody, then he would be in the clear, as far as this law is concerned. These types of laws are discriminatory at their core, and should be fought, they serve no purpose.

[Bridget Burke]

63. No, vegetarian & vegan markets can refuse to sell meat.

But they identify themselves as VEGETARIAN or VEGAN. (Although I don't know of any such markets. Most "natural food" stores that I've seen offer meat--organically raised.)

Any pharmacy that refuses to offer certain products--even some of the time--should identify itself as such. Preferably, with a big sign at the front of the store. In that way, people in need will know to go elsewhere.

And the signs will inform those of us who are beyond needing emergency contraception. So we can avoid shopping there. Ever. For anything.

Of course, for me "WALMART" says it all.

[AngryOldDem]

65. Simple.

If it's legal, it should be available wherever drugs are legally sold. This asshole is making a MORAL judgment based on his OWN beliefs about how a paying customer SHOULD act.

Sorry, but that AIN'T in the dude's job description, and if he has problems filling legally written prescriptions for a legally available drug, or selling a legally available drug, well then, he should either quit his job at Wal-mart and find a pharmacy more to his code of values (or start his own, because I think his job options are limited in this regard), or he gets out of the business altogether.

If as you say the store has the right to be free to sell what it wants, then it should have a big neon sign at the front door so people know to take their business elsewhere.

Really. To me, it's THAT simple.

Whatever medicines I take are between my doctor and myself. If I want a pharmacist's advice (moral or otherwise, LOL), I'll ask for it.

[kestrel91316]

68. You are SOOOO right, dude. I can't get over the unmitigated gall of

these people who actually believe that a woman shouldn't be forced to bear an unwanted pregnancy..........

After all, she's just a piece of meat with no self or feelings or rights.

I'm gonna go and read some more in my bible now.

[Megahurtz]

70. The difference is they are not required to cook a steak

as part of their employment "job" description.

[oldcoot]

78. The pharmacist refused to sell Wal-Mart's product

This is not case of evil hypocritical liberals interfering with the right of Wal-Mart to sell whatever products it wants. Indeed, according to the article, Wal-Mart not only stocks plan B but also allows any worker uncomfortable "dispensing a product" to "refer customers to another pharmacist, pharmacy worker or sales associate." Clearly, Wal-Mart has policies in place sensitive to their employee's views while allowing customers to purchase the product.

If you want to blame any one for interfering with a commercial enterprise's ability to sell what it wants, blame pro-life pharmacists, such as the pharmacist in this article. Not only did he refuse to sell one of the products offered by his employer to a paying customer but insulted this customer with his rude behavior. The pharmacist and the general manager then decided not to follow store policy by not finding another employee to help the customer. As a result, this customer took her business elsewhere and will probably think twice before shopping at Wal-Mart.

If you want a real example of hypocrisy, again look at the pharmacist in this article. He knowingly works for a business that sells a product he morally opposes and thus profits (from wage increases) from its sales. If he truly found plan B offensive and immoral, he had a moral obligation to take a job elsewhere. I am sure he could have found a pharmacy that shares his moral values.

[DemBones DemBones]

81. Excellent question, although few here

will get your point.

Conscience clauses are needed for pharmacists, doctors, nurses, all health professionals. No one should be forced to do something that goes against their core beliefs, especially when it involves taking a human life.

[VegasWolf]

85. All of us "get the point", it is not very complicated. We simply disagree with the

viewpoint.

[Beaverhausen]

87. "Taking a human life?" There is no taking of a life here

Plan B does not cause abortion. You have misstated this at least 3 times in this thread.

You might be confusing it with RU486, which does cause abortion.

[VegasWolf]

88. Shhh! Don't confuse the fundies with facts! nt

[mondo joe]

104. DemBones makes a B U L L S H I T point. The pharmacist isn't performing

a procedure. The pharmacist isn't TAKING the pills.

It's just BS.

[grizmaster]

95. they aren't being forced to do anything

they are free to choose NOT to be a pharmacist if they have objections to the most basic requirement of the job (to dispense legally prescribed medication).

And there are plenty of other jobs in the pharmaceutical industry that do not require dispensing of medication so no one is being deprived of making a living in their field either.

If a doctor doesn't want to be an abortionist then don't set up an abortion practice. If a person doesn't want to dispense what doctors have prescibed they should choose another specialty in their field.

[Solon]

97. You would open up a can of worms that will not be closed up that easily...

I can just see it now, Neo-Nazi doctors refusing to treat Tay-Sachs babies, KKK pharmacists that refuse to dispense Sickle Cell medication, etc.

[mainegreen]

132. What rubbish. If it goes against my beliefs to fill heart medication,,,

should I be allowed to not fill it? I doubt anyone would say 'sure, let the bastard suffer the consequences, you have ... MORALS to worry about.'

You have the right NOT to be a pharmacist. There's where your choice is made.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

135. Let's see you stick to the "principle" when you get sick and end up in a hospital fully staffed with

Christian Scientists.

[smoogatz]

151. No one's asking Wal Mart pharmacists to take a human life.

Cripers. Pro-lifers are impervious to reason. And you still haven't answered my question: should women who have abortions be considered murderers, and punished as such? That would be the morally consistent position for pro-lifers like yourself.

[mondo joe]

153. Moreover, since ordinary hormonal birth control pills can cause

a conception to fail to implant, should pharmacists be permitted to deny BC pills as well?

[smoogatz]

155. It happens all the time.

Pharmacists all over the country are doing exactly that--and they're protected by these ridiculous "right to conscience" laws. It's insane.

[liberalhistorian]

169. Oh, really?

So, if a doctor refuses to treat a woman with a tubal pregnancy because he believes it's the "taking of a life" even though the tube WILL burst and the fetus will die no matter what, and she dies and/or suffers horribly, he shouldn't be held accountable for that? What if he refuses to treat a woman suffering a miscarriage? (you wouldn't believe what my mom went through at the hands of her doctor when she had a miscarriage).

What if a woman is raped, should a conscience clause allow the doctor to refuse to treat her because he considers any type of premarital sex to be wrong, and/or he believes she "asked for it?"

What if the BCP prescription is not for birth control purposes, but for the control of another medical condition, such as endometriosis, fibroids/cysts, etc.? Should the woman have to fill out a goddamned questionnaire on how it's to be used just to appease the sanctimonious SOB? What the hell business is it of is exactly what it's being used for and who is he to substitute his beliefs and judgment for that of the REAL, actual doctor who prescribed it?

What if he refuses to treat someone with a STD, even if he/she is married? What if he refuses to treat anyone who's single or gay because he believes in the "sanctity of marriage" and that homosexuality is a mortal sin? What if he refuses to treat someone with hypertension or heart disease because he was a vegeterian who believed all forms of such disease are due to bad diets/habits, (when that isn't always the case).

What about that pharmacist who refused to fill the Dallas child's Ritalin prescription for whatever ungodly, stupid, absurd reason? What possible "moral" objection could he have to that and what the fuck possible right did he have to interfere with the decisions of the child's doctors and parents?

Do you see where this leads and what kind of slippery slope you're going down? I'm just glad I had a complete hysterectomy a few years ago so I no longer have to deal with this kind of shit. The only thing I have to get now is my weekly estrogen patch, since I'm still only in my early forties. Just let some sanctimonious SOB pharmacist try to deny me that patch because he has a "moral" problem with hormone replacement, and see how long he'll have a damned job.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

170. I see none of the Fundy Tag Team bothered to comment on the El Salvador thing. Here's the link again

http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/10/abortion_in_el_.html

[liberalhistorian]

171. Yeah, I noticed that, too, CPD.

That link made me physically ill, it's impossible for me to believe that anyone can be that ignorant and cruel as to refuse to allow hospitals to treat women with ectopic pregnancies until the fetus is dead or the tube bursts (as a woman, I can't even begin to imagine how painful that must be). And if the woman dies, tough shit, no one is held accountable, it must have been God's will. Well, the God I know and worship certainly wouldn't want that. Don't they realize that treating a woman with such a pregnancy is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT abortion? I can respect someone's feelings regarding not wanting to participate in an actual abortion, but treating a tubal/ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you post a few of the important paragraphs from that article? I'd do it, but I'm on a dial-up computer and it would take freaking forever, not to mention it'd probably freeze up anyway.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

172. Way ahead of ya

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3146191

[oldcoot]

177. Why do pro-life pharmacists deserve special treatment?

Although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion, employers do have a right to expect employees to fulfill their job duties. As many have pointed out, a vegan who works for a steakhouse but refuses to serve meat because he/she views killing animals for food as "murder" would be fired. The same thing would happen to a teacher who refused to administer standardized exams to his/her class because he/she views them as flawed. So why should pro-life pharmacists and other heath care professionals receive different treatment? Are they more deserving of better treatment than the rest of society? If so, explain.

As someone who has recently been searching for a full-time job, I spend a lot of time researching potential employers and one of the issues I research is whether or not the employer will require me to do something that makes me uncomfortable. Even if an unemployed pro-life pharmacist does not have the resources to research a potential employer, he/she should at least ask the employer what types of drugs are sold by the pharmacy. If the pharmacist feels that he or she cannot fill prescriptions for all of the drugs sold by the pharmacy, then he/she needs to find work elsewhere.

[grizmaster]

93. Your analogy is not valid

A fair analogy would be a person who chooses a career in working at a meat deli refusing to sell meat because they are vegan.

THE essential job of a pharmacist is to dispense the medications a doctor has prescribed. Failure to perform the most basic job element is completely indefensible.

And companies ARE still free to choose. The can choose freely to dispense the medications prescribed or not operate a pharmacy. Nobody is forcing them to be in the business of selling drugs, but to be licensed to dispense drugs you must follow the basic requirements of the licensing (which in this case is to dispense and have available to dispense all commonly prescribed medications. It was on this basis that a case was decided last year in Massachusetts. (when I have the chance I'll locate the details and links to the case)

edited to add link

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/14/state_says_wal_mart_must_stock_emergency_contraception/

Tuesday's unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women sued the Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The board sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers on Tuesday informing them of the decision, said health department spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance with the board's decision.

[nodehopper]

110. as everyone here already pointed out, this is a flawed analogy

Walmart could refuse to carry the product. If they are carrying it, they have to dispense it. Even if they provide their pharmacists with the option to selectively object, their own policy says that customers should be accomodated by another pharmacist. This pharmacist laughed at the customers and refused to get anyone else in the store to service them.

No one is forcing Walmart to carry Plan B; that is their own decision. If a vegetarian/vegan place decided to sell meat, it would cease to be a vegetarian/vegan place. A person with vegetarian/vegan convictions would have an option whether or not to work there.

Also, WHY do people insist that Plan B is an abortofacient, when it PREVENTS conception, rather than facilitates abortion?

[Richard Steele]

175. What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest argument. How embarrassing for you.

[Irishonly]

52. Question

How can a state allow a pharmacist to decide other peoples morals? The pill in question in the article does not cause a spontaneous abortion. If the egg is fertilized, it does nothing or at least that's my understanding. I think we need to be very concerned at the freedom allowed pharmacists. Today it's the morning after pill, what pill will it be tomorrow? A teacher cannot choose her students. A nurse cannot choose her patients. I have written repeatedly expressing concern over these very strange policies.

I consider myself a Christian and am active in my church. I am also pro-choice even though I believe abortion should be the last resort. I am not a morality judge. A decision a woman makes is between her, her support group (lack of better term) and her God, if she has one. I am sick and tired of over pompous, overbearing, moralistic judging, neocon evangelicals telling the world they must live by their standards. They should be worried about their own morality instead of judging every one else.

[Unca Jim]

53. Well, those poor bastards have to work work with the idiot.

I work with a "cavemen and dinosaurs" fundie, and I just let her enjoy her little fantasy world and ignore her nutty proclamations in the interest of workplace comity. But if she were my boss, I'd have to at least pretend to go along with them to avoid friction. Imagine I worked in a non-union hellhole like Communist China Mart, and my boss was a difficult-to-find pharmacist. They'd shitcan me the second I refused to go along with her BS, and I'd be on the street.

I wouldn't feel comfortable filling a prescription under those circumstances, either.

[Fovea]

55. Not professional

I would settle for his license as confetti. What if it were a chemotherapy agent, or the contraceptive were required because of the woman's health?

It is easy to be a tin-horn dictator for Christ, while martyrdom is a bit more challenging. I wonder how strong that particular gentleman was in his faith. Would he be as enthusiastic for the rapture if he was going alone? Would he trade his license for a job at MikeyD's?

If the Fundies want a holy war, they should feel it at home first. It is time to start making it hurt. Because these are not Christians, they are thugs. And this should hurt them as much as they hurt society.

[pmc62]

56. The way plan b works

is to suppress ovulation; that's the data. Some think it may prevent implantation but there's not a lot of data to support that. Even the biased FDA acknowledges this fact.

This is from the FDA's site:

"Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work."

There is no moral objection based on science, since the science supports prevention of ovulation. This pharmacist is clearly someone with arrogance combined with ignorance, which is always a dangerous combination. This is an episode of scientific facts not lining up with your beliefs, so the facts are rejected. (See Sunday's Doonesbury for a wonderful commentary.)

Should we all contact Wal-Mart with our concerns?

[yardwork]

64. Welcome to DU and thank you for those pertinent facts!

We probably all should contact Walmart with our concerns but I gave up on Walmart long ago - my list of concerns with them is so extremely long at this point.

[Egnever]

61. LOL a Wall Mart pharmacist!

What a tool. If ever there was a place that this was going to be requested I would think Wall Mart would be it.

He needs to find a new job. And the manager needs to be fired. Course wall mart is a fundy company now so I am sure the big wigs are in total agreement with this asshat.

[Megahurtz]

66. Sue Wal-Mart!

Pharmacists need to be taught a lesson about this.

[kaygore]

67. Serves them right for shopping at Wal-Mart

Why anyone shops there is beyond me. There stuff is junk. They treat their employees like slaves. The place is big, impersonal, and cheap in the worse sense of the word. Why sell your soul to save a few dollars!

[mondo joe]

71. Y'know, for some people there aren't all that many choices.

That's what WalMart does - they bury the independents and become the only game in town.

And I'm not a WalMart apologist - I don't shop there and I know they suck.

The idea that this couple DESERVED to be denied access to BC and to be LAUGHED at because they shop at WalMart is vile.

Stop channeling that Freeperish mean spiritedness please.

[fudge stripe cookays]

99. Because some people live in podunk towns....

where Wal-Mart has driven the other businesses OUT of business. Their only option (other than online shopping, which is not always feasible or affordable) is to shop there.

It's not selling their souls...it's trying to feed their families without a lot of money. While I don't like Wal-Mart either, I've come to understand that not EVERYONE is as fortunate as others in where they live and the options available to them. And not everyone can afford to move to a more diverse or cosmopolitan area.

[MichiganVote]

77. StallMart sucks!

[HockeyMom]

80. Ask the Pharmacist for a Pregnancy Test

which will determine if an egg has been fertilized. IT DOESN'T EXIST. There is no way to determine HOURS after if conception has taken place. Maybe is has, maybe it hasn't. Or do these religious FREAKS just want to ASSUME that every woman of childbearing age has conceived (life from conception on, Connor Peterson laws, etc.)? I say, PROVE IT.

I would love to see the look on his face to that one.

[HappyWeasel]

90. PWNED

The response: uhhhhh.... errr.... **makes cross symbol**...uhhh...women are objects for our entertainment created by the Lord Jesus Christ for men's pleasure! Allejuia, Allejuia, Allejuia!!

Luckily, even in the heart of Wyoming (with Utah and Idaho are the deep-south of the far-west), the doctor still recommended the IUD to my wife. It didn't work that well, and we eventually gave up with the contraception devices and decided to get pregnant against my family's wishes.

[OKthatsIT]

89. SUE THEM.

[ProudDad]

119. Every Sperm is Sacred

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/monty-python/every-sperm-is-sacred.html

[Canuckistanian]

121. Let the Heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground

God will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found.

Who needs lyric sheets?

[Divine Discontent]

122. I find abortion

in most cases to be very undesirable, and yet fully legal! I'm so tired, along with many, of these whack job fundy folks infiltrating positions of semi-power so they can claim it's morally wrong for them to do whatever.

All I really wanted to post for was to say, I realllllly wish I was her right now, because from what I can tell, she should be getting a fat check from wally world for this... he should have moved out of the way and allowed someone else to dispense them, for he is not god of walmart.




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[vickitulsa]

123. I have a theory about why the "conscience clauses" are being approved

by professional organizations of some healthcare workers and also are being written into some state laws.

The booming growth of the pharmaceutical industry these days requires an enormous work force on the delivery end. Pharmacy schools are as yet proving unable to turn out enough pharmacists to meet the demand, though by employing pharm interns, most pharmacies are managing to cover it -- but just barely, and they work the shit out of their people to do it.

So I think the "conscience clauses" are being approved and written into law in order to avoid driving away a substantial number of prospective employees.

I'm not saying it's right -- just that it makes sense to me as a reason for allowing such ridiculous "moral power" statutes on behalf of these specific workers.

Indeed, even the lowest of low-level workers in the humongous healthcare industry may find they have similar rights granted them, simply because the "big bosses" find it easier (and apparently cheaper) to permit such nonsense than it would be to pay them what it would take to keep enough people working in that field.

The dire shortage of nurses in today's hospitals and clinics could be eliminated easily if the megawealthy types would just PAY THEM DECENTLY and not overwork them!

My brother has been a pharmacist for almost 30 years and we've talked about these issues a lot. He doesn't see much hope for the future of our healthcare system in this country -- nor do I. He marks the beginning of its decline from the time when hospitals ceased to be "non-profit" and Big Pharma was allowed to push their drugs directly to patients on TV.

It's gone downhill from there.

"Clinical trials" and the FDA approval process for new drugs these days are a total joke, and many very dangerous medications of dubious value are foisted on us by an industry which does NOT have our "good health" at heart. They WANT us to take a lot of drugs! Their bottom line rides on how well their slick commercials convince us to demand crappy and very expensive drugs from our doctors.

"The suits" run the healthcare industry now -- not medical people.

[crikkett]

139. we are the only nation that doesn't guarantee health care for its citizens

so sez Jesse Jackson in a speech I heard at a recent grassroots-media conference.

[crikkett]

137. I thought the law on the pharmacist's side sez that someone else must

hand her the drugs if he doesn't feel up to it.

[DearAbby]

154. Key here is this person stopped another person from

selling the product. That is the violation. He can refuse under morals, but he can not force his morals onto others, he can not prevent another person from selling the product.

[smoogatz]

156. He shouldn't be able to do either.

It's a safe, legal product--as determined by the FDA. The pharmacist is ethically obliged to provide it, if it's stocked by his pharmacy (apparently it was). If his personal morality is offended by the proper performance of his job, he should find another line of work.

[rocktivity]

208. DING DING DING! DearAbby, you're our grand prize winner!

...he cannot force his morals onto others...

If the pharmacist's morals shouldn't be violated by being forced to sell the product, how can it possibly be okay to violate THE CUSTOMER'S morals by refusing to sell it? Isn't the pharmacist effectively practicing the SAME religious discrimination he accuses the state of practicing when it forces him to sell the product? In other words, since all religions are created equal in this country, doesn't the pharmacist's morals HAVE to end where the customer's morals begin?

:headbang:
rocknation

[cut.your.crap]

165. Don't count on it being a Pharmacist

More likely a Pharmacy Technician. They have a vo-tec training that lasts "up to several weeks". I've found one Wal-Mart Pharmacy Tech "drunk with power" when I tried to get insulin syringes for a diabetic cat. I had a 'scrip for syringes from the vet, but they ran out on a weekend and I messed up. Oddly, you can buy insulin without a 'script, but I'm not sure what you can do with it without a syringe.
I go to this pharmacy for several medications for myself and my wife. They actually had a record of many 'scripts filled previously for the cat. Seems the law says one can purchase 10 needles without a script.
She refused to sell them to me. She said "junkie" under her breath. I sought a manager and an actual pharmacist, who apparently was in the toilet when this happened. I made a huge stink over it, and people were regretting it. I got my 10 syringes and came in the next day with a 'script for the rest of the carton.
Seven years later, and that cat died three years later, I still go to Wal-Mart for scripts, because I have no prescription plan. My wife's job covers her for about 75% of the insurance, but spouse or children pay about $800 a month for coverage, so I have nothing. Wal-Mart is by far the cheapest pharmacy in the market and I save hundreds going there every year.
To this day, that bitch has been sugar sweet to me, and I am still very abrupt with her. A few years ago, after getting laid off, I worked for Wal-Mart for about 6 months. I had issues with her then too.

[Bridget Burke]

180. The article specifically mentions the Pharmacist.

Brent Beams, the pharmacist, told The Dispatch that he denied the couple's request for the contraceptive pills because "I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception."

After the pharmacist turned them down, O'Neill and Byrd asked for a store manager who "came over and said, 'The pharmacist has the law on his side,' " O'Neill said.