A U.S. District judge has ruled that Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell emergency contraceptives.
The judge ruled that Washington Pharmacy Board rules, as adopted by the state, did infringe on religious freedom and were unconstitutional.
An immediate injunction was put in place so the pharmacies can't be forced to sell any kind of drugs that individual pharmacists or pharmacies believe go against their religious beliefs.
Naturally, lawyer Lisa is amazed, claiming that she can't believe that reproductive rights are "still an issue" in this day and age:
"Patients have a right to health care and no individual can impose his beliefs or her beliefs on that patient," she said.
Wow there, Lisa - being that you're a lawyer and all, most people would expect you to be a whole lot smarter than that.
First, you'd do well to consider that "health care" is not a "right" as defined in any Constitution, state or federal, in the USA.
Second, if a woman wants to buy the abortion pill and one pharmacy doesn't offer it, that woman is free to visit a different pharmacy in order to make the purchase. Nobody is "imposing his beliefs or her beliefs on that patient"; your argument is moronic.
No, lawyer Lisa, quite the contrary: it is you who seek to impose your beliefs upon others; it is you who seek to deprive them of their rights. You're in the wrong country.
There's little difference between your attitude and that of "thought policewoman" Evelyn Myrie, executive director of Hamilton’s Centre for Civic Inclusion, who really got her panties in a twist over signs that the owner of a southern-style barbecue restaurant had the audacity to place in his Canadian shop. One sign read:
to better serve you, our staff speaks ENGLISH
Evie finds that simply offensive, but that's because she (like you, lawyer Lisa) is a twit. If you can't read English, how do you know what the sign says? If you don't know what it says, how can you take offense? It's his barbecue joint, but Evie "feels" that she should be able to dictate how he runs it, and how "inclusive" he should be in running it.
You're no different, lawyer Lisa - you just selected pharmacists rather than barbecue joint operators.
Wait here just a sec, I agree with you on most things but not this. This isn't like buying a hammer at home depot. A pharmacy is a highly regulated business for obvious reasons as it should be.
They should sell whatever is prescribed or legal to buy OTC regardless if the guy behind the counter approves or not. A customer shouldn't have to run around town to find which pharmacist in town shares their beliefs.
I think the moral 'act' here lies in taking the pills, not selling them. Regardless if you think taking these pills is right or wrong, the customer is taking them not the pharmacist. I think pharmacy might be the wrong business for someone with such sensitivities.
Posted by: gwdse | February 22, 2012 at 07:58 PM
gwdse--
You are confusing moral with ethical. You may attempt to guide me with your view of what is moral, but it is unwise for you to attempt to create an ethical imperative that legislates your moral view. What I choose to buy or sell is my choice, independent of any constraint you may wish to impose upon me. If I know that hammers are used to commit murders, I can continue to sell hammers, knowing that the choice to kill is the end result of another person's choice. The sole purpose of an abortifacient is to kill a human life. There is no ethical dilemma here.
Not to, occasionally, drive a nail.
.
Posted by: TMI | February 22, 2012 at 09:18 PM
gwdse, TMI makes the point rather eloquently.
Of course, there's more to it: the pharmacy is a business. What items the pharmacist chooses to stock and purvey are therefore entirely his decision. Certainly, if he wishes to remain in business, there are many items that he will choose to stock and sell. You can bet they'll have band-aids.
Many items, such as oxycodone, are subject to federal regulation because of their addictive nature (not that federal regulation matters, as addicts always find ways...). The pharmacist, willingly or not, jumps through the federal hoops because if he cannot fill the prescription, he will make no money. If he makes no money, he goes out of business, can't pay the mortgage, yadda, yadda. And the customer will simply go to another pharmacy.
There is, however, a difference between selling a prescription that may be mis-used, and selling a drug which exists only for one purpose: to kill. If he chooses not to stock that drug, what gives other people the right to demand that he do so, and that he distribute it?
Just as people cannot demand that the proprietor of a southern barbecue joint start selling halal and terriaki, there is no legitimate basis for demanding that a pharmacy stock and distribute any particular drug or remedy.
As I noted: if a woman wants to buy the abortion pill and one pharmacy doesn't offer it, that woman is free to visit a different pharmacy in order to make the purchase. Nobody is "imposing his beliefs or her beliefs on that patient".
Thriftway doesn't stock Fishtail IPA. Fred Meyer does. Shall we demand that Thriftway also stock Fishtail? Or shall we choose to go to Fred Meyer, even though it's a mile further? Pharmacies are retailers, and like all retailers, they stock what they wish to sell.
Posted by: Max | February 22, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Well, re Canada, seems to me they do have a bi-lingual state and are supposed to accommodate the French speakers.
And then there's the problem of the gummint forcing a morality on the pharmacist. The customer has the choice to use another pharmacy. The pharmacist has the choice of going out of business.
Posted by: Sam L. | February 23, 2012 at 09:22 AM
Restaurants are not required to have bilingual staff (not that their sex lives should have any bearing, anyway).
The pharmacist has every right to select inventory. If he/she selects poorly, then the business may fail.
Washington is one of only two states in the country that requires pharmacies to stock and dispense these drugs in violation of conscience. The other state (Illinois) recently had its regulations, which are modeled on Washington’s, struck down as unconstitutional.
The Regulations were passed under a cloud of controversy. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists’ right of conscience. When Governor Christine Gregoire learned of the vote, she publicly threatened to fire the Board’s members, replaced several Board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood, and personally joined in a boycott of Ralph’s Thriftway.
Buckling under the Governor’s pressure, the Board ultimately adopted a version of the Regulations drafted by Planned Parenthood and recommended by the Governor. The Regulations prohibit pharmacies from declining to dispense Plan B for reasons of conscience—even though the Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections.
Posted by: Max | February 23, 2012 at 07:17 PM
Killing babies is the faith of the left.
Posted by: Sam L. | February 24, 2012 at 09:05 AM
The madness is useful to the left. As the family said of the boy who thought he was a chicken,'We would send him to the hospital, but we need the eggs.'
Posted by: Max | February 24, 2012 at 05:23 PM