Personal Beliefs vs Morning After Pill

[Luissa]

That was even dumber than you trying to argue that I didn't say that Obama changed his position.

The federal government, which has the power to throw pharmacists in prison, required that anyone buying Plan B obtain a prescription before they purchase it. States do not have the authority to require pharmacists to ignore federal law, so even if a state tried to allow Plan B to be sold without a prescription, no pharmacist would obey that law unless they were willing to go to prison, and lose their livelihood.

No they didn't.

I bought it without a prescription from my doctor two years ago. I went the the pharmacy, told him I needed it, then paid for it and left.
You are a moron.
"The FDA originally approved the morning after pill at the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 and, in 2006, it was approved for nonprescription use for women 18 and older"
FDA Approves Sale of Plan B Morning After Pill to Teenagers | LifeNews.com

Get your facts straight moron.

Interesting argument, you went to a doctor and got a prescription, but didn't have a prescription.

A pharmacist translates to doctor to you?

Plus there is the second part of my post that states the FDA approved it for 18 and up without a prescription.

 

[Luissa]

That was even dumber than you trying to argue that I didn't say that Obama changed his position.

The federal government, which has the power to throw pharmacists in prison, required that anyone buying Plan B obtain a prescription before they purchase it. States do not have the authority to require pharmacists to ignore federal law, so even if a state tried to allow Plan B to be sold without a prescription, no pharmacist would obey that law unless they were willing to go to prison, and lose their livelihood.

No they didn't.

I bought it without a prescription from my doctor two years ago. I went the the pharmacy, told him I needed it, then paid for it and left.
You are a moron.
"The FDA originally approved the morning after pill at the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 and, in 2006, it was approved for nonprescription use for women 18 and older"
FDA Approves Sale of Plan B Morning After Pill to Teenagers | LifeNews.com

Get your facts straight moron.

Interesting argument, you went to a doctor and got a prescription, but didn't have a prescription.

The fact is that the FDA approved non prescription sale of Plan B, and was overruled by Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Someone finally sued demanding that the FDA follow the recommendation of the FDA scientists, and Obama fought against it.

He lost, which your earlier post pointed out.

Want tot ell me again how stupid I am?

Why not, for once, simply admit I know what I am talking about? If you get over you pathological need to prove me wrong every time I post, even when I agree with you, you might find yourself a lot less conflicted.

For 18 and younger smart one.
If you were over 18 you could buy it from a pharmacist without a prescription.
And you don't know what you are talking about. You rarely do.

I am a woman, with women friends. You don't think I don't know a few people who have bought it without a prescription?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He did fight it... But your info is out of date.

"NEW YORK — The federal government on Monday told a judge it will reverse course and take steps to comply with his order to allow girls of any age to buy emergency contraception without prescriptions."
Obama Plan B Decision: Feds To Comply With NY Judge's Ruling


Typical QW, doesn't back up anything.

My info is not out of date, the judge ordered the FDA to make it available without a prescription regardless of age, the Obama order ignored that and still requires a prescription for girls under 14. (I think that is the age.)

Re-read my post you quoted, idiot.

Which part?

This?

"It's about time that the administration stopped opposing women having access to safe and effective birth control," she said in an emailed statement.

This, which is the part I was commenting on when I mentioned the age restrictions?

The FDA announced in late April that Plan B One-Step, the newer version of emergency contraception, the same drug but combined into one pill instead of two, could be sold without a prescription to those age 15 or older. Its maker, Teva Women's Health, plans to begin those sales soon. Sales had previously been limited to those who were at least 17.

Go ahead, tell me which part I got wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you going to make the argument now that pharmacists can write prescriptions?
Plus there is the whole fact any time you go to planned parenthood they give you samples..... Without a prescription.

That was your argument, since you said you got one form your doctor then didn't have one. Did it ever occur to you that your doctor followed the standard procedure and called it in to the pharmacist?

 

[Luissa]

You are helpless. Lol

 

[Luissa]

Are you going to make the argument now that pharmacists can write prescriptions?
Plus there is the whole fact any time you go to planned parenthood they give you samples..... Without a prescription.

That was your argument, since you said you got one form your doctor then didn't have one. Did it ever occur to you that your doctor followed the standard procedure and called it in to the pharmacist?

I never even mentioned my doctor. Lol

You just made that shit up.

So you understand, once again..
I WENT TO THE PHARMACY, ASKED FOR THE MORNING AFTER PILL. PAID FOR IT AND LEFT.


Get it now?

 

[Luissa]

That was even dumber than you trying to argue that I didn't say that Obama changed his position.

The federal government, which has the power to throw pharmacists in prison, required that anyone buying Plan B obtain a prescription before they purchase it. States do not have the authority to require pharmacists to ignore federal law, so even if a state tried to allow Plan B to be sold without a prescription, no pharmacist would obey that law unless they were willing to go to prison, and lose their livelihood.

No they didn't.

I bought it without a prescription from my doctor two years ago. I went the the pharmacy, told him I needed it, then paid for it and left.
You are a moron.
"The FDA originally approved the morning after pill at the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 and, in 2006, it was approved for nonprescription use for women 18 and older"
FDA Approves Sale of Plan B Morning After Pill to Teenagers | LifeNews.com

Get your facts straight moron.

Interesting argument, you went to a doctor and got a prescription, but didn't have a prescription.

The fact is that the FDA approved non prescription sale of Plan B, and was overruled by Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Someone finally sued demanding that the FDA follow the recommendation of the FDA scientists, and Obama fought against it.

He lost, which your earlier post pointed out.

Want tot ell me again how stupid I am?

Why not, for once, simply admit I know what I am talking about? If you get over you pathological need to prove me wrong every time I post, even when I agree with you, you might find yourself a lot less conflicted.

See, you even quoted the post here... And still couldn't get it right. Lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you going to make the argument now that pharmacists can write prescriptions?
Plus there is the whole fact any time you go to planned parenthood they give you samples..... Without a prescription.

That was your argument, since you said you got one form your doctor then didn't have one. Did it ever occur to you that your doctor followed the standard procedure and called it in to the pharmacist?

I never even mentioned my doctor. Lol

You just made that shit up.

So you understand, once again..
I WENT TO THE PHARMACY, ASKED FOR THE MORNING AFTER PILL. PAID FOR IT AND LEFT.


Get it now?

I misread your post, my apologies.

 

[Luissa]

They gave me a sample at planned parenthood when I got on depo in 2004.
Trust me, it's been pretty easy to get for awhile. Now underage girls can now get it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Again, if the employer is paying them, and you don't like the job they are doing, go shop somewhere else. That ends the debate on the terms you are trying to claim you are making it on, leaving you with nothing but the desire to fire people that you do not employ simply because you don't like their opinion.

I think you might be a little confused as to the perspective of what we're talking about.

My "desires" don't have anything to do with this. You keep attempting to paint my argument as an emotional one, which it isn't.

If Lumpy's hypothetical were to actually happen in my drugstore, I wouldn't care. I would have no desire for that person to be fired.

But I'm pretty sure the manager of Walgreens would care if one of their employees refused to sell a product they offered.

You keep trying to make yourself look smarter than everyone else. This time, you are failing misreably.

I have never said your argument was emotional, probably because I never though it raised itself far enough to have any emotion behind it. Your argument is based on the assumption that people have the right to force businesses to comply with their whims, as such, it is completely irrational.


Simple fact, you personal belief about what the manager might want is not based on the reality that the employee is actually employed at Walgreen's. I know for a fact that Walgreen's has an employee training program, and that the duties of the employee is spelled out to them as part of that training. They have an opportunity to object to anything during that training, and are able to stuff like selling Plan B during this period, and if they still end up working there it is because the company has elected to accommodate their choice.

That training program is even more extensive for the managers. They have to understand that, unlike the drooling idiots on message boards, their personal belief that people should be forced to ignore the personal right of each employee to negotiate conditions of employment and company policy only works in fanatasyland.

You keep attempting to define my argument for me, and failing.

My argument has nothing at all to do with "forcing businesses to comply with my whims", nor do my "personal beliefs". My argument is based on nothing but the reality of business.

I would have no problem if a store agreed to employ a cashier who refused to do their job, but I think you're being staggering naive if you think many employers will do so.

 

[Immanuel]

How would a store "accommodate" those beliefs, exactly?

It is highly unlikely that they do not have another clerk who is willing to sell the tool for killing, but the bottom line is that if the employer requires the employee to sell the product, the clerk should immediately look for employment elsewhere.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you might be a little confused as to the perspective of what we're talking about.

My "desires" don't have anything to do with this. You keep attempting to paint my argument as an emotional one, which it isn't.

If Lumpy's hypothetical were to actually happen in my drugstore, I wouldn't care. I would have no desire for that person to be fired.

But I'm pretty sure the manager of Walgreens would care if one of their employees refused to sell a product they offered.

You keep trying to make yourself look smarter than everyone else. This time, you are failing misreably.

I have never said your argument was emotional, probably because I never though it raised itself far enough to have any emotion behind it. Your argument is based on the assumption that people have the right to force businesses to comply with their whims, as such, it is completely irrational.


Simple fact, you personal belief about what the manager might want is not based on the reality that the employee is actually employed at Walgreen's. I know for a fact that Walgreen's has an employee training program, and that the duties of the employee is spelled out to them as part of that training. They have an opportunity to object to anything during that training, and are able to stuff like selling Plan B during this period, and if they still end up working there it is because the company has elected to accommodate their choice.

That training program is even more extensive for the managers. They have to understand that, unlike the drooling idiots on message boards, their personal belief that people should be forced to ignore the personal right of each employee to negotiate conditions of employment and company policy only works in fanatasyland.

You keep attempting to define my argument for me, and failing.

My argument has nothing at all to do with "forcing businesses to comply with my whims", nor do my "personal beliefs". My argument is based on nothing but the reality of business.

I would have no problem if a store agreed to employ a cashier who refused to do their job, but I think you're being staggering naive if you think many employers will do so.

If that was true you wouldn't have asked me the absurd question about waiters not serving alcohol. You would have read my post where I laid out my position, which agrees with the one you just stated you have, and not felt a need to challenge me to defend myself.

When you say "the reality of business" you actually mean "I am always right,and the fact that I cannot actually define my position to you is irrelevant."

Feel free to point out where I said stores will employ people that won't do their jobs. Feel free to point out where anyone, including Lumpy, said that employers should be forced to keep employees who refuse to do their job.

You swaggered into this thread laying down the law as you see it, thinking you have all the answers, and demanding that anyone who refused to sell something should be fired. The only thing that matters to you is that your opinion is never challenged.

If you had actually read the OP you would understand that Lumpy was asking about how the new law should affect employees who already have a job, and are now forced, by law, to sell something they might object to. Under many state laws, and federal law, employers are actually required to make accommodations to an employees religious beliefs.

That, even though it is wrong, makes your insistence that they be fired for not doing their job, wrong. Especially when you factor in the reality that the business can be sued for not accommodating their religious beliefs, and the federal government will support their lawsuit via the EEOC. How does your argument about the reality of business fit into the reality of the law in this country?