Pro life pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions

Eric, maybe you will understand if your wife's b/c company will refuse to do business because you should really be more accepting of the possibility of new life. You want the same for others right here! I defend your wife's prescription company to be an asshole and for her to get pregnant with twins.

Eric, I an definitely see your point and I even agree with you in theory. However. What if the Walmart in Tumbleweed, Montana is the only pharmacy for 100 miles? And what if their pharmacist decides to withhold these types of medicines from women? What if a woman doesn't want her husband to know what she's purchasing, but has no way to go to another store? In these cases there is no other option to go to Pharmacy Y, and I would NOT want to be a woman faced with that limitation of choices.

You cannot argue with a misogynist like Eric. He is fine as long as his own wife does not get pregnant. It would be different if Mrs. Eric could not get her pills and was late on her period b-coz the mail-order went fundie. Suddenly, his own rights would be violated. He probably will sprog in the future. If not with this one, a new one.

I'm not following your reasoning... .

My wife has multiple ways of obtaining BC; she gets her pills via the mail. I assume the same option is open to anyone else.

But that's not really the basic issue here. The basic issue is, does anyone have the right to use force (government, its police powers, etc.) to compel someone else to provide goods or services to them? I don't believe they do - irrespective of the particular good/service at issue.

Oh come on....

Throwing out the "misogynist" smear in lieu of an attempt at rebutting an argument is pretty weak....

No question, that's a tough case. But as the saying goes, tough cases make bad law.

It would suck to be in the situation you describe - but it sucks even more once you admit the principle that a private person/business can be compelled to "serve" someone else, even when doing so is at odds with their personal desires, beliefs, whatever.

The emergency room is compelled to "serve" a person who has no money. The person cannot be thrown into the streets. Sounds sorta socialist but it does not matter to you as you can walk away if your wife gets preggo and keeps it. You are more of a daddy in waiting if you do not want contraception available to women. Try to buy a rubber and be denied at the pharmacy. Let us see your libertarian self say that is fine and go on your way.

About the emergency rooms, hospitals are not pubic property but private enterprises forced to deal with indigents.

"The basic issue is, does anyone have the right to use force (government, its police powers, etc.) to compel someone else to provide goods or services to them?"

The answer, to me, is yes when health is at stake. Sure, most people can just go somewhere else, but not everybody. There are plenty of situations where the delay and inconvenience could be insurmountable and have health consequences.

Don't even get me started on the idiot pharmacists who took the prescription away from the person. Surely you can find no justification for that?

Eric, the issue is that personal freedom should cease when it affects another's rights-and that includes access to prescription medication. Like your wife, I get my BC through the mail, but I made that choice because it was cheaper. While that is a viable choice for many, not everyone can take advantage of it-for example, not all companies will deliver to a PO Box or military address. What then? What if someone can't order online and their only way to obtain medications is through the pharmacy? Just like you argue that the pharmacist shouldn't be dictacted to, the patient shouldn't be dictated to-in my opinion, the only time a pharmacist should give instruction to a patient is dosage/interaction information. That's it. It is not the pharmacist's place to be the morals police and deny a script for BC-rest assured, the doctor most likely already made their opinion on BC known, and the patient has already gone through that hurdle. Furthermore, if a pharmacy wanted to do away with BC, they should at least have the decency to post signage to that end, so at least the patient will know they won't be served what they need at that location and they can seek out another pharmacy who will meet their needs.

Sorry, Eric, but there is a huge difference between denying someone a restaurant meal - and denying them access to a lifesaving drug or surgical procedure.

If someone doesn't want to be "forced" to provide medical services to just anyone, then they have the option of choosing a different profession. They really need to get the hell out of the medical field. No one is forcing them to be a pharmacist, or a doctor, or a nurse.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors in hospitals were routinely turning away patients who were African-American. Do you want to go back to that time period? I don't.

"But that's not really the basic issue here. The basic issue is, does anyone have the right to use force (government, its police powers, etc.) to compel someone else to provide goods or services to them? I don't believe they do - irrespective of the particular good/service at issue."

And I believe government does have that right, even aside from the Constitution and case law which gives state governments police powers. Morally, denying medical care is problematic. Not everyone has the option or the time to go hunting around for someone to fill their prescription. There's no real way to enforce that except through government. I'm not going to get into a debate about libertarianism, other than to say that your idea of it takes it to ridiculous extremes.

"Most of us here I think would agree that CF people don't owe childed people our hard-earned money to provide for their kids. "

The question about selling birth control pills has nothing to do with somebody else paying for it. It goes to the issue of access to the care at all, even with your own money. As an aside, I think most here support educating the little monsters, which costs money.

I am half in and half out on this one. IF a company offers, sells, or distributes a product, WHATEVER it may be; birth control(Catholic/Protestant fundie sin) cigarettes/beer(Protestant sin),pork and beans(Muslim/Jewish sin) nail polish(Green peace) Mink hairspray (PETA),Rack of lamb (Vegan)Aspirin(Christian Science sin) Makeup(7th Day Adventist sin) etc...... Then ANYONE under their employ should be REQUIRED to be able to and willing to sell said products, or should be terminated or never hired in the first place.

However, if a single propreitorship or partnership opens his ot her own business to the public and decides not to carry a product or make it available for sale to the public, for whatever reason, then it should be made reasonably KNOWN to the public and they shouldn't have to stock it, order it, or sell it. It's Walmart's policy that a pharmcist does NOT have to dispense or sell Birth control (or any other prescription) IF he has a "conscience objection", but that another Walmart pharmacist will fill it and if he is not available or there is only the one, then they will offer a refferal to another pharmacy. WRONG ANSWER WALMART.

Since Walmart DOES fill these prescriptions as a common practice in the course of a normal business day COUNTRY WIDE, then I think Walmart and other pharmacies located within similar stores should REQUIRE that ALL pharmacists WORKING UNDER THEIR EMPLOY fill any and ALL legal and valid prescriptions regardless of any bullshit conscience objection. If the pharmacist doesn't like it then HE can seek a place of employment who doesn't stock the offensive item, or open his own fucking store. For SOME Wallyworlds to sell B/C and SOME not, is inconsistent and inconvenient and potentially dangerous as well as detrimental to public health. It's also HIGHLY selective and discriminatory.

It's easy for a man to say what Eric's saying, because he doesn't have to worry about getting knocked up, and if his wife did, he'd still be able to walk away, divorce her and have nothing to do with the child.
I'm sure if he were a woman he'd feel differently.

I've often thought that if human biology changed overnight, and one day we all woke up and found that men were now the ones who got pregnant, that within 24 hours every nation in the world would have free and easily accessible birth control and abortion for the men.

Women are still second-class citizens when it comes to being allowed control over our bodies.

"I've often thought that if human biology changed overnight, and one day we all woke up and found that men were now the ones who got pregnant, that within 24 hours every nation in the world would have free and easily accessible birth control and abortion for the men. "

Absolutely. It chills me how our rights to abortion and birth control are being chipped away little by little. I feel sorry for younger women and unborn women who will almost certainly have it much worse than I did.

I am a late one to this topic although I have been reading with great interest. I try to stay off the gender topic as this has become but cannot escape it. Deny Viagra, a man can file a lawsuit against the insurance company or whomever stating erectile dysfunction is a physical disability because the penis is not doing what it is supposed to do. People like Bill O'Reilly, an Independent, and Libertarians get on the issue of how a woman should not complain of being denied her Rx filled...as it is her CHOICE not to get pregnant. We still live in the Dark Ages re: female sexuality in the United States. I'd love for a Viagra Rx to be denied by the pharmacy or insurance company telling a man how he will not become ill from abstaining from sex. Even the most progressive of peoples will look the other way when a female birth control is denied. Eric has been picked on a bit; however, I wonder how he would feel if he was denied a 'script or any other medical service under the guise of "freedom".

Childfree Chicago Lawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I've often thought that if human biology changed
> overnight, and one day we all woke up and found
> that men were now the ones who got pregnant, that
> within 24 hours every nation in the world would
> have free and easily accessible birth control and
> abortion for the men. "
>
> Absolutely. It chills me how our rights to
> abortion and birth control are being chipped away
> little by little. I feel sorry for younger women
> and unborn women who will almost certainly have it
> much worse than I did.

Mmmhmmmm! So true. I am glad to be aging and sterilized. So what if I am overweight, see wrinkles in my skin, and not considered cute any longer. I would not want to return to my youth in this day and age. It would be a scary time. I am certain it would be harder for me to the tubal and other services I got as a younger woman in my 20'sand 30's. I never even had to blanch in front of the doctor in the past or wonder if the twit would be on duty at Wal-Mart to glare at me when I went to pick up my Ortho Novum Rx. This is not a stable time for women and we are going backward.

I now live in an area where there is ONE abortion clinic in the metro area. Of course, the Yellow Pages list "abortion referral" services meaning these places are fronts for pro-lifers to scare women into having that baby with guilt without a care how their lives will be ruined. It was also chilling to see ads for two clinics in the YP's from my former and neighbouring state (one from my former city). As one member stated, many women in the "sticks" end up having that baby because Meemaw and Peepaw do not have the fund$ to take them to the clinic here in Montgomery or in Florida if they cannot get contraceptives or they get pregnant and do not really want it.

I actually agree with eric's point that the government should not force an individual or business to sell something they don't want to sell. The point is that Walmart and Walgreens, etc.....DO sell the product and any of their employees or agents should be REQUIRED to transact these sales. I don't give a shit if the pharmacist has an individual license or not because he is an AGENT of that business that DOES sell the product. Staunch prolifers shouldn't work for ultrasound equipment or medical supplies because THEY sell to abortion clinics. Carpet installers, people who work for carpet manufacturers etc... indirectly have a hand in abortions, IF that carpet is installed in an abortion clinic. You don't hear about employees refusing to come to work at a carpet plant. This is no different only the pharmacists are all high and mighty because they have a small amount of authority which allows them to make a statement to the world about their pristine morals.

Perhaps if all of these women who have been on the pill for years start telling their husbands to wear a raincoat and put the burden of birth control on HIM, then something might be done. If I had no shame and no living family, I would purposely get on the pill, purposely go to a Walmart who employs one of these conscietious objectors, and then SUE the shit out of them. In addition to the humiliation I will say they caused, I will say that it caused the breakdown of my marriage and that my husband left me because I denied him sexual favors because to get pregnant would have put my life in jeopardy. I'd take that shit to the supreme court.

"If I had no shame and no living family, I would purposely get on the pill, purposely go to a Walmart who employs one of these conscietious objectors, and then SUE the shit out of them. In addition to the humiliation I will say they caused, I will say that it caused the breakdown of my marriage and that my husband left me because I denied him sexual favors because to get pregnant would have put my life in jeopardy. I'd take that shit to the supreme court."

I'll take that case, pro bono.

eric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue, as I see it, is compelling someone
> (anyone) to provide a service or product against
> his wishes. Just as I support the right of a
> restaurant owner (or airline or hotel - etc.) to
> exclude children (or anyone else, for any reason
> at all) I also support the right of a pharmacist
> (more properly, the pharmacy that employs him) to
> provide only those goods/services it wishes to
> provide - on whatever terms it wishes to do so.
Ya see, Eric, no one NEEDS to visit a restaurant or hotel. These may be fun things to do, but are not a requirement for life. Many people NEED their prescribed medications to LIVE, and a pharmacists DUTY is to dispense medications prescribed by doctors. It is not a pharmacists duty to act on their morality, and a pharmacist is NOT a medical provider. If they feel their duty is to act on their morality, then they don't have to be pharmacists, they can be ministers, or run christian book stores...that is THEIR choice. If they choose to become pharmacists, part of the deal is dispensing medications to people whose lifestyles they don't approve of. I know part of brain surgery is cutting open skulls and digging around in some stranger's brain, that is why I have chosen to NOT go into that profession.

Then you have the problem with where does it stop? Does a pharmacist also get to deny a person with HIV their medications because obviously if someone has HIV, that means they're teh evil gay? Does a pharmacist get to deny a person with lung cancer their medications because they are opposed to smoking? Maybe they should get to deny people with mental health issues their medications because they believe it's "Demonic possession" and all that is needed is good prayer session to get them right in the head?

People with a duty to serve the public health and interest, have a duty to provide that service to the entire public, no matter what they think of the morality of the public they SERVE. Would you like to see firefighters opting out of saving certain homes? Hows about cops deciding, "eh, we don't want to investigate that brutal home invasion, they were obviously immoral". Or even a snow plow driver saying "No, I won't plow that street, there's too may gays there".

> If you or I don't like pharmacist X (for whatever
> reason) we take our business to pharmacist Y. If
> he does not wish to sell to us, he loses our
> business - and someone else gains it.
Ya see, not everyone has the benefit of CHOICE. In many rural areas, the only pharmacy is the one at wally world, and if they deny your RX, you're fucked.

> This all cuts both ways - for good or ill. I'd
> much prefer that people be free to associate (and
> do business with)whomever they please, and under
> no compulsion to deal with/do business with those
> they prefer not to deal/do business with - for
> whatever reason.
That'd be great were it not for giant corporations running all small businesses out.
>
> The alternative is what we have - a country in
> which everyone feels entitled to impose their
> wishes - and even themselves, literally - on
> everyone else.
Oh, you mean like pharmacists deciding that they don't have to do their jobs any longer, and would just rather work with people and medications they "approve" of.


> To be clear: I fully support equal access (and
> attendant legal requirements that services, etc.
> be given equally to everyone, regardless of
> status) when we are talking about genuine public
> areas - such as courts, public buildings, anything
> that is supported by tax dollars, etc. But a
> pharmacy, restaurant, airline - etc. - these are
> private business and ought to be free to do
> business on whatever basis they wish, even if some
> of us don't especially like their attitude or how
> the deal with their customers, etc.

A pharmacy, while a private business, does not operate on the same lack of actual need to the community like a restaurant or hotel does. One can not get medication at a book store, or in a bar or even in a hotel restaurant.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me