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

[saveliberty]

they have had 13 years to either adjust their views or change professions. why has it taken them so long to object? Plan B was released in 1999.

You're funny, there is a huge shortage of pharmacists. Go ahead, see how easy it is to get medicine without the ones we have. It took that long, because the state wasn't dumbass enough to challenge their religious beliefs until now.

so because there is a huge shortage of teachers we shouldnt fire any teachers who dont follow the law either? there is also a huge shortage of nurses, should we fire all the nurses who dont follow the law either?

What laws are there that apply to teachers or nurses which are in conflict with a religion and apply to their job specifically? Stay on topic.

 

[Immanuel]

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

This law is recent and affects many pharmacists who have made the profession their life's work. Fifty years from now, when we have a whole new generation of pharmacists entering the field maybe they should not be afforded the excuse that they never expected to have to participate in the taking of a life.

Immie

So the state will drop the hippocratic oath in receiving a degree or license in medicine?

I hope not but if our liberal leaders (both R and D) have their way with things, and continue to force their morals (or should I say lack of morals) on the rest of us, who knows what will happen?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what wrong with forcing the air force to keep a reservist released under what is now no longer law?

and there were 3 judges on here, 2 GWB appointees and self proclaimed conservatives and one "liberal" Clinton appointee. damn that majority conservative panel!

Stupidity on top of Stupidity.

He ordered it back when DADT was still the law, but I do thank you for going out of your way to prove you should have done some homework when you were in school.

glad to see you skipped over the whole "conservative panel" part, because it didnt support your argument.

and the judge who ordered the airforce to keep the reservist found DADT to be discriminatory. that ole pesky discrimination thing. which is well within he right to do as a judge. just because you disagree with it doesnt make it ill. if you could get this idea through you thick skull, maybe you could have a civil debate. but calling people and names and getting angry simply shows your lack of tolerance and ignorance on more than one level.

Conservative panel? The same "conservative" judge who ruled against DADT ruled against the state here. That throws your conservative panel argument out the window. The same judges that were appointed by Dubya were vetted by two of the most liberal senators in the Senate. In other words, it is n't a conservative panel, which you would know if you bothered to read the article I linked to.

 

[Immanuel]

they have had 13 years to either adjust their views or change professions. why has it taken them so long to object? Plan B was released in 1999.

You're funny, there is a huge shortage of pharmacists. Go ahead, see how easy it is to get medicine without the ones we have. It took that long, because the state wasn't dumbass enough to challenge their religious beliefs until now.

so because there is a huge shortage of teachers we shouldnt fire any teachers who dont follow the law either? there is also a huge shortage of nurses, should we fire all the nurses who dont follow the law either?

Why not, you are expecting people who have made it their life's work to simply walk away from their chosen profession because the State of Washington has decided to take away their right to decide what products they chose to stock. Are pharmacists less valuable than teachers and nurses?

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

<chirp>


<chirp>

 

[Texanmike]

As usual, you are asking the wrong fucking question. The question here is do people have the right to cede other people's sovereignty?

So, do they? If you think they do then you are not as big an advocate of individual liberty as you think you are.

The answer to your question is self evident. They are one in the same. Clearly you cannot cede your sovereignty without affecting my sovereignty. How then can you preserve your right to your individual sovereignty and I preserve my right to my sovereignty. The answer is by having two sovereign states.

Again you just don't get it. You have repeatedly shown that all of your information was fed to you without you questioning it. You have nothing to back up your assertions. Here is the key difference between me and you. If you gave me a book from a credible source, I would read it and consider it. If I gave you a book from a credible source that disagreed with your opinion you would discredit the source rather than alter your opinion.

Mike

you are forgetting something. Unless the right to travel freely is protected by something other than the state you cede your right not to travel to people who are born to parents in that state are not being given the free choice not to cede their sovereignty. Therefore, either people do not have the right to cede their sovereignty as a group because their is no way to do it without impacting others rights, you haven't actually thought this through completely, or you don't really believe in individual rights.

The reason the federal government exists is to protect against large groups from taking away the rights of individuals even if it is done by mutual consent, until you understand that you don't actually understand the federal system. Which, again, makes my point, the federal courts were doing their job.

I'm not forgetting that. And yes, you need the federal government for certain things. Interestingly enough, the AoC included a right to travel. I have said (not here because it has never come up) that there should be an amendment that includes the right to travel written for quite some time.

You do not understand federalism as defined by the authors/ratifiers of the Constitution. Even the federalists (who were, in reality, nationalists) did not agree with your sentiments. If you want to understand it then you must read what they wrote. Every time I mention what they wrote you scoff and declare that I can't possibly know what they meant. You do that without reading what they wrote which is funny.

Again, you are free to hold your own opinion but you do so wilfully ignoring what the original authors wrote. That is your perrogative but do not tell me that I don't get it when you insist on NOT reading what is available to you.

The first line in my signature applies here.

Mike

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would a pharmacist ever think they would be asked to kill someone as a part of their job in an industry that pledges no harm?

This law is recent and affects many pharmacists who have made the profession their life's work. Fifty years from now, when we have a whole new generation of pharmacists entering the field maybe they should not be afforded the excuse that they never expected to have to participate in the taking of a life.

Immie

So the state will drop the hippocratic oath in receiving a degree or license in medicine?

What state law requires the hippocratic oath as a condition of receiving a degree?

(or as part of an appropriate medical license?)


>>>>

 

[Syphon]

You're funny, there is a huge shortage of pharmacists. Go ahead, see how easy it is to get medicine without the ones we have. It took that long, because the state wasn't dumbass enough to challenge their religious beliefs until now.

so because there is a huge shortage of teachers we shouldnt fire any teachers who dont follow the law either? there is also a huge shortage of nurses, should we fire all the nurses who dont follow the law either?

What laws are there that apply to teachers or nurses which are in conflict with a religion and apply to their job specifically? Stay on topic.

really did you just ask what laws are there prohibiting teachers from imposing their religious views on their customers (i.e. their students?) can a teacher force a student to pray in school? they dont even say the pledge of allegiance anymore because it contains the word "god" in it. you really dont have much of an education do you?

what if a nurse doesnt believe in the use of a certain medication and refuses a doctors order to administer it? they could lose their nursing licenses.

man, its gotta be tough for you being wrong all the time...

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

so because there is a huge shortage of teachers we shouldnt fire any teachers who dont follow the law either? there is also a huge shortage of nurses, should we fire all the nurses who dont follow the law either?

What laws are there that apply to teachers or nurses which are in conflict with a religion and apply to their job specifically? Stay on topic.

really did you just ask what laws are there prohibiting teachers from imposing their religious views on their customers (i.e. their students?) can a teacher force a student to pray in school? they dont even say the pledge of allegiance anymore because it contains the word "god" in it. you really dont have much of an education do you?

what if a nurse doesnt believe in the use of a certain medication and refuses a doctors order to administer it? they could lose their nursing licenses.

man, its gotta be tough for you being wrong all the time...

teachers are government employees and thus fall under special rules. Applied in THIS situation and yes any employee of a government ran pharmacy can be FORCED by the government to either distribute the pill or find another job. No different than the opposite is true of teachers. A private school teacher can pray and make a student pray.

 

[saveliberty]

so because there is a huge shortage of teachers we shouldnt fire any teachers who dont follow the law either? there is also a huge shortage of nurses, should we fire all the nurses who dont follow the law either?

What laws are there that apply to teachers or nurses which are in conflict with a religion and apply to their job specifically? Stay on topic.

really did you just ask what laws are there prohibiting teachers from imposing their religious views on their customers (i.e. their students?) can a teacher force a student to pray in school? they dont even say the pledge of allegiance anymore because it contains the word "god" in it. you really dont have much of an education do you?

No I asked what laws force a teacher/nurse to violate their religious beliefs directly related to their job. Of course you had to change it in order to babble on about a strawman.
what if a nurse doesnt believe in the use of a certain medication and refuses a doctors order to administer it? they could lose their nursing licenses.

Two strawmen in a row.

man, its gotta be tough for you being wrong all the time...

My stuff in blue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The answer to your question is self evident. They are one in the same. Clearly you cannot cede your sovereignty without affecting my sovereignty. How then can you preserve your right to your individual sovereignty and I preserve my right to my sovereignty. The answer is by having two sovereign states.

Again you just don't get it. You have repeatedly shown that all of your information was fed to you without you questioning it. You have nothing to back up your assertions. Here is the key difference between me and you. If you gave me a book from a credible source, I would read it and consider it. If I gave you a book from a credible source that disagreed with your opinion you would discredit the source rather than alter your opinion.

Mike

you are forgetting something. Unless the right to travel freely is protected by something other than the state you cede your right not to travel to people who are born to parents in that state are not being given the free choice not to cede their sovereignty. Therefore, either people do not have the right to cede their sovereignty as a group because their is no way to do it without impacting others rights, you haven't actually thought this through completely, or you don't really believe in individual rights.

The reason the federal government exists is to protect against large groups from taking away the rights of individuals even if it is done by mutual consent, until you understand that you don't actually understand the federal system. Which, again, makes my point, the federal courts were doing their job.

I'm not forgetting that. And yes, you need the federal government for certain things. Interestingly enough, the AoC included a right to travel. I have said (not here because it has never come up) that there should be an amendment that includes the right to travel written for quite some time.

You do not understand federalism as defined by the authors/ratifiers of the Constitution. Even the federalists (who were, in reality, nationalists) did not agree with your sentiments. If you want to understand it then you must read what they wrote. Every time I mention what they wrote you scoff and declare that I can't possibly know what they meant. You do that without reading what they wrote which is funny.

Again, you are free to hold your own opinion but you do so wilfully ignoring what the original authors wrote. That is your perrogative but do not tell me that I don't get it when you insist on NOT reading what is available to you.

The first line in my signature applies here.

Mike

I am not the one who is scoffing at your attempts to expound on what the founders wanted. I generally just ignore that because it is pretty much irrelevant. We now have the 14th Amendment which was clearly meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It doesn't even matter if that is right or wrong, it simply is. None of that means I haven't read the Federalists papers, it just means that you are ignoring the fact that the Constitution is substantially different from what they wanted.

In other words, the states no longer have the ability to broadly experiment and test social theories. We are stuck with a system that has an federal government that interferes with some of the things states should be able to do, and that did not occur because the courts have spent 235 years expanding their power. The courts actively resisted being forced to incorporate federal rights against states, they even ruled the first civil rights bill unconstitutional in the hope that moderates in southern states would work to preserve and expand civil rights for blacks.

It took a century after that before federal courts finally accepted that states were not following the advise of the court and start to intervene, finally allowing Congress to enact laws that addressed the fact that states were denying rights to people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This law is recent and affects many pharmacists who have made the profession their life's work. Fifty years from now, when we have a whole new generation of pharmacists entering the field maybe they should not be afforded the excuse that they never expected to have to participate in the taking of a life.

Immie

So the state will drop the hippocratic oath in receiving a degree or license in medicine?

What state law requires the hippocratic oath as a condition of receiving a degree?

(or as part of an appropriate medical license?)


>>>>

As far as I know, all of them because they require people who take licensing tests meet the requirements of the AMA, which includes the oath.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if the government decided to make you change your career after 40 years?

the government didnt force anything. they didnt force the pharmacist to carry the product. Plan B is also not manufactured by the government. if the pharmacist disagreed with a product that was being sold and he/she was expected to sell as part of their regular job duties, they they should have made that issue know in 1999 when it was released. not 13 years later. if they had brought up that issue at the time, the employer could have come up with a solution, whether it is removing that employee or developing an alternative plan such as having 2 pharmacists on duty at all times.

Excuse me? Have you been reading the fucking thread? This while thing came up because the State of Washington requires pharmacies to dispense Plan B on demand.

And? This is not about the regulation of the pharmacy. This is about pharmacists who won't do their job putting an undo burden on pharmacies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never dodged the question, I answered it. That is not the issue that is being discussed in this thread, despite your attempt to say otherwise. The issue is does the state have the power to force people to do something against their religion. You keep trying to deflect it into employment issues, which just makes you look really stupid.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question:

Did you read any of the actual court decision cited in the OP of this thread, and linked in the link?

That is a yes or no.

No, I always post things I don't read.

Then if you never read the decision, how do you know what it was about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you personally understand the difference between the state forcing a Muslim who has a religious objection to alcohol to sell beer at the gas station he owns and your absurd attempts to make your analogies actually fit the situation?

The original issue here was about pharmacists EMPLOYED at pharmacies.

The analogy was Muslims EMPLOYED at bars or convenience stores.

What's wrong with the analogy, exactly?

Everything.

What is specifically wrong with the analogy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the government didnt force anything. they didnt force the pharmacist to carry the product. Plan B is also not manufactured by the government. if the pharmacist disagreed with a product that was being sold and he/she was expected to sell as part of their regular job duties, they they should have made that issue know in 1999 when it was released. not 13 years later. if they had brought up that issue at the time, the employer could have come up with a solution, whether it is removing that employee or developing an alternative plan such as having 2 pharmacists on duty at all times.

Excuse me? Have you been reading the fucking thread? This while thing came up because the State of Washington requires pharmacies to dispense Plan B on demand.

And? This is not about the regulation of the pharmacy. This is about pharmacists who won't do their job putting an undo burden on pharmacies.

If the pharmacy thought it was an undo burden they could have fired her. The fact that they didn't makes your argument meaningless.

 

[Texanmike]

you are forgetting something. Unless the right to travel freely is protected by something other than the state you cede your right not to travel to people who are born to parents in that state are not being given the free choice not to cede their sovereignty. Therefore, either people do not have the right to cede their sovereignty as a group because their is no way to do it without impacting others rights, you haven't actually thought this through completely, or you don't really believe in individual rights.

The reason the federal government exists is to protect against large groups from taking away the rights of individuals even if it is done by mutual consent, until you understand that you don't actually understand the federal system. Which, again, makes my point, the federal courts were doing their job.

I'm not forgetting that. And yes, you need the federal government for certain things. Interestingly enough, the AoC included a right to travel. I have said (not here because it has never come up) that there should be an amendment that includes the right to travel written for quite some time.

You do not understand federalism as defined by the authors/ratifiers of the Constitution. Even the federalists (who were, in reality, nationalists) did not agree with your sentiments. If you want to understand it then you must read what they wrote. Every time I mention what they wrote you scoff and declare that I can't possibly know what they meant. You do that without reading what they wrote which is funny.

Again, you are free to hold your own opinion but you do so wilfully ignoring what the original authors wrote. That is your perrogative but do not tell me that I don't get it when you insist on NOT reading what is available to you.

The first line in my signature applies here.

Mike

I am not the one who is scoffing at your attempts to expound on what the founders wanted. I generally just ignore that because it is pretty much irrelevant. We now have the 14th Amendment which was clearly meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It doesn't even matter if that is right or wrong, it simply is. None of that means I haven't read the Federalists papers, it just means that you are ignoring the fact that the Constitution is substantially different from what they wanted.

In other words, the states no longer have the ability to broadly experiment and test social theories. We are stuck with a system that has an federal government that interferes with some of the things states should be able to do, and that did not occur because the courts have spent 235 years expanding their power. The courts actively resisted being forced to incorporate federal rights against states, they even ruled the first civil rights bill unconstitutional in the hope that moderates in southern states would work to preserve and expand civil rights for blacks.

It took a century after that before federal courts finally accepted that states were not following the advise of the court and start to intervene, finally allowing Congress to enact laws that addressed the fact that states were denying rights to people.

As I've said numerous times. The federalist papers are just the beginning.

The Constitution, and the amendments, were contracts that were signed. The meaning of a contract doesn't change and it is my goal to restore the validity of the contracts.

And again. You are wrong about the 14th amendment. It was not meant to incorporate the BoR on the states, it was meant to prevent the states from treating people differently within the states. It was not to confer new rights but to ensure the rights that already existed were preserved for everyone.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm going to ask you a very simple question:

Did you read any of the actual court decision cited in the OP of this thread, and linked in the link?

That is a yes or no.

No, I always post things I don't read.

Then if you never read the decision, how do you know what it was about?

If you don't read my posts how would you know that I have repeatedly outlined why the decision was made, not the least of which was that the state was arbitrarily enforcing the rule by allowing some pharmacies not to stock the drug at all if they felt it wasn't economically viable and allowing Catholic pharmacies to not sell it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So the state will drop the hippocratic oath in receiving a degree or license in medicine?

What state law requires the hippocratic oath as a condition of receiving a degree?

(or as part of an appropriate medical license?)


>>>>

As far as I know, all of them because they require people who take licensing tests meet the requirements of the AMA, which includes the oath.

1. Doctor's are not required to belong to the AMA to receive a medical license from a state.

2. The AMA does not require the Hippocratic Oath.

3. Individuals can voluntarily take any oath they wish, but it does not impact their ability to receive a license.

"The AMA does not have formal policy related to the Oath. Some of the tenets of the Oath represent long-standing ethical traditions that the AMA supports, while others are somewhat outdated. A May 2000 article from AMNews discusses the modern meaning of the Hippocratic Oath.

The AMA used to reprint a translation of the Oath in our Code of Medical Ethics. We still have information on the history and relation of the Oath to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics included in the preface to the Code.

Physicians may take other oaths when they begin or when they graduate from medical school. In addition, they may pledge to uphold professional standards and codes of ethics when they become members of professional associations, such as the AMA or their specialty or state medical society. For instance, every physician who is a member of the AMA must uphold the AMA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.

Because most oaths and codes are administered by voluntary associations and not by regulatory agencies (such as the state agencies that issue licenses to practice medicine), the most serious disciplinary action these voluntary associations typically can take is to expel the member physician from the association.

However, regulatory agencies that oversee physicians take allegations of unethical or unprofessional conduct very seriously, and such actions may warrant more serious disciplinary action against a physician’s license to practice. For further information on how to contact these agencies, please see the information above on how to file a complaint."

Frequently Asked Questions in Ethics​

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The original issue here was about pharmacists EMPLOYED at pharmacies.

The analogy was Muslims EMPLOYED at bars or convenience stores.

What's wrong with the analogy, exactly?

Everything.

What is specifically wrong with the analogy?

They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.