Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[FA_Q2]

On the point, he was right and it is going to spread. A pharmacist should have the right to not administer abortion medications

This wasn't an "abortion medication".

Your point? Did you miss the ENTIRE POST where I state that what was done was incorrect or did you just key in on this ONE statement? You are better than that.

I strongly disagree. Particularly when the woman used a public pharmacy, not a hospital pharmacy for the meds. The liability in this thing happens to be at the feet of the abortion clinic not the public pharmacy. The dirtballs in the abortion clinic had an obligation to provide those meds, kiddo. They have no right to expect any citizen to pony up care in any way in such an abhorrent scenario.

I also disagree that any refusal to participate in the actions of an abortionist is somehow akin to the Police or Fire Departments refusing assistance due to the color of a house or personal preferences. Even in a hospital setting, Professionals most certainly can and do refuse to participate in the actions of abortionists and refuse to participate in the care of such patients. Hospital Boards are also free to refuse abortions and abortion care. As well, Professionals are also free to refuse to provide care in other areas of medical attention as well. For example, Nurses are free to refuse nursing in mental wards.

It is not morally reprehensible that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. It was reprehensible that the abortionist threw his/her patient out in the public sector with a prescription rather than the meds and expected others to be wheedled into the agenda of her care.

The fact is, there is such a thing as strong personal preferences in many matters, and nobody has the right to force anything or any agenda that is regarded as abhorrent on anyone. Even Nurses and Doctors. The fact is, when such strong personal preferences are there, such a Nurse or Doctor is not going to provide the same quality of care to such a patient as a non-abhorrent patient would receive.

So it's really best if the abhorrent seeks help somewhere else. The abhorrent found the abortionist and I'm very sure the abhorrent can sniff out other abhorrents with relative ease.

I absolutely refuse, under any condition and situation, to assist in any way the work of an abortionist and his/her screwing monkey who hired them to murder her baby.

If such a female comes to me, I shall not assist her in any way. Miss Piggy can go elsewhere. I do not have to provide care or treatment and I won't.

And finally, if that woman was bleeding she still required medical care in the abortion clinic. She should have been sent back to the butcher.

I certainly hope you are not in the medical field...for your sake and for everyone else's.

You might want to read a little further and try some comprehension. The Pharmacist did in fact make a call to determine the nature of the prescription. Pharmacists have that right and in fact do this many times a day on a variety of meds. A red flag should have gone up when the so-called Nurse claimed Patient Privacy in the matter. Not once has any Doctor, Nurse, or clinic worker EVER used such an excuse in response to a Pharmacy call, that I can recall UNLESS there is something going on they are trying to hide. There was something way way wrong in this picture and the Pharmacist did the correct thing by not filling that prescription.

That med happens to be a dangerous med and for your information Pharmacists are indeed charged with seeking and supplying information to Patients and have every right to refuse a prescription. Nurses as well have the right to refuse administering a med.

The abortion butcher wanted someone else to take the liability. That's what this is about.

One step further, sugarplum, had that Patient gone to a legit GYN -- rather than an abortion butcher -- she would have been placed in the hospital for a D&C and testing done for that bleeding. I do not know one single OB/GYN who would have sent a Patient home with such a symptom OR been stupid enough to write a prescription like that. Just because it's in the pharmacy doesn't mean it's safe or that other medical things should not have been done. This deal reeked of abortion.

You place more value on the life of a female who allows the murder of her baby than you do the baby, and I disagree strongly with that. Neither do I think such bimbos should have the compassion and all the ideas that what she is doing is acceptable. It isn't acceptable.

It is also unacceptable that abortionists think they can drag the entire medical profession into their killing field -- and drag all women into their heinous crap. I don't buy it now and never have. And won't ever. One step further, you might want to check the history of Planned Parenthood. They are hardly honorable. But, boy they are supposedly experts when it comes to your private parts, eh? That trash should not get one cent of public monies.

You are aware I suppose, that one of the major conflicts in the Democratic Party happens to be the issue of abortion? If you think all Dems support that crap you are very wrong. I'll never forget one of the meetings -- we got a talk from Catholics who assist abortion clinics, and then a talk from a Rabbi who claimed the pre-born aren't humans. And I'll tell you something, if this abortion issue doesn't reek of really disgusting religious bullshit, I don't know what does.

Finally, if I give care it's proper care. I don't kill Patients. If you consider that out of step, I strongly suggest you might want to think about your own mental state.

You are glossing over several points though. One major point is the fact that this med has nothing to do with abortion and you stating invoking patent privacy is incorrect is absolute bullshit. I REQUIRE that from a doctor, it is part of the trust that you have when seeing a medical professional that your personal business is YOURS not to be spread and told to whomever they please. It speaks of a complete lack of professionalism or respect for the law that she even asked those questions expecting an answer. You still have zero indication that this was connected to an abortion anyway.

It still stands that this IS the same as the example I gave. You dismissed that but did not explain the difference? Tell me, what is the difference between a cop stooping a rape as you leave PP, a fireman putting out the PP building fire as it is burning down or a pharmacist giving a medication to a PP customer? They are the same. There is a difference if the pharmacist is asked to give out the abortion medication itself but not for a drug that has nothing to do with abortion because there is a difference in someone directly partaking in the abortion and someone that is simply caring for a person that has had an abortion.

Simply put: you have rights and value even if you have undergone an abortion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

Actually, we do not know that those are the facts. Number 2 for instance, is not certain. All that we know is that the pharmacist made a phone call to the Planned Parenthood office and that the NP at PP would not answer the question. We are told in the OP that the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, yet we have not been given the pharmacists side of the story. It is possible that the pharmacist questioned the patient and the need for the prescription and the patient got frustrated and left the pharmacy believing that the pharmacist would not have filled the prescription.

I know that I have had pharmacists who will question what the prescription is for, what other prescription (and non-prescription) medication I am currently on etc. I believe that they can be held as liable as the doctor is if they fill a prescription that does harm to the patient.

So, we do not know "the facts" of the case. We have alleged facts and nothing more than that.

Hell, we don't know for sure that #1 is a fact!

Immie

The patient filled the prescription at another pharmacy and so #1 is not in dispute.
The State Board of Pharmacist spokesman Executive Director stated that "we have received a complaint that on Nov. 6 a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood's Boise based nurse practitioners".
The State Board of Pharmacists DOES NOT allow complaints of this nature UNLESS the prescription was not filled. That was the complaint filed. That is not in dispute.
So we have #2 as absolute fact. You are the one speculating and speculation is never fact.
You are the one speculating that the letter written by Planned Parenthood, a letter they state as fact they wrote and that no one denies, is NOT fact.
That is also speculation.
For any of your speculation to be true Planned Parenthood would have to have made THE ENTIRE STORY UP, the patient would be lieing and the complaint to the board would be a total fraud. Fraudulent information given in complaints to a State licensing board is punishable as a crime.
Your entire thesis is you are speculating that Planned Parenthood, the nurse that prescribed the drug and this woman made the entire story up and would lie about it, cover it up and risk a criminal convictions in the process.
Do you really believe that cock and bull conspiracy theory?
That makes no sense in the real world.

 

[FA_Q2]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

all right allie: what do you expect us to debate here?? Let's say the complaint is truthful. Where do you lie on the subject? All we have to go off of it the complaint and to be quite frank, we are here to debate issues. Even if the complaint is a complete fabrication I would still like to debate the issue as that is why i am posting here in the first place. Let's move on from we don't know to hypothetically if...

 

[Gadawg73]

Thanks to AllieBabble for the insults she sends in private messages.

 

[AllieBaba]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

Really?

What's the name of the pharmacist?

When did Walgreen's admit the med was prescribed?

 

[Gadawg73]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

Really?

What's the name of the pharmacist?

When did Walgreen's admit the med was prescribed?

So Walgreen states that they sent this pharmacist to give HER side of this to the Pharmacy Board and Allie claims she has no name.

This is her Idaho license

"Idaho State Board of Pharmacists
Name: Ms. No Name
License Facility: Walgreens
Pharmacist"

Hey Allie, Walgreens does not prescribe dope, they FILL prescriptions. And the prescription was filled at another pharmacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

If you think all those facts are not in dispute you have not been paying attention. Here are the real facts.

1. The drug was prescribed.
2. It is alleged that the pharmacists refused to fill the prescription because she suspected it was prescribed in conjunction with an abortion.
3. This complaint was filed with the state board.
4. The initial complaint did not have the name of the pharmacist, but this did not make the complaint invalid. The state board had to investigate anyway, and find out which pharmacists was on duty at the pharmacy at the time of the alleged incident. Believe it or not, investigative agencies often have to find out the name of the person they are investigating because most people do not announce their name when they are answering the phone, especially if they are also doing something that is nominally illegal.
5. This is the biggest fact, we only have one side of the story.

How anyone can look at those facts and determine that anyone who does not agree with their conclusion is an idiot is beyond my comprehension, yet it happens. Do you see me strutting around and insisting that things I do not understand did not happen though? Unlike you, I know I do not know everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

My bet is that if you call the police about someone stealing your laptop they will take a report even if you do not know the name of the person who took it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

If you think all those facts are not in dispute you have not been paying attention. Here are the real facts.

1. The drug was prescribed.
2. It is alleged that the pharmacists refused to fill the prescription because she suspected it was prescribed in conjunction with an abortion.
3. This complaint was filed with the state board.
4. The initial complaint did not have the name of the pharmacist, but this did not make the complaint invalid. The state board had to investigate anyway, and find out which pharmacists was on duty at the pharmacy at the time of the alleged incident. Believe it or not, investigative agencies often have to find out the name of the person they are investigating because most people do not announce their name when they are answering the phone, especially if they are also doing something that is nominally illegal.
5. This is the biggest fact, we only have one side of the story.

How anyone can look at those facts and determine that anyone who does not agree with their conclusion is an idiot is beyond my comprehension, yet it happens. Do you see me strutting around and insisting that things I do not understand did not happen though? Unlike you, I know I do not know everything.

I never claimed I knew everything.
Your top 5 there are in line with everything I stated. Walgreens sent their pharmacist up. The complaint was made AFTER the prescription was filled at another pharmacy.
If any of this is untrue then criminal charges of perjury will be filed. I know, I do this for a living.
Unlike you, I have investigated over 6000 civil and criminal cases over the last 32 years, over 100 involving cases before State licensing boards. Many from being appointed by Boards and/or Judges.
Would you like my license # from the Georgia Board of Private Detectives? Issued 1982 when the law was passed and I have been working since 1979.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I have a feeling this complaint will go exactly nowhere.

Well it is known that it went to the Idaho Board of Pharmacy...

"November 17, 2010

Ms. Jan Atkins
Senior Compliance Officer
Idaho Board of Pharmacy
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0067

Dear Ms. Atkins,

On November 6, 2010 I contacted the Walgreens pharmacy located at 932 Caldwell Blvd., Nampa, Idaho in order to call-in a prescription for Methergine. I am a nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s Boise heath care center, and the prescription was for one of my patients. As you may know, Methergine is commonly used to prevent bleeding from the uterus following childbirth or an abortion, as treatment for an enlarged uterus, miscarriage management, to help deliver the placenta after childbirth, and as a migraine treatment.

I spoke with the female pharmacist on duty at approximately 2pm (unfortunately I did not get her name). The pharmacist asked for our center phone number and the name of our health center. I provided that information. The pharmacist then asked if the patient had undergone an elective abortion. In keeping with the standards of conduct outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), I refused to breach my patient’s confidentiality by answering her question. The pharmacist then stated that if the patient had an abortion, she would not fill the prescription. I again referenced HIPPA, and I informed her that Methergine is not an abortifacient and it serves multiple purposes in post-partum care. I asked that she refer me to another pharmacist to fill the prescription, and she hung up.

I believe a complaint is in order for three reasons. First, the pharmacist asked that I breach my patient’s confidentiality. Patient privacy is not only a requirement of the law, but it is also the bedrock of patient-provider trust. Lack of trust and privacy can only negatively impact health outcomes and standards of care. Nor is it necessary for a pharmacist to know for what purpose a drug is being prescribed. As a trained practitioner and a licensed nurse, I am fully capable of determining treatment regimens that are appropriate to the medical condition at-hand and ensuring that those regimens do not negatively interact with concurrent prescriptions. The pharmacist’s request was therefore both unlawful and unnecessary.

Secondly, I believe the pharmacist wrongly applied the conscious protections outlined in Idaho Code § 18-611 in refusing to dispense Methergine. Section § 18-611 of Idaho code does allow medical professions to refuse to provide health care services that conflict with their “religious, moral or ethical principles.” However, “health care services” is defined in section § 18-611(f) as “an abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care.” Methergine does not fall within that definition. Thus, it would seem the pharmacist had no grounds on which to refuse to dispense the medication.

Lastly, not filling the prescription could have placed my patient in grave danger. The medication was prescribed to prevent a potentially life-threatening situation from taking place. Had I not been able to find a pharmacist to fill the prescription, I would have had to refer my patient to a local hospital for emergency care. Simply filling the prescription would have ensured my patient’s heath and prevented the need for a burdensome and costly trip to the emergency room.

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and please keep me informed as to the outcome of this complaint.

Sincerely,

Nurse Practitioner
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest
1109 Main St, Ste 500
Boise, ID 83702"​

Walgreens Doesn't Confirm Nor Deny Corrective Action in Prescription Refusal Incident | citydesk



>>>>

I'm confused about something here. The OP and other posters are claiming the woman took the prescription to the pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill it after calling the clinic. Yet the first line of this letter says the RN contacted the Walgreen's to call in the prescription. Which of these versions is the real one?

The second paragraph of the letter says the RN did not get the name of the pharmacist that she was talking to. Shouldn't she have asked for this up front so that it could be entered on the patient's records?

 

[Gadawg73]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

My bet is that if you call the police about someone stealing your laptop they will take a report even if you do not know the name of the person who took it.

That is a CRIME.
This is a civil complaint.
Stick to your day job.

 

[AllieBaba]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

And the name is.....????

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

My bet is that if you call the police about someone stealing your laptop they will take a report even if you do not know the name of the person who took it.

That is a CRIME.
This is a civil complaint.
Stick to your day job.

Doesn't matter. People make false allegations in civil matters more often than they do in criminal ones, dodo.

So when did Walgreen's admit the med wasn't prescribed? I'm sure you have that factoid handy...

 

[Gadawg73]

I have a feeling this complaint will go exactly nowhere.

Well it is known that it went to the Idaho Board of Pharmacy...

"November 17, 2010

Ms. Jan Atkins
Senior Compliance Officer
Idaho Board of Pharmacy
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0067

Dear Ms. Atkins,

On November 6, 2010 I contacted the Walgreens pharmacy located at 932 Caldwell Blvd., Nampa, Idaho in order to call-in a prescription for Methergine. I am a nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s Boise heath care center, and the prescription was for one of my patients. As you may know, Methergine is commonly used to prevent bleeding from the uterus following childbirth or an abortion, as treatment for an enlarged uterus, miscarriage management, to help deliver the placenta after childbirth, and as a migraine treatment.

I spoke with the female pharmacist on duty at approximately 2pm (unfortunately I did not get her name). The pharmacist asked for our center phone number and the name of our health center. I provided that information. The pharmacist then asked if the patient had undergone an elective abortion. In keeping with the standards of conduct outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), I refused to breach my patient’s confidentiality by answering her question. The pharmacist then stated that if the patient had an abortion, she would not fill the prescription. I again referenced HIPPA, and I informed her that Methergine is not an abortifacient and it serves multiple purposes in post-partum care. I asked that she refer me to another pharmacist to fill the prescription, and she hung up.

I believe a complaint is in order for three reasons. First, the pharmacist asked that I breach my patient’s confidentiality. Patient privacy is not only a requirement of the law, but it is also the bedrock of patient-provider trust. Lack of trust and privacy can only negatively impact health outcomes and standards of care. Nor is it necessary for a pharmacist to know for what purpose a drug is being prescribed. As a trained practitioner and a licensed nurse, I am fully capable of determining treatment regimens that are appropriate to the medical condition at-hand and ensuring that those regimens do not negatively interact with concurrent prescriptions. The pharmacist’s request was therefore both unlawful and unnecessary.

Secondly, I believe the pharmacist wrongly applied the conscious protections outlined in Idaho Code § 18-611 in refusing to dispense Methergine. Section § 18-611 of Idaho code does allow medical professions to refuse to provide health care services that conflict with their “religious, moral or ethical principles.” However, “health care services” is defined in section § 18-611(f) as “an abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care.” Methergine does not fall within that definition. Thus, it would seem the pharmacist had no grounds on which to refuse to dispense the medication.

Lastly, not filling the prescription could have placed my patient in grave danger. The medication was prescribed to prevent a potentially life-threatening situation from taking place. Had I not been able to find a pharmacist to fill the prescription, I would have had to refer my patient to a local hospital for emergency care. Simply filling the prescription would have ensured my patient’s heath and prevented the need for a burdensome and costly trip to the emergency room.

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and please keep me informed as to the outcome of this complaint.

Sincerely,

Nurse Practitioner
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest
1109 Main St, Ste 500
Boise, ID 83702"​

Walgreens Doesn't Confirm Nor Deny Corrective Action in Prescription Refusal Incident | citydesk



>>>>

I'm confused about something here. The OP and other posters are claiming the woman took the prescription to the pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill it after calling the clinic. Yet the first line of this letter says the RN contacted the Walgreen's to call in the prescription. Which of these versions is the real one?

The second paragraph of the letter says the RN did not get the name of the pharmacist that she was talking to. Shouldn't she have asked for this up front so that it could be entered on the patient's records?

Excellent points.
Those things we DO NOT KNOW.

 

[geauxtohell]

You truly are retarded.

Once again.
Slooowwwwlllyyyy...

A complaint was filed by PP CLAIMING an unnamed woman didn't get her med.

Walgreen's answered the complaint, as they must, or admit that the complaint is truthful.

Is this sinking in????

Walgreen's has neither admitted nor denied the complaint; they have simply responded legally, as they have to.

Nobody's named.
No details, other than the ones in the ALLEGATIONS within the complaint, have surfaced.

Get it? Huh? Get it? Huh? Get it?

Oh lord. Once again, the woman hasn't been named because it would violate HIPAA. If this goes forward legally, she'll have to be named.

As it stands, the mere fact that she's "un-named" doesn't serve to impeach the claims.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank you for agreeing.

We only have one side, PP, and no particulars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Facts NOT in dispute:
1. The drug was prescribed by a legal health care provider.
2. The pharmacist would not fill the prescription.
3. The State Board of Pharmacy has acknowledged that a complaint was filed by this woman against the pharmacist for NOT filling a legal prescription.The ONLY way a pharmacist can not fill a prescription is to invoke the conscience clause.
4.The pharmacist was NAMED in the complaint. You can not file a complaint UNLESS someone is named.
How in the hell can the facts of this "be somewhere in the middle"?
Spin is rampant these days.

If you think all those facts are not in dispute you have not been paying attention. Here are the real facts.

1. The drug was prescribed.
2. It is alleged that the pharmacists refused to fill the prescription because she suspected it was prescribed in conjunction with an abortion.
3. This complaint was filed with the state board.
4. The initial complaint did not have the name of the pharmacist, but this did not make the complaint invalid. The state board had to investigate anyway, and find out which pharmacists was on duty at the pharmacy at the time of the alleged incident. Believe it or not, investigative agencies often have to find out the name of the person they are investigating because most people do not announce their name when they are answering the phone, especially if they are also doing something that is nominally illegal.
5. This is the biggest fact, we only have one side of the story.

How anyone can look at those facts and determine that anyone who does not agree with their conclusion is an idiot is beyond my comprehension, yet it happens. Do you see me strutting around and insisting that things I do not understand did not happen though? Unlike you, I know I do not know everything.

I never claimed I knew everything.
Your top 5 there are in line with everything I stated. Walgreens sent their pharmacist up. The complaint was made AFTER the prescription was filled at another pharmacy.
If any of this is untrue then criminal charges of perjury will be filed. I know, I do this for a living.
Unlike you, I have investigated over 6000 civil and criminal cases over the last 32 years, over 100 involving cases before State licensing boards. Many from being appointed by Boards and/or Judges.
Would you like my license # from the Georgia Board of Private Detectives? Issued 1982 when the law was passed and I have been working since 1979.

You are a private detective in Georgia, which, I am sure you will admit, is not the same thing as a board investigator in Idaho. Complaints are often filed without the person making the complaint knowing the name of the person they are alleging did something wrong. I have no idea what the exact numbers are, but i know it happens. The fact that you continually insist that it is impossible to file a complaint without knowing the name makes me doubt your abilities, not your credentials.

Let me see if I can paint a picture that not only explains everything, and assumes that everyone involved is telling the truth, but lays out a case where the pharmacist is not guilty.

Planned Parenthood calls in a prescription to a local Walgreen's. The pharmacist is actually busy, and someone else answers the phone. This person asks a bunch of questions totally inappropriate to a licensed pharmacist, and refuses to enter the prescription into the computer system. When asked for a referral, this person simply hangs up.

The nurse practitioner, naturally offended, files a complaint with the state board. Since this was done over the phone the nurse practitioner did not get the name of the woman she was talking to. The state board, as it is required to, investigates the charges. As part of the investigation they call the pharmacist at Walgreen's to find out what happened. He explains the whole thing, and Walgreen's being advised by their lawyers, and perhaps under a gag order by the state board, make no official comment about anything.

Note: I am not saying this is what happened, I am simply painting a scenario based on the statements and the assumption that everything that was alleged actually happened. I then assume that the pharmacist is actually a responsible professional, and would not have refused medication that would potentially leave someone dead.

You seem to prefer to jump to the conclusion that the pharmacist, who you know nothing about, is an irresponsible prejudiced bigot. I might be wrong, and might even end up looking like a fool, but at least I will be able to look at myself in a mirror even if I am.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Allie states you can file a complaint and not have a name with it.

My bet is that if you call the police about someone stealing your laptop they will take a report even if you do not know the name of the person who took it.

That is a CRIME.
This is a civil complaint.
Stick to your day job.

So, if I walk into a Walgreen's and they refuse to fill my prescription I cannot file a complaint unless I also get their name? I don't know about your day job, but that makes even less sense than the original story.

 

[AllieBaba]

I thought the complaint said the person making the complaint didn't know the name of the pharmacist.