"Christian Medical Association" bucks AMA, invokes Nazi comparison

[Bluebear]

Will the right wing demand the "Christian Medical Association" APOLOGIZE for comparing having to fill a prescription to the persecution people suffered under the Nazis?

===

WASHINGTON, June 27 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians today spoke out in opposition to the American Medical Association's recent stance regarding forcing the filling of prescriptions for drugs that can cause abortions.

Christian Medical Association Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist, noted, "The key issue here is not even the important question of the ethics of birth control, but the fundamental freedom to follow the dictates of one's conscience and of the teachings of one's religious faith."

AMA policy makers last week passed a resolution calling on pharmacists to fill or help fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the "morning-after pill". Some pharmacists conscientiously oppose participating in such prescriptions because of the drugs' post-fertilization effects--preventing an early embryo from implanting in the uterus.

Dr. Rudd added, "Regardless of whether we would personally take that position, it is important to defend the rights of those who do. Instead of limiting the rights of healthcare professionals, true patient advocates should insist that contraceptive makers and marketers insure patient informed consent--by providing full information on the product so the patient realizes exactly what it does and what the risks are. Many women would be devastated to realize that so-called 'emergency contraception' can actually end early developing life.

"There is simply no reason to trample over the consciences of pharmacists to fill these prescriptions. This is often framed as a matter of patient rights and access to healthcare when it in fact is an issue of patient convenience. Patient convenience is a good goal, but it cannot trump fundamental rights of conscience. It is clear that abortion advocates will not tolerate anyone who opposes their doctrine. It is ironic that while they appeal to principles of freedom of choice, abortion advocates are willing to eliminate the choice of those who hold opposing views.

"What we are seeing in this country is a wholesale movement to deny healthcare professionals the right to follow their own consciences, especially in matters regarding reproduction. Mandating abortion training for New York City residents in training, forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions that violate their consciences, and requiring faith-based organizations to violate their religious teachings are not only morally objectionable, they violate our constitutional freedoms of speech and religion.

"History teaches us that denying the freedoms of one group is a threat to the constitutional freedoms of every one of us. As Martin Niemoller said of failing to oppose the Nazi regime, 'First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.'"

To schedule an interview please contact Margie Shealy at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cma0627.htm

[ComerPerro]

1. My bosses are Nazis, because they make me do work I don't wanna do

Even though I signed on for that job and the required workload, I just don't want to do it. Its against my religious beliefs.

[MichiganVote]

2. America is now victimizing pharmacist's?

Garbage men coming right up for having to empty the trash of the liberal "traitors".

[Skidmore]

5. No, America is victiminzing Christians.

[GeekMonkey]

18. You have it backwards, Christianity is victimizing America

[Skidmore]

21. I stand corrected.

[depakid]

3. Whatever else he is Dr. Rudd is simply a liar-

perhaps his state licensing authorities should look into that... and perhaps someone ought to get the word out to his patients that he doesn't believe in evidence based medicine.

Emergency contraception does not induce abortion. That's not how it works.

See, e.g, Plan B: Ignore the Science?

[greekspeak]

4. Now I am going to find out who is a member of this and boycott them

If any of my doctors are members of this organization, I am going to immeidately cease using them as a physician

[Bluebear]

7. Here is their handy "Find a Christian dentist or doctor" link

http://www.cmda.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=3074487592&CONTEXT=cat&cat=100008

[greekspeak]

10. I was just looking at it. No doctor I use appears there.

But thank you kindly, just the same! :-)

[Bluebear]

12. No problem! I would NEVER go to one of their members

even if I were Christian!

[greekspeak]

22. At least we can be glad that their members boast their membership

When I seek medical attention, I want a medical doctor, not an evangelist who wants to save my soul. I say, go right ahead and join this group. More power to ya. But do not expect my patronage.

[knitter4democracy]

33. Phew!

My hubby joined their group in med school before he found out that they only want evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. They weren't too cool about his conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and he stopped going. Their prayer meetings were just, um, too much like chapel in college (we went to a Nazarene college).

He's not on the list!!!! Thank goodness!!! Also, none of the partners he's with are (even though one is a serious Republican and evangelical Christian--they tease each other all the time and keep it nice). Thank goodness twice over!!!

[prole_for_peace]

43. dammit.. my dentist is on there.

he has only been my dentist for a short time. my previous dentist retired and sold his practice. the last time i was in the new office i noticed contemporary christian music playing and got annoyed. at least play muzak. i was thinking about changing anyway because something about the new bunch of dentists bothered me. now i know what it was. maybe i am just sensitive to this stuff.

[Bluebear]

77. Run! n/t

[NC_Nurse]

6. Oh, puhleeze!

We in the medical field are constantly faced with ethically challenging cases. We are taught to remain neutral in our judgments of what the PATIENT decides for themselves. Are pharmacists above that or something?

Why can't these "christians" let God and the individual work these things out?

I'm so sick of this bullshit.

[bloom]

8. As if someone is "coming for them"

:wtf: :crazy:

[Bluebear]

15. Well, it's the same thing, isn't it?

Isn't it?


NO IT AIN'T YOU BUNCH OF "CHRISTIAN" DOCTORS!

[Sandpiper]

9. If you're licensed by the State to fill prescriptions

You're professionally obligated to fill them. If your religious beliefs get in the way, find a new line of work.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. First they came for the Jews. Then they came for the sperms.

Nice fucking moral equivalence, there.

[Bluebear]

14. "Then they came for the sperms!"

:rofl:

There's some double entendre in there too, I just can't put it into words yet.

[donco6]

13. That Niemoller quote has been used to justify everything.

I get so sick of even seeing it anymore. He must be rolling in his grave.

Anyway, about the pharmacists. I grew up in a little town that had just one pharmacy. It's one thing if allowing this means going to another store down the block; it's another if you have to somehow drive to another town. Where will it end?

[KamaAina]

16. "Christian Legal Association" says: "We obey God's law, not man's law"

to justify any and all wrongdoing by its membership.

Makes just as much sense, don't you think? Morans.

[Kraklen]

17. I guess "Christian Medical Association" is better marketing...

than the "Ku Klux Klan."

Seems like every hate group these days is giving themselves a legitimate sounding name.

This is the same group that attacked the American Association of Pediatrics for condoning homosexuality and gay parenting.

[jobycom]

19. Flame me, but I can see their point.

A pharmacist being forced to fill a perscription he or she believes will committ murder seems wrong to me, especially if we're talking about a person simply being able to go to a different pharmacy.

I realize that's not viable in some smaller towns with limited access to pharmacists, and allowing a pharmacist to refuse to fill a perscription would encourage wingnuts to harrass pharmacists who don't refuse.

But still, if I'm allowed to be a conscientious objector fighting in a war, shouldn't a pharmacist be allowed to follow his or her beliefs? Don't allow them to preach against the pill, or harrass a patient, etc, but at least allow them to step aside and let someone else fill the order.

You might be able to convince me otherwise, but at a first reading, that's what I think.

Disclaimer: I'm against any limitations in any form on abortion, from parental consent to late-term abortion ban, and opposed Dennis Kucinich only because he had a weak record on choice. This is a keystone issue of the party for me, and I would not support a candidate who was even flexible on the issue. Just to state where I'm coming from.

[Bluebear]

20. I remember the case where the pharmacist would not release the Rx

He held the Rx so the woman couldn't get it filled elsewhere.

And I really bristle at this "First they came for" comparison, as if the pharmacist is in danger of being rounded up.

[jobycom]

23. I agree, I didn't like the comparison, either

Wasn't defending that, and the pharmacist situation you describe should be criminal. It would certainly be grounds for a civil suit, along the nature of requiring the pharmacist and his company to pay for the child's upbringing.

I simply mean that a pharmacist who truly has a moral objection should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription, though not allowed to prevent anyone else from filling it.

[sdfernando]

24. They don't release the perscription!

But there is the problem. Most (the vast majority from what I've heard) of these so called pharmacists not only do not fill the perscription but REFUSE to release it to any other pharmacy to fill. In effect they negate the decision the woman has made with their own morality. THAT in my opinion is a violation of their oath and they should have their lisence revoked. That is also the reason the AMA stepped in on the side of patient's rights.

edited for spelling errors.

[jobycom]

29. I wondered if there was more to the story

Obviously, that's not what I was condoning.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. You left out the lectures many women get and the interrogations

about their marital status and/or sexual activities.

And how any "pro-life" person can get behind activities which almost CERTAINLY seem designed to lead to unplanned pregnancies and then quite possibly surgical abortions (and here's where the pro-life gang chimes in about how the little hussies should keep their legs crossed) is just way beyond me. The fact that we're talking about it at all should indicate to everyone that the agenda has nothing at all to do with "life" and everything to do with controlling the sex lives of others.

These people should not just be fired, they should be seriously fined as well. Hell, denying people medical treatment is criminal - a stint in County Jail might even be appropriate.

[atreides1]

26. Apples and Oranges

First off someone who claims to be a conscientious objector has to jump through many hoops and convince others of his sincerity, and even then they don't get free walk. A conscientious objector still has to perform an alternative duty or job.

So why not require someone who wants to be a pharmacist to appear before a board and convince them of their true beliefs. But, then
if they cannot fill a prescription because of those beliefs then they should be limited as to what they can do, just like a someone
who is a consciencious objector.

The prospective pharmacist would also have to realize that a pharmacy has the right to not hire them, because the pharmacy has a
diverse customer base, and if the pharmacist cannot provide the service required by that base, then the pharmacy would lose business.

So if we let the pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription, then we must allow places like Walgreens, Osco, and other businesses to be able to refuse to hire someone who cannot do the job as described.

[jobycom]

31. I don't agree with that.

We're talking about one type of drug, which would not be the majority of their business. A large company like Walgreens would be least affected by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription, because they would have others on staff who would. I'd be more worried about a small town with one pharmacy, where an alternative couldn't be found.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

27. Can a vegetarian McDonald's employee refuse to serve Big Macs?

I'm sure it goes against their belief system or are only objections under the safe umbrella of "religion" okay?

Also, this debate is a prime example of the rift within the Republican party: the zealots want the right to refuse to perform their jobs without repercussions, the business interests want free reign to fire someone who refuses to perform to standards.

Convinced?:shrug:

[jobycom]

32. A vegetarian working in a serving capacity in a McDonald's

wouldn't be able to do ANY of the job required. That's not the same as a pharmacist having to pass off a prescription every couple of days to a co-worker or even competitor. Once a doctor's office realized a pharmacist wouldn't fill the presription, they'd send the patient to a different pharmacist, anyway, for that drug.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

34. They could slice tomatoes or restock the frig/freezer...

But how long do you think that McDonald's employee would stay employed????

In any case, an employee should educate themself about the job description BEFORE accepting a job. A pharmacist is supposed to carry out a physician's order by filling a prescription.

If you cannot perform the duties and responsibilities, DO NOT take the job. Also, any employer should have the right to fire any pharmacist who refuses to perform his job requirements...which includes dispensing BCP's or other legal contraceptives.

[jobycom]

37. You're talking about vastly different levels of being unable to perform

Slicing tomatoes and stocking the fridge would not be a large percentage of a McDonald's job. You're talking about a person who would refuse to do 90% of the work required, as opposed to someone refusing to do, well, I have no idea, but I can't imagine it being over one or two percent of their job. If they are refusing ALL contraceptives, that would be a problem, probably, since that would seem to be a common prescription. But the article was talking about a more specialized type of contraceptive.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

39. So, if you refuse to do 1% of your job, that's okay? Is it a % thing?

Hmmmm, I think most employers would find that troubling and who gets to define "which" percent you can refuse? Again, is religion the safety umbrella to get off the hook in performing your job responsibilities?

As a physician, if I believe that efungelicals should pray for good health, is it okay if I don't treat that 1% of my patients? As a sun worshiper, can I refuse to work on sunny days as part of my religious practices?

[jobycom]

40. Yeah, I think that's okay.

I've had employees and co-workers who take off special holidays, ranging from religious holidays to MLK Day. I've had employees who take smoke breaks every day, thus doing slightly less work than other employees. I've had employees and co-workers who didn't get along, so we scheduled them at different times as much as possible. I've had co-workers who were just freaked out about some part of a job, and wouldn't do it. I worked one job that required employees to reach things on a shelf that some of the shorter employees couldn't reach. We didn't fire the employees, we worked around it.

This really seems like a minor issue to me. If a pharmacist was allergic to a certain drug, do you think a pharmacy could find a way to work around that?

My question back at you is this: If your boss ordered you to do something which you believed was murder, would you do it? What if you did 99% of the rest of the job well, would you feel the boss was justified for firing you because you wouldn't do something you thought was wrong? Maybe you wound up in a situation where you had to support Bush or the Iraq invasion--would you? Would you consider the boss justified in firing you for refusing to? If you say yes, we just disagree on this issue, I guess. No big deal--I disagree with everyone on something! :-)

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

44. Employment is voluntary. Also, in Pa it is illegal to refuse to fill a Rx

If I don't like what an employer mandates for me to do, employment is viewed as voluntary...I am not an indentured servant.

Also, healthcare professionals are held to a higher standard than many other professions/jobs. You cannot insert your personal bias/beliefs into treatment decisions nor can you opt to withhold care because you don't agree with your patient's choice. EVER! Glad that Pennsylvania has a law on the books forbidding this kind of unprofessional, judgmental behavior from pharmacists.

[jobycom]

50. So you'd advocate an employer firing an employee over a moral issue?

Sorry. I just can't agree with that, especially when we are talking about a minor inconvenience to a patient, at best. In many cases, it would just be a case of the other person at the counter filling a prescription instead.

And there are certainly moral boundaries most doctors wouldn't willingly cross. If a patient could be saved only by removing a healthy heart from a living patient, a doctor would not do it.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

51. Yes! In the medical professions, PERSONAL belief systems are, well...

PERSONAL and not part of the code of ethics. Your personal morality differs from mine, differs from X, Y and Z, therefore personal morality is not permitted into your caregiving. If that is something unacceptable, then these people should NOT be in a healthcare profession.

Removing a heart from a living patient is illegal, BCP/contraception is NOT.

[jobycom]

55. Well, your last point is right

that's an important distinction I missed.

I just disagree with you. Maybe for a doctor or a nurse, I wouldn't, but a pharmacist is just a retailer on the outskirts of the medical profession. There is no life and death emergency to a pharmacist that requires immediate attention, unlike with a doctor, nurse, paramedic, etc.

[mondo joe]

61. Pharmacists are NOT just "retailers" - they are licensed professionals.

They provide an important public service.

If they are unwilling to do the job they should get another line of work.

[jobycom]

65. They are willing to do the job

Just not in one case.

And CPAs are licenses professionals, too. So what?

[mondo joe]

68. No, they are NOT willing to do the job. The job is to fill the

prescription written, or to notify the physician of conflicts.

[mondo joe]

62. I certainly would advocate that.

The employee is there voluntarily. They can choose another line of work.

[ebayfool]

76. Some of them ARE refusing ALL contraceptives - that's the problem ...

Do you allow them to draw the line for someone else's medical decisions? There is also a time sensitive point to the morning after pill - there is a short time-window for it to be used. In the scenario you use, small town - one pharmacy, should a patient have to find a pharmacist willing to fill her script before time's up in another town? This isn't what the guy in the article claims - a convenience issue. And it's not @ their choices versus a womans. The flip side of his conscience point 'I don't believe in abortion' - no one's making him have one. He has no right to impose his viewpoint on her. No one's making him sit at the end of a hospital bed & perform an abortion. He's filling a bottle for someone else to decide whether to swallow. It's up to her whether she wishes to cross over that line - she's not asking for him to decide for her. The day he is in need of contraception or the morning after pill is the day his conscience & choice comes into play - his body, his decision - her body, her decision.

[oldcoot]

30. Pharmacists interfering with doctors and their patients

Allowing pharmacists to pick-and-choose which prescriptions that they will fill establishes a dangerous trend. Today, the pharmacist might decide not to fill prescriptions for contraception because it violates his/her "religious" and "moral" beliefs but tomorrow the pharmacist might decide to not provide the patient with a pill that could save the patient's life simply because the pill in question might violate some aspect of the pharmacist's belief system.

In many states, "pro-life" pharmacists have the option of working for a church-affiliated or "pro-life" pharmacy that does not carry contraception. If a pharmacist has that option, he or she should not seek employment any pharmacy that sells contraception. It is simply hypocritical to take a job at CVS, Walgreen's, or any other pharmacy that sells contraception and then decide not to fulfill all of the requirements of the job.

[jobycom]

36. I don't see how it's a big deal. Maybe it's just where I live.

I can walk to at least three pharmacies where I live, and drive to well over a dozen in less than fifteen minutes. If I present a prescription to someone who refuses to fill it, I simply go to a nearby pharmacy. I can see that as being a problem in small towns, as I said, but there are plenty enough pharmacies around most places to allow a pharmacist to refuse such a prescription.

What am I missing? Why is this a big deal? My current job has no real moral issues involved, but I can imagine working for a job where I was allowed to skip one task for moral reasons. Well, if I had any morals. :-) I've seen few jobs were someone wasn't cut slack, especially over religious sensibilities. A strict Jew not being required to work Saturdays, or Christians on Sundays.

It just seems a minor thing to work around to support someone's belief--even if it's a belief I don't hold.

[prole_for_peace]

48. i shouldn't have to try every pharmacy in town to get a rx filled.

what meds i take is between me and my doctor. what if tom cruise is my pharmacists and he refused to fill my anti-depressant? these refusals open a door that should stay closed. today it is bc and emergency contraceptives. tomorow it could be anti depressants and other life-style drugs.

[jobycom]

53. That's a different type of objection

First, I don't think someone who believes that all drugs are bad would choose pharmacy, and obviously they wouldn't be able to do the job, so the pharmacy would be justified in terminating employment.

I'm not talking about a disagreement over whether the drug works or whether it is best for the patient--clearly, that's not the pharmacist's call. I'm talking about a drug which the pharmacist believes commits murder, thus forcing the pharmacist to do something which violates his religion in the most extreme way. It would be like a boss forcing me to support Bush's invasion in some way. I'd quit first, but I shouldn't be put in a position where I had to quit.

[oldcoot]

49. Would you want someone who thinks you are a murderer

having access to your address and phone number? Every time a customer has a prescription filled, one of the questions pharmacists ask is if the person still lives at the same address.

Honestly, no one would probably care if these pharmacists just quietly handed the prescription to another pharmacist to fill at the pharmacy. Indeed, most women really do not care who fills their prescription, as long as it is filled in a timely manner. The only reason that we are even discussing this issue is because some pharmacists either refuse to return prescriptions or decide to lecture their female customers on their "immorality."

You probably will never hear a strict Jew arguing that people who work on Saturday are evil murdering slime, while you will hear "pro-life" pharmacists describing women who use birth control pills as murderers. If one sincerely believes that using contraception kills innocent babies, one should not be working for a business that sells contraception. Assuming that the pharmacist actually provides quality service to most of the pharmacy's customers, the pharmacist is helping the pharmacy "murder" babies by helping the pharmacy stay in business. These pharmacists are also profiting from the "murder" of babies because their employer is probably paying them with profits made from the sale of contraception as well as other drugs.

[jobycom]

52. But that's exactly what some are arguing.

You say that no one would care if a pharmacist quietly handed the prescription to another pharmacist. But that's all I'm saying. Others are saying that shouldn't be allowed, that pharmacist should be fired for refusing to do his or her job.

I've already said a pharmacist should not be allowed to confront a patient. The article, as I understood it (and I said I might not have the whole picture), was saying that pharmacists who felt abortion was murder shouldn't be forced to fill a prescription. I agreed with that, and so far the arguments have made me agree more with that.

If the article is really code for saying a pharmacist or an entire pharmacy should be allowed to withhold a prescription, or lecture the patient, then I disagree, but that's not what I read in the article, and that's not what I've claimed at any point.

[mondo joe]

72. How do you feel about a physician refusing to treat gays, or interracial

couples on religious grounds? What if he can just refer them to another provider?

[Kraklen]

38. How about a doctor refusing to provide treatment

...for black people, because in his own personal beliefs black people should die?

People who refuse medical treatment shouldn't be in the medical profession.

[jobycom]

41. That's not even close to the same thing

[Kraklen]

42. Actually, it's exactly the same thing.

It's a medical professional refusing treatment based on his personal ideology.

[jobycom]

45. No, it isn't

It's a pharmacist refusing to fill a drug he believes will result in a death. That's exactly the opposite of a doctor trying to cause the death of someone. The latter is clearly wrong, both morally and for his or her profession. The former is doing what his profession requires, just in a way we don't agree with. If a doctor told a pharmacist to fill a prescription that the pharmacist knew would be fatal for some reason (wrong drug, allergy, something the doctor missed) would the pharmacist be wrong for refusing to fill that drug?

The only difference is that you don't think of this drug as murder. The pharmacist does. He shouldn't be forced to do something he considers murder, especially if someone else can do it instead with minimal difficulty to anyone, and the same result for the patient in the end.

[Kraklen]

47. Yeah, and in the hypothetical doctors opinion...

by not treating a black man for, say, life threatening syphillis, he's saving a white woman from being raped.

They're both ridiculous personal beliefs that prevent people from medically treating others.

And said people, quite obviously, have no business being in the medical profession.

I can't believe it's being argued.

[jobycom]

56. I can't believe it's being argued, either

but for the opposite reason. Nevertheless, I find that people disagree with me.

You're still arguing non-sequiturs. The doctor is still causing a death, no matter why he is justifying it. The pharmacist is not causing a death, no matter how you condemn it. Those are not equivalent examples.

And I have to admit being stunned hearing that someone shouldn't be a pharmacist because they have a certain religious belief that can easily be worked around.

[mondo joe]

63. Nonsense. The patient can seek another physician as easily as a woman

can go to another pharmacy.

[jobycom]

64. That wasn't what we were discussing. nt.

[mondo joe]

71. He's not forced to do something he considers murder. Employment

is voluntary.

[KarenInMA]

46. Where does it stop?

What about someone who's opposed to Ritlin or Lithuim? If you don't want to be a pharmacist...don't be.

[jobycom]

57. Depends on why you oppose Ritlin or Lithium, and what else you oppose.

I said this somewhere upthread, but there's a difference between a pharmacist believing a drug is ineffective or dangerous and thus disagreeing with a doctor's diagnosis, and a pharmacist believing that by filling a prescription he is committing a murder.

I guess if a pharmacist has a sincere belief that applying Ritlin is murder, and that belief can be shown to stem from a religious belief, they could be excused. A pharmacist who disagrees with several drugs for trivial reasons obviously is not a viable employee, so they are in the wrong profession.

But we're talking about one type of drug that a Christian would have no trouble proving violated his or her religious beliefs.

[mondo joe]

70. It doesn't matter if the objection is "trivial" or "moral".

They are in the wrong profession.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. You're "allowed" to be a conscientious objector... sort of...

but they'll sure as hell kick you out of the army. What I mean is, you can't be a conscientious objector and still expect to get paychecks from the military, can you?

Likewise, if a pharmacist's personal beliefs- whatever they may be- get in the way of his or her ability to do their state-licensed job, they should be in another line of work. They are allowed to have that opinion, but when it interferes with their job- and yes, it is a job licensed by the state- they either do the job or leave the job. Period.

[jobycom]

66. I don't get it. Everyone has said this

Why is not doing one thing which offends you not doing your job? A pharmacist could be the top of his class, have an excellent employment record, double as the pharmacy's bookkeeper, put out fires in his spare time, and be so good at his job that he catches a potentially fatal mistake a doctor makes, and yet people would fire him and ban him from the profession because he hands one prescription a week off to his coworker?

This sounds so anti-labor, and so discriminatory, that I'm really shocked.

Let's take a hypothetical: Say someone invents a pill to make gay kids straight. Would you support a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill that prescription for a parent who wants to "fix" his eight year old son?

[mondo joe]

69. Because that one thing IS an important part of doing the job.

Even though you don't think so.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. How about an extremely homophobic fireman who believes gays

"deserve to burn", and as such refuses to put their houses out, because surely any fire visited upon them is the LORD'S judgement?

Hey, he's got a 'right' to follow his or her beliefs, doesn't he?

[jobycom]

67. Post 38 and following chain. nt

[prole_for_peace]

25. "History teaches us that denying the freedoms of one group ...

is a trea to the constitutional freedoms of every one of us"

aren't they denying womens freedom to choose to take this medication?

[cynatnite]

28. the oppressed pharmacists?

:banghead:

[LynnTheDem]

35. LOL!

They're too stupid for words, rightwingnuts.

:rofl:

[stepnw1f]

54. Frauds

Nazis accusing others of being Nazis. Dats funni.

[Endangered Specie]

73. "Faith based physicians"?!

what kind of joke oxymoron is that? ( comapring the ADA to nazis is something the Scientologists do also).

sounds like these folks, whatever they are taking, is either too much or not enough.

[Sgent]

74. Just wanted to mention

The President of this organization (a psychiatrist) sits on the board of Love In Action in Memphis. He provides the physician backup for the program. This program imprisons ppl with their parents permision and trys to convert them to "straight" by using reparitive therapy (discredited).

See www.qaonline.org for more info, but this organization is a right wing religious organization.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Only way to end this parade of bullshit? Make the pill available OTC. nt