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

[Rat in the Hat]

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

I'm still trying to figure out if the patient went to the pharmacy and was refused, or if the RN tried to call it in for her and was refused. There seem to be 2 versions of the complaint being presented.

And why, in either case, no one had the thought to get the pharmacists name.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes. It's amazing, we know nothing at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It did, a fact GaDawg conveniently ignores.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I'm still trying to figure out if the patient went to the pharmacy and was refused, or if the RN tried to call it in for her and was refused. There seem to be 2 versions of the complaint being presented.

And why, in either case, no one had the thought to get the pharmacists name.

I am not really sure myself, but the complaint said it all happened over the phone, and that is the only information we have.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Maybe you should try reading the entire thread? Obviously you have not.

My thesis? You are the one that claims the facts as facts?

I did not say they were not facts, I said that they are not proven facts. You state that the person who wrote the scrip did so legally? That is not necessarily true although it is probable. You see? You claim it as fact. I simply say that it is unproven as of this moment. One need not be legally entitled to write a prescription to do so. Illegal prescriptions are filled all the time. One only need a prescription pad and poor handwriting to write a prescription.

You also state damned near emphatically, that the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Again, that is not necessarily the case. That is the accusation and as of yet, it has not been proven. As I stated, it is possible that there is another side to the story... that would be the pharmacists side of the story. The way the story is written it sure makes the pharmacist out to be a terrible person, but that is the way most accusations come out. In every argument there are two sides to the story. So far, we have only heard one side.

You have convicted the pharmacists without giving her, her day in court. Shame on you.

Do you know what the word "complaint" means? It certainly does not appear that you do. I can file a complaint against you for having been rude in this thread, which so far you have not done, been close but have not done. All I have to do is push the "report" button on one of your posts and I have filed a complaint with the mods. It is up to the mods to determine whether or not my complaint has merit. It certainly does not mean that you are guilty of having been rude, but I would still be filing a complaint. It is simply a complaint which then would have to be investigated. The investigation would then determine if there is any merit to the complaint and from there, if any action were appropriate the mods would undertake them in what ever form they deemed appropriate.

The State Board of Pharmacists DOES NOT allow complaints of this nature UNLESS the prescription was not filled.

That is completely incorrect. A complaint can be filed by anyone, which would then lead to an investigation. The State Board would not know at the time that the complaint was filed if it were legitimate or not therefore they could not possibly deny the complainants right to file such a complaint. They would have to look into the matter. Does that make any sense to you? Good Lord! I hope so!

Do I put it passed PP to have made this up? Hell no. Nor do I put it passed them to have sent in a "patient" that instigated the issue. I am not saying that is what happened, but until both sides are heard, there are no proven facts.

Immie

 

[frazzledgear]

Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion | Women's Rights | Change.org

A pharmacist at a Nampa, Idaho, Walgreens refused to dispense medication that stops uterine bleeding because she suspected the woman may have had an abortion. The pharmacist invoked the state's new so-called conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, among other things, if they have a personal problem with it.

Last November, a woman took her prescription for Methergine, a drug that stops uterine bleeding regardless of cause, to Walgreens. The pharmacist, suspicious that the woman's uncontrolled bleeding may have been the result of an abortion, called the nurse practitioner who wrote the prescription to inquire why the patient needed it. When the nurse refused to answer because to do so would violate the patient's confidentiality, the pharmacist hung up on her and refused to fill the prescription.

Essentially, the pharmacist was saying that, while her conscience was just dandy with letting a woman bleed out, it would have a problem saving her life if it was even a possibility that the blood loss was connected to an abortion. The pharmacist's conscience being so fickle, apparently also prevented her from even referring the woman to a pharmacy who would fill her prescription, leaving her alone, bleeding, and lost. Someone care to explain to me how this qualifies as pro-life?

Original article:

Complaint targets Nampa pharmacist - Idaho Press-Tribune: News




Thoughts USMB?

This is a totally SPECIOUS argument but wow, doesn't it just get your liberal juices flowing to PRETEND this woman was BLEEDING OUT right there and how it was this big EMERGENCY thing going on here - and this pharmacist refused to come to her assistance? Sorry, its all bullshit and typical liberal drama queen antics.

1. A pharmacy is not an emergency clinic and pharmacists are not doctors, they are NOT health care providers AT ALL. They run a privately owned business and their business is selling prescription and non-prescription drugs, medications and supplies. But they do NOT sell every kind of medication that exists -nor are they EVER required to either.

2. Pharmacists take NO oath at all, much less an oath to fill any and all prescriptions that cross their counter. They can't take such an oath or the smaller ones in particular would quickly be driven out of business. Smaller pharmacies ROUTINELY tell someone they have to get a prescription for an uncommon medication filled somewhere else because they don't stock it and they don't want to mess with an uncommon one at all. I had a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription of mine because the smallest lots he could get were for 100 pills and I had been prescribed 5 -and it was an uncommon enough drug he knew no one was going to buy the other 95 before they expired and the cost of those 5 pills to me would not cover his loss on the other 95. Tough luck for me, it was absolutely his right to make that business decision -I had to take the prescription to another pharmacy. That's life. If he said he couldn't sell it me because it somehow violated his conscience to do so -I would have had to take it somewhere else too. That's life. I cannot force someone to sell me ANYTHING if they choose not to sell it (except if their reasons are because of my race or gender). Did you know that customers don't own the business and they don't get to make those decisions? A pharmacy is just another privately owned business and demanding they sell you a particular drug when they have decided not to sell that one -is no different than suing McDonald's because they refuse to sell you pineapple shakes! Tough luck, but you can't force McDonald's to sell you a pineapple shake and you can't force a pharmacist to sell you any particular drug either.

The courts have already ruled on this under various guises. If your pharmacist will not fill a prescription for ANY reason, even if you don't LIKE his reason (with the exception of refusing because of your race or gender) -you must take it to a different pharmacy. But you can't FORCE a pharmacist to sell a drug against their will and you can't FORCE a pharmacist to violate their conscience. It is no different from if the situation was that pharmacy doesn't carry it or won't have any more for three days but you want it now you have to go to another one. THAT'S LIFE. Just because the goods being sold are medication instead of ice cream shakes changes nothing -a store in the private sector can sell or NOT sell their choice of goods. Period. Go buy it somewhere else just like if you want that pineapple shake you have to go get it where someone is willing to sell it!

But PULLEEZE let's stop with the DRAMA QUEEN antics on this story already! THIS does not represent "emergency" and the pharmacist was NOT there to provide any type of medical care to her whatsoever. This woman's life was NOT in danger, she was not "bleeding out", she was NOT there to receive medical CARE -and if her life really had been in danger, then she might have a lawsuit against her DOCTOR for sending her to a pharmacy instead of a hospital. But she doesn't have one against this pharmacist and she isn't going to win any lawsuit if she brings it. You can't FORCE people to violate their conscience just because it it is a good or service YOU want them to sell. A pharmacist is responsible for selling medications and for those they CHOOSE to sell, they are responsible for filling accurately. IF they fail to fill a prescription accurately they can be sued -but if they don't fill it at all and told you they can't or won't fill it and you must take the prescription elsewhere to be filled -they cannot be forced to fill it anyway. THIS is what the courts have ruled over and over and over when it comes to pharmacies -which are just another business but are NOT health care providers!

A pharmacist would be well aware of the most common and routine use of this drug following an abortion - and make a pretty accurate guess why this woman had been prescribed the drug. And according to the courts in similar cases, would be within his rights to refuse to participate or play ANY role in ANY aspect of the abortion industry whether it was before, during or after an abortion. Or any OTHER reason he had for not filling this particular prescription (except reasons of race or gender).

Funny liberals get the idea when it comes to forcing people to violate their conscience when it comes to war. Apparently it is the ONLY time they get it though. Because when it comes to abortion, they run to court over and over DEMANDING the courts FORCE someone to violate their conscience and be FORCED to contribute to, participate in or playing a supporting role in some aspect of the abortion industry and in violation of an individual's conscience. THIS is exactly how the left operates -they believe THEIR judgment is superior to that of everyone else, and those who don't bow down it to they believe should be FORCED to anyway and severely punished if they refuse. Liberals are STILL intent on getting a court to rule that if a pharmacist refuses to sell any drug on the grounds it violates their conscience -that the pharmacist forfeits their career and business entirely and have their license yanked. The left is THAT vicious about trying to force people to violate their conscience. Because if it doesn't violate THEIRS -then NO ONE can be allowed to get away with claiming it violates theirs. For liberals the only "conscience" that counts is their own -or lack thereof.

If someone says participating in ANY part of the abortion industry whether that participation is before, during or following an abortion, it would mean giving their support to the abortion industry which would violate their conscience -then that is THEIR judgment and their RIGHT to decide! Which is exactly what courts have ruled. For such people the abortion industry is a death machine and they refuse to be a cog in that machine. This is the very same terminology a conscientious war objector used to insist he could not be forced to participate in war -and the court upheld him and his conscience then -and upholds a person's conscience when it comes to the abortion industry as well.

Now if you understand why the court did in THAT case, then you can surely understand why courts have upheld the right of pharmacists to refuse to play any kind of supporting role in the abortion industry. It is why courts have also said you can't force a pharmacist to sell the morning after pill and you can't force a pharmacy to sell birth control pills. If a pharmacy doesn't have or won't sell you what you want -you must go elsewhere. That's life.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thank you for agreeing.

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

Which isn't going to stop people from discussing the issue and the larger implications on here. No matter how much you hope otherwise.

 

[Modbert]

Which isn't going to stop people from discussing the issue and the larger implications on here. No matter how much you hope otherwise.

Don't worry, Allie has been doing her part to spread as many false arguments and misinformation as possible as she can to try and make this story go away.

 

[goldcatt]

Sounds like a lot of nitpicking and grasping at straws going on in this thread.

The fact remains, whatever anybody thinks of conscience laws in general or this particular law specifically, if this pharmacist in fact denied this prescription under the conscience law because it may or may not have been linked to an abortion procedure the pharmacist was wrong. It matters not whether the prescription was called in or presented at the window. The law does not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription based on political disagreements with the person who wrote it.

It allows providers to refuse to provide abortion services or drugs that are abortifacients, among other treatments such as "end of life care". Methergen is not an abortifacient and is not covered by the law.

That's really all she wrote.

 

[geauxtohell]

Which isn't going to stop people from discussing the issue and the larger implications on here. No matter how much you hope otherwise.

Don't worry, Allie has been doing her part to spread as many false arguments and misinformation as possible as she can to try and make this story go away.

Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.

Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is a totally SPECIOUS argument but wow, doesn't it just get your liberal juices flowing to PRETEND this woman was BLEEDING OUT right there and how it was this big EMERGENCY thing going on here - and this pharmacist refused to come to her assistance? Sorry, its all bullshit and typical liberal drama queen antics.

Well let's just establish from the beginning, I'm not a "liberal", I'm a Republican and have been such since I voted in my first Congressional Election which was in 1978. Individually I fall right of center on fiscal issues thinking that the government has grown way to much over the last decades and oppose it's continued growth. On social issues I advocate for smaller less intrusive government and greatly respect the positions of Barry Goldwater "Father of the Modern Conservative Movement". Today those views conflict with what some call "social conservatives" but which I call "social authoritarians" because their position actually advocates FOR increased government intrusion.

Be it known though that my personal opinion on what "should be" does not preclude the discussion of reality and what "is". Something that some people are unable to differentiate, they think that there opinion reflects reality, which is often not the case.

1. A pharmacy is not an emergency clinic and pharmacists are not doctors, they are NOT health care providers AT ALL. They run a privately owned business and their business is selling prescription and non-prescription drugs, medications and supplies.

First of all this is factually incorrect. Pharmacists are doctors, in all States and territories owned by the United States - Pharmacists must earn a "Doctor of Pharmacy" degree to qualify under State law to be issued a Pharmacist License to be be able to operate as a Pharmacist (LINK: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The second factually incorrect statement is to say that Pharmacists are "NOT health care providers AT ALL". Pharmacists are an integral part of the health care system and as part of that system they are health care providers. Again from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics...

"Pharmacists distribute prescription drugs to individuals. They also advise their patients, physicians, and other health practitioners on the selection, dosages, interactions, and side effects of medications, as well as monitor the health and progress of those patients to ensure that they are using their medications safely and effectively."​

Finally, if Idaho Pharmasicts are "NOT health care providers AT ALL", as you say, then they would not be excepted under the Idaho Conscience Law which applies to health care providers and the exemption from prosecution or civil action provided under that law. Can't have it both ways - either they are health care providers and are covered or they are not health care providers and do not have the immunity the law provides for.

Feel free to walk into any meeting of doctors, nurses, or pharmacists and tell them that pharmacists are not health care providers and watch how you are laughed out of the room.

But they do NOT sell every kind of medication that exists -nor are they EVER required to either.

Could you point out anywhere in the claim made by the prescribing authority for the prescription, the Idaho Board of Pharmacy, or anyone in this thread has stated that a pharmacist must sock each and every medication that could be required to supplied?

Basically this statement is hyperbole and not relevant to the case under discussion. The claim wasn't that the pharmacy didn't stock the bleeding medication proscribed, the claim was that care would not be provided based on a moral judgement of the patients based on medcial history, not that the drug was not in stock.

2. Pharmacists take NO oath at all, much less an oath to fill any and all prescriptions that cross their counter. They can't take such an oath or the smaller ones in particular would quickly be driven out of business. Smaller pharmacies ROUTINELY tell someone they have to get a prescription for an uncommon medication filled somewhere else because they don't stock it and they don't want to mess with an uncommon one at all.

Actually a non-binding oath may still be administered as part of the pomp and ceremony depending on the University where the Doctor of Pharmacy received their degree, I do concede though that such a ceremonial oath would be non-binding in a court of law.

Here is a sample oath approved by the American Pharmacists Association, who through it's accrediting association with the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy sanctions college programs for Doctors of Pharmacy.

"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of
pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
• I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
• I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal
outcomes for my patients.
• I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
• I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
• I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral,
ethical and legal conduct.
• I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
• I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of
pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am
entrusted by the public.” LINK​

However under State law (and in Idaho you should refer to the Idaho statues Title 18 and Title 54, chapter 17 that have to do with Pharmacists and their licensing) Pharmacists are subject to state public accommodation laws and the rules and regulations established by the State Board of Pharmacy including those pertaining to ethics and negligence. If the Board decides that the pharmasict in question was negligent or violated the State Board code of ethics, then they would be subject to disciplinary action which may include a fine, revocation of their license in full, or restrictions on the use of their license.

The courts have already ruled on this under various guises. If your pharmacist will not fill a prescription for ANY reason, even if you don't LIKE his reason (with the exception of refusing because of your race or gender) -you must take it to a different pharmacy. But you can't FORCE a pharmacist to sell a drug against their will and you can't FORCE a pharmacist to violate their conscience.

Please cite the precedence bearing cases as they apply to Idaho that state that a pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of they feel that a persons prior actions are immoral.

The Idaho law is very specific in that the Conscience Law exempts the pharmacists from having to fill prescriptions for abortion inducing drugs, contraceptives, "emergency" contraceptives, and drugs derived from embryonic stem cells. The drug prescribed falls into non of the exempted categories - as such there are no exemptions granted under the Idaho Conscience Law for the Pharmasicts actions and will be subject to review and (possbibly) disciplinary action **IF** the board finds the claims made are factually true.

It is no different from if the situation was that pharmacy doesn't carry it or won't have any more for three days but you want it now you have to go to another one. THAT'S LIFE. Just because the goods being sold are medication instead of ice cream shakes changes nothing -a store in the private sector can sell or NOT sell their choice of goods. Period. Go buy it somewhere else just like if you want that pineapple shake you have to go get it where someone is willing to sell it!

Logically speaking there is a great difference between not stocking a drug, informing the patient of that, and referring them to a different pharmacy and the claims made in this case where the drug was refused based on the pharmacists moral opinion of why the person might possibly have been issued the prescription.

But PULLEEZE let's stop with the DRAMA QUEEN antics on this story already! THIS does not represent "emergency" and the pharmacist was NOT there to provide any type of medical care to her whatsoever.

Actually fulfilling a prescription for medication is - well - part of "medical care". The biggest medcial problem I've ever had was a couple of kidney stones, and believe me, the prescription for pain medication was a very important part of my "medical care".

A pharmacist would be well aware of the most common and routine use of this drug following an abortion - and make a pretty accurate guess why this woman had been prescribed the drug. And according to the courts in similar cases, would be within his rights to refuse to participate or play ANY role in ANY aspect of the abortion industry whether it was before, during or after an abortion. Or any OTHER reason he had for not filling this particular prescription (except reasons of race or gender).

Again you cite the courts, can you substantiate your claims or is the application to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy claiming a higher power substantiates your claim.

So lets see your Idaho court case that says that Pharmacists are not subject to disciplinary action by the Idaho State Pharmacy Board if the board finds them to be negligent in not filling a valid prescription for ethics violations when they act under assumptions about the moral conduct of the person who was issued the prescription.

Should be interesting reading.

Now if you understand why the court did in THAT case, then you can surely understand why courts have upheld the right of pharmacists to refuse to play any kind of supporting role in the abortion industry. It is why courts have also said you can't force a pharmacist to sell the morning after pill and you can't force a pharmacy to sell birth control pills. If a pharmacy doesn't have or won't sell you what you want -you must go elsewhere. That's life.

Again, you invoke the courts. Let's see the cases that provide that a pharmacists is exempt from filling non-abortion related prescriptions (in that they medicine is not being prescribed to cause an abortion) based on the pharmacists opinion of the moral history of the patient.

If you are going to invoke "The Courts" as a basis of discussion, then you should be prepared to cite and discuss they cases you feel are relevant.


Thank you for your consideration and time in supporting your invocation of "The Courts".


********************************************


Since "Public Accommodation Laws" were previously mentioned, let me provide a short statement of my opinion of them (<<-- Note Opinion). Basically they are an expansion of government, which may have been needful in the past, but which have outlived their usefulness and now encroach on the operation of private business. I have no problem with Public Accommodation Laws as they apply to government entities and believe that those laws should apply to limiting the governments ability to enter into legal contracts with businesses who routinely exercise discriminatory policies. Businesses should be free (as a private entity) to discriminate, just as the government should be free not to purchase goods and services from them. I know this will sound slightly hypocritical, but I do recognize the need for certain laws as they apply to ethics and negligence for certain health care providers in the event of certain emergency/life threatening situations.

Again, my opinion of what should be is different then the reality of what is.



>>>>

 

[AllieBaba]

Which isn't going to stop people from discussing the issue and the larger implications on here. No matter how much you hope otherwise.

Don't worry, Allie has been doing her part to spread as many false arguments and misinformation as possible as she can to try and make this story go away.

Actually, I keep bringing you back to the truth.

The misinformation is in the thread title, and subsequent posts that assume a lot of non-documented *facts*.

 

[DiveCon]

Well let's just establish from the beginning, I'm not a "liberal", I'm a Republican and have been such since I voted in my first Presidential Election which was in 1978.

>>>>

slight correction
there was no presidential election in 1978

in 1976 Carter was elected, in 1980 Reagan was

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well let's just establish from the beginning, I'm not a "liberal", I'm a Republican and have been such since I voted in my first Presidential Election which was in 1978.

>>>>

slight correction
there was no presidential election in 1978

in 1976 Carter was elected, in 1980 Reagan was

Thanks, correction made.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds like a lot of nitpicking and grasping at straws going on in this thread.

The fact remains, whatever anybody thinks of conscience laws in general or this particular law specifically, if this pharmacist in fact denied this prescription under the conscience law because it may or may not have been linked to an abortion procedure the pharmacist was wrong. It matters not whether the prescription was called in or presented at the window. The law does not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription based on political disagreements with the person who wrote it.

It allows providers to refuse to provide abortion services or drugs that are abortifacients, among other treatments such as "end of life care". Methergen is not an abortifacient and is not covered by the law.

That's really all she wrote.

Funny, the guy that wrote the law says she was justified.

If the allegations are completely true then the courts will eventually decide if she was right or wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which isn't going to stop people from discussing the issue and the larger implications on here. No matter how much you hope otherwise.

Don't worry, Allie has been doing her part to spread as many false arguments and misinformation as possible as she can to try and make this story go away.

Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.

Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.

Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.

 

[geauxtohell]

Don't worry, Allie has been doing her part to spread as many false arguments and misinformation as possible as she can to try and make this story go away.

Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.

Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.

Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.

I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.

I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.

I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.

Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.

Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.

Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.

I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.

I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.

I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.

Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.

Quite true.

Personally, I think that this, if it happened, was wrong. I also believe people should have the right to exercise their conscious about a lot of things, from going to war to preforming elective medical procedures, and even filling prescriptions.

This is where it gets complicated. Like I said, I think the pharmacist was wrong, but if the person was not standing in front of them bleeding out I can see an argument that it should be legal to not fill a prescription. Then again, I live in a city where there are pharmacies every two blocks, so she could always take a short walk and get someone else to fill it. If it is the only pharmacy in, for the sake of having a target, 150 miles, then it should be filled because it might actually save her life.

That does not mean that a pharmacist should be required to fill prescriptions for abortifacients, even if they are the only pharmacist within 3000 miles. The first is balancing a persons right to object to abortions against the actually danger of someone dying. The second is just imposing on their right.

 

[goldcatt]

Sounds like a lot of nitpicking and grasping at straws going on in this thread.

The fact remains, whatever anybody thinks of conscience laws in general or this particular law specifically, if this pharmacist in fact denied this prescription under the conscience law because it may or may not have been linked to an abortion procedure the pharmacist was wrong. It matters not whether the prescription was called in or presented at the window. The law does not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription based on political disagreements with the person who wrote it.

It allows providers to refuse to provide abortion services or drugs that are abortifacients, among other treatments such as "end of life care". Methergen is not an abortifacient and is not covered by the law.

That's really all she wrote.

Funny, the guy that wrote the law says she was justified.

If the allegations are completely true then the courts will eventually decide if she was right or wrong.

I'm sure you're right. The board will investigate and, if the pharmacist's license is pulled, I'm sure there will be a lawsuit. It's a fairly new law I wasn't able to find any existing case law regarding it.

Under the plain language of the statute though, the medication isn't covered. Maybe the guy who wrote it intended it to be, but it ain't. Somebody should have explained to him what an "abortifacient" is and is not before they voted on it, apparently.

 

[AllieBaba]

Even if the story is bunk, it's still an interesting hypothetical. Eventually, this is going to lead to a conflict like this.

Furthermore, the fact that no one thought to get the pharmacist's name is not terribly damming. Per Walgreen's, someone has responded to the complaint. If the matter goes forward, people could be deposed and no one is going to be able to hide behind anonymity.

Actually, the fact that nobody got the name lends a little more weight to the story for me. The main reason I am making an issue of it myself is that one person is insisting that the only way you can file a complaint is if you have the name.

I would think it would be a relatively easy matter to find out who the pharmacist (s) on duty were and to find out who did this.

I agree both sides deserve their say, but I don't think we have to wait for any official response to discuss the issue.

I mean, this is a message board, not a court of law.

Even if someone proposed this as a hypothetical, it's an interesting question. Whether it happened now or not, eventually it's going to happen.

Nobody has said you "can't discuss" it. What I object to is not the discussion of what might have happened, but the fact that the thread title is misleading and dishonest; not because it couldn't be true, but because so far there's absolutely no evidence that it's true.

Discuss the scenarios all you want; but it's a LIE to claim that this happened or that happened based on the extremely limited information that is currently available. You can say this MIGHT have happened, or WHAT IF that happened and that's acceptable. When you say "PHARMACIST DENIED HEMMORAGING WOMAN MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE OBJECTS TO ABORTION " blah blah blah, that's purposely deceitful. It might be true; but it's presented as an established fact. And it's not.