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

[Immanuel]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

No, same case, here is the news release that your link links to:

Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Pharmacies to Dispense the Morning-After Pill | Becket Fund

The plaintiffs in the case are a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway) and two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) who cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B (“the morning-after pill&#8221 or ella (“the week-after pill&#8221. These individuals believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that these drugs destroy human life because they can operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. Rather than dispensing those drugs, they refer patients to one of dozens of nearby pharmacies that stock and dispense them.

Maybe those are different rulings, but they are in regards to the same case.

I believe what happened is that there was an initial ruling which was overturned in 2009 which was then again struck down two days ago. Not sure of the terms that should be used, but that seems to be what happened here.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

How is a pharmacist over ruling a doctor's order when all a person has to do is walk out the door and go to a different pharmacist to get the prescription filled?

PS nurses are usually fired if they don't follow a doctor's orders but that has to do with their EMPLOYER having the right to tell them they must follow orders, the same as a pharmacist has the RIGHT to fire an employee for not doing so IF that is the path they CHOOSE to take.. But in NEITHER case is anyone required to fire said employee if the don't follow orders.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Actually John Bingham, considered the principle author of the 14th Amendment clearly stated that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights Applicable to the State.

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

What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day? Nothing at all. And I am perfectly confident that that grant of power would have been there but for the fact that its insertion in the Constitution would have been utterly incompatible with the existence of slavery in any State; for although slaves might not have been admitted to be citizens they must have been admitted to be persons. This is the only reason why it was not there."

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1090

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

"Article 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States,” are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make.”

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.​

>>>>

In my experience the people who want the 14th to incorporate the BoR against the states throw Bingham (who was involved with writing and did present it but was among several authors.) out there and say that the one quote (that you gave) means that he intended incorporation. The ratifiers did not consider it so. In fact, a constitutional amendment passed the house (but not the senate) in 76 which was designed to apply the 14th. Bingham had several different quotes some which support what you are saying and some which do not. At one point he said that the amendment did not "add to the immunities or privileges of the United States".

The people who ratified the amendment did not understand it to incorporate the BoR against the states.

I will say this. I am impressed that you have read enough to know who Bingham is. Reading is a lost art these days.

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

The patient is dead! The patient is dead! Yes, but we followed orders.

 

[Care4all]

sigh....

Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, did not strike down Washington’s rules, but said simply that the way they were applied to the plaintiffs in this case was unconstitutional

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-23/lifestyle/31091824_1_pharmacies-rules-drugs
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-23/lifestyle/31091824_1_pharmacies-rules-drugs

 

[saveliberty]

From Care's article:

“The most compelling evidence that the rules target religious conduct is the fact the rules contain numerous secular exemptions,’’ the judge said. “In sum, the rules exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from stocking and delivering lawfully prescribed drugs for an almost unlimited variety of secular reasons, but fail to provide exemptions for reasons of conscience.’’

Like I said earlier, religious persecution by the state.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Actually John Bingham, considered the principle author of the 14th Amendment clearly stated that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights Applicable to the State.

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

What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day? Nothing at all. And I am perfectly confident that that grant of power would have been there but for the fact that its insertion in the Constitution would have been utterly incompatible with the existence of slavery in any State; for although slaves might not have been admitted to be citizens they must have been admitted to be persons. This is the only reason why it was not there."

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1090

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

"Article 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States,” are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make.”

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.​

>>>>

In my experience the people who want the 14th to incorporate the BoR against the states throw Bingham (who was involved with writing and did present it but was among several authors.) out there and say that the one quote (that you gave) means that he intended incorporation. The ratifiers did not consider it so. In fact, a constitutional amendment passed the house (but not the senate) in 76 which was designed to apply the 14th. Bingham had several different quotes some which support what you are saying and some which do not. At one point he said that the amendment did not "add to the immunities or privileges of the United States".

The people who ratified the amendment did not understand it to incorporate the BoR against the states.

I will say this. I am impressed that you have read enough to know who Bingham is. Reading is a lost art these days.

Mike

Actually that was two quotes from two different sessions.

Here are a some of more.


***

"The question is, simply, whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the United States the power, by legislative enactment, to punish officials of the States for violation of the oaths enjoined upon them by their Constitution? That is the question, and the whole question. The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States. They elect their Legislatures; they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property; but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow-men. Why should it not be so? That is the question. Why should it not be so? Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced.

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this very provision of the bill of rights brought in question this day, upon trial before this House, more than any other provision of the Constitution, makes that unity of government which constitutes us one people, by which and through which American nationality came to be, and only by the enforcement of which can American nationality to continue to be.

The imperishable words of Washington out to be in the minds of all of us touching this great question whether the unity of the Government shall be enforced hereafter by just penal enactments when the Legislatures of States refuse to do their duty or keep inviolate their oath. Washington, speaking to you and to me and to the millions who are to come after use says:

“The unity of the Government, which constitutes you one people is the main pillar in the edifee of your independence the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize.”

Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life, and liberty and property?

<<SNIP>>

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1090


***

“The nation cannot be without that Constitution, which made us “one people;” the nation cannot be without the State governments to localize and enforce the rights of the people under the Constitution. No right reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired, no right vested by it in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof, should be challenged or violated. “Generalized power, decentralized administration,” express the whole philosophy of the American system. You say it is centralized power to restrain by law unlawful combinations in States against the Constitution and citizens of the United States, to enforce the Constitution and the rights of United States citizens by national law, and to disperse by force, if need be, combinations to powerful to be overcome by judicial process, engaged in trampling under foot the life and liberty, or destroying the power of the citizen.

The people of the United States are entitled to have their rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States, protected by national law.”

<<SNIP>>

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84 & 85

***

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.

>>>>

 

[Care4all]

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

He? Did say can, not must.

I have to tell you, that if the government tried to force me to dispense a product, I would object regardless of the product (I'm not even sure if Plan B is an abortifant or a contraceptive or can be both and that I personally would not dispense it despite my religious beliefs) and I would in no way assist anyone to get it. I don't care if the product is bubble gum.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

Immie

excellent article!!! too bad the women at this pharmacy that refused to dispense it, were not more knowledgeable on Plan B and it NOT causing an abortion.....it would have saved a lot of time and money and much less stress for the pharmacy owner and the women who were fired!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

No, same case, here is the news release that your link links to:

Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Pharmacies to Dispense the Morning-After Pill | Becket Fund

The plaintiffs in the case are a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway) and two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) who cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B (“the morning-after pill”) or ella (“the week-after pill”). These individuals believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that these drugs destroy human life because they can operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. Rather than dispensing those drugs, they refer patients to one of dozens of nearby pharmacies that stock and dispense them.

Maybe those are different rulings, but they are in regards to the same case.

I believe what happened is that there was an initial ruling which was overturned in 2009 which was then again struck down two days ago. Not sure of the terms that should be used, but that seems to be what happened here.

Immie

It is two cases brought by the same people. The first challenged the rule before it was actually implemented, and the 9th ruled that the law, as written, did not violate anyone;s freedom of religion because it made exceptions that allowed individuals to opt out of dispensing the drug, and the owners of the pharmacy did not have standing to challenge on the basis of future damages. It was decided in July of 2009/

The one I linked to challenged the rule as implemented, showed that the way the state is enforcing the rule is discriminatory in that they allow pharmacies that do not have enough demand to not actually carry the drug, it does not actually enforce the requirement on Catholic affiliated pharmacies, and, in point of fact, only brought action against one pharmacy in the entire state. Coincidentally, it just happened to be the same pharmacy that brought the original suit

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

The DEA disagrees with you, which means that the official policy of the US government is that pharmacists actually have a duty to second guess physicians.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If pharmacies weren't so darn regulated,

Limbaugh probably never would have been caught doctor shopping.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

how could anyone disagree that in this country if a person owns a company that they have the right to hire, fire, and sell whichever legal products they would like to whomever they would like?

 

[Care4all]

You have that right. No one wants to take that right away from you. It is others who want to take the rights of the pharmacist away from them.

It truly is sad when people decide that only their rights matter and screw the rest of the country, isn't it?

Immie

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

The DEA disagrees with you, which means that the official policy of the US government is that pharmacists actually have a duty to second guess physicians.

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think a pharmacist has the right to overrule a doctor's order, anymore than a nurse in a hospital does. In both cases, the pharmacist and the nurse should seek another career.

The DEA disagrees with you, which means that the official policy of the US government is that pharmacists actually have a duty to second guess physicians.

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?

 

[Care4all]

The DEA disagrees with you, which means that the official policy of the US government is that pharmacists actually have a duty to second guess physicians.

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?

And that has to do with the DEA how?

 

[Care4all]

I thought Plan b was over the counter to anyone older than 18 or something like that....so why did the pharmacists have to dispense it? Maybe this was not the law a few years ago and Plan B came via prescription at the time?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?

And that has to do with the DEA how?

Federal law requires pharmacists to tightly control a myriad of products they might sell. Failing to do so could land those pharmacists in prison. Besides physical control, that means keeping track of who buys certain things and in what amounts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

uhhhhh ....on ethical grounds? since when was the DEA involved with religious beliefs?

i can understand making certain drugs that should not be mixed, or a doctor they repeatedly see prescribing Oxycontin or something of the sort....

bbut, i saw no pharmacist filling michael jackson's and ana nicole's prescriptions on trial....so they probably don't even do what the DEA wants, most of the time....

You don't think breaking the law and going to jail might possible encompass an ethical dilemma between the theoretical patient privacy and the pharmacist not going to jail?

And that has to do with the DEA how?

the DEA will arrest a pharmacist that it thinks allows people to prescription shop or abuse painkillers.