pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm with the day after pill they only have to delay the customer of a day or so.


I once had a pharmicist refuse to fill a pain pill prescription for me.
I complained to the state medical board.
I heard the pharmacist was put on probation for his sins.

Would it be a religious thing for a pharmacist to refuse to prescribe other non pregnancy related medicines? Where would it stop?
NO viagra prescriptions?

Why would it have to stop?

By the way, the DEA thinks pharmacists are supposed to make sure you don't get too many pain pills.

the size of the prescription is determined by the doctor, not the pharmacist. most typically other than dispensing medications, pharmacists consult patients on the type of the medications they are taking, and it is also their responsibility to make sure that they will not knowingly issue 2 or more medications that could cause adverse side effects.

The DEA will shut down a pharmacy that does not cut off anyone they think might possibly be maybe prescription shopping or potentially be abusing drugs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

Since all things belong to the state, you are merely an agent for the GLORIOUS peoples cookies. You must give cookie to all party members in good standing, or go to gulag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how religious freedom applies at all. Nobody is forcing these people to be pharmacists. So they aren't having their freedom violated because they volunteered for the job. At least, that's what the right wing-nuts claim any other time.

I see how you think, people who are religious should not do certain jobs because they are wrong to want to help people.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I don't see how religious freedom applies at all. Nobody is forcing these people to be pharmacists. So they aren't having their freedom violated because they volunteered for the job. At least, that's what the right wing-nuts claim any other time.

I see how you think, people who are religious should not do certain jobs because they are wrong to want to help people.

No doubt if he were honest he would have wrote

"Christians should shut the fuck up and keep their religion to themselves and have no rights"

We all know that is the common theme across message boards internet wide lately.

Some cowards just can't be honest enough to say that's how they feel.

 

[Texanmike]

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.
...

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

I figured it was worth dealing with this part of your post seperately.

Marriage is a religious issue. You can go to your church and marry whomever the church will allow you to marry. It is not legally binding until you get it done through the state. Since you are asking the state to validate a contract there are certain requirements you must fulfill. THAT is what you go to the state for.

Stop trying to use the Constitution and start reading it.

Mike

I am not asking the state to validate anything, I do not need their validation to get married. In most states all it takes to be married is that you live together and tell other people that you are married, no validation required. States prefer that you get officially married so they can track you better, and restrict who you can, and cannot, marry.

I don't understand the argument then.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

No, I am advocating against that.

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

No. That is definitely an issue for the federal government to decide. In fact, I think we should just bring in the UN and start the world cookie equality fund.

sarcasm:

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

even if that product is a government regulated product? so your advocating for one individual to be the gate keeper of another individual choice?

No, I am advocating against that.

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Because they can refuse to fill a prescription for a variety of reasons, including many that have nothing to do with their rights, or the rights of others. On the other hand, you think that people have the right to walk into a store and demand that anyone in that store ignore their own convictions and rights, making that customer the gateway to controlling their rights. In other words, you are looking at it the wrong way, especially considering the fact that the rule that has been challenged here actually allows people to refuse to dispense Plan B for non religious reasons.

 

[saveliberty]

No, I am advocating against that.

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

Depends, are they Girl Scout Cookies?

State representative brands Girl Scouts "radical" - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[Texanmike]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

...or you could let the market decide. Then almost everyone will have their choice available.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

This most certainly is NOT a state's issue. In fact it's NO government's business. Government at NO level has the right to tell me what products I may or may not sell.

THAT is the ruling I would hope to see if this got to the SCOTUS.\


PS I feel EXACTLY the same way about gay marriage. Government at NO level has the right to tell me who I may or may not marry (assuming it's consensual of course.)

 

[WorldWatcher]

how do you get survivor benefits from social security without a marriage certificate? children can get them, but other couples can not. just ask any married gay couple.

common law marriage survivors can in fact collect social security survivor benefits.

Common Law Marriage is still a Civil Marriage recognized under State law, most states don't have provisions for Common Law Marriages anymore.

So you are still back to State law requiring a recognition of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No you do not. You simply need a contract. A state marriage certificate is such a contract. But a person could just have a survivor's benefits contract.

where in the US tax code does it say you can get federal survivor benefits without a marriage certificate?
just ask a gay married couple how that is working out for them.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but federal law actually prohibits survivor benefits from going to a gay partner. Other than that, you can designate who gets your benefits.

Federal law does not prohibit survivor benefits from going to a gay partner, however some benefits are only available to a legal spouse of the opposite gender - while being denied to a legal spouse of the same gender.

It really depends on what you mean by "Survivor Benefits". If the term references an insurance policy or payout of any owed back-pay, then the individual can identify any individual they want and it need not be a spouse or relative. If I'm on active duty and killed in action and say payday was 14-days ago. Then my last paycheck can be designated to go to a beneficiary.

On the other hand if "Survivor Benefits" is used to describe such things as Social Security Benefits or Military Retire Survivor Benefits Plans, that is a different animal all together. For Social Security, a Civilly Married couple pays into SS. If one dies before the other, then at retirement age the surviving spouse can draw SS based on the other spouses income if the payment amount is greater then the amount they would have drawn on their own. For Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Plans, I pay a small premium and upon my death my spouse will be able to draw a percentage of my retirement for the rest of her life.

One type of survivor benefit can go to anyone, another type can only go to a legal spouse.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I am advocating against that.

im honestly confused. if youre advocating again one individual being the gate keeper for another individuals choice, then why were you saying the the pharmacist can deny prescriptions? they are not being forces to take the medication, only distribute it.

Okay let's try this

Let's say I'm selling cookies, and you want to buy one, but I for whatever reason don't want to sell you one. Now let's assume that Quantam is in charge of cookie control. Does he have the right to tell me I have to sell you a cookie?

Yes or no?

Public Accommodation laws do not permit you to deny service for "whatever reason". If you are selling cookies in your store and you don't want to serve them because they are barefoot, if they smell bad, if they are disruptive, etc. - that wouldn't be a problem. However if you sell cookies to white people but refuse to sell them to black people - then you will be in trouble with the law.


(Not saying you shouldn't be able to, but that's not what the law provides for.)


>>>>

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.

If they work for a company, sure. They have to follow the company's policies. If they have their own pharmacy, however, which many do, they can't be compelled to sell what they don't want to sell.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Regulating a produce and forcing someone to sell it are two entirely different things.

Let me ask you. Does the state of California have the right to force pharmacies to carry so called medical marijuana?

Yes cali does have the right.just like the four states that have opt-out laws on the books.

Let's see some proof of that.

 

[Texanmike]

The citizens of the state have the ability and the authority to change the laws by changing the legislature. They put these people in office and they wrote a law that does not violate the State Constitution (so far as I know). I don't understand why citizens of another state would want to change that.

Mike

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't see how religious freedom applies at all. Nobody is forcing these people to be pharmacists. So they aren't having their freedom violated because they volunteered for the job. At least, that's what the right wing-nuts claim any other time.

I see how you think, people who are religious should not do certain jobs because they are wrong to want to help people.

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

 

[del]

I did. What part do you think I got wrong?

the part where you completely ignore the court finding that the stocking law had been selectively enforced since the advent of plan b and where the court found that no pharmacy has a requirement to stock every legal drug.

Yeah ...

perhaps you missed the part where I said this would be overturned. That kind of means I don't agree with the decision or the findings.

i have to say that you're aptly named

 

[Peach]

If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.
************************************************
Agreed. But neither pharmacy or medicine are the best fields for those whose religious beliefs prohibit m acts.