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

[Immanuel]

I do agree with you.

In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.

As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.

If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.

Immie

i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.

lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?

completely different because in that scenario you are the gatekeeper to a license that is regulated by the state.

A better comparison is pretend you're a minister who performs marriages, now assume a couple has obtained a marriage license from the state and comes to you wanting you to perform the marriage. You decide that you don't think the marriage will last so you decline to wed them. Now have you taken away their right to marry? Of course you haven't, you've merely declined to be the tool they use to do so. Perfectly legal.

While reading that, I was almost certain you were going to say, but the couple was homosexual and that was why you decided not to perform the wedding.

I would think, though, that this argument is not a better argument because you are actually crossing the line between the Separation of Church and State. In this case, the goverment really would not have a say in whether or not you chose to marry the couple. At least not yet.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

I do agree with you.

In this case, the pharmacists has been employed in the field and now the requirements of the field have changed. Should a person who is say two years away from retirement have to leave his life long career choice because the government now demands he fill perscriptions that he believes kill a human being? I don't think so.

As to your other questions, the way I see it is that if the owner of a pharmacy does not want to carry pain killers for whatever ridiculous reason, he would have every right not to do so. His clientele would also have every right to seek a business that more closely serves their needs.

If the pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy and refuses to fill pain killer perscriptions then it is his bosses right to decide whether or not he will remain employed.

Immie

i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.

lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?

completely different because in that scenario you are the gatekeeper to a license that is regulated by the state.

A better comparison is pretend you're a minister who performs marriages, now assume a couple has obtained a marriage license from the state and comes to you wanting you to perform the marriage. You decide that you don't think the marriage will last so you decline to wed them. Now have you taken away their right to marry? Of course you haven't, you've merely declined to be the tool they use to do so. Perfectly legal.

not exactly the same since a church does not provide a product, it provides a service.

and the state (FDA) actually does regulate the distribution pharmaceuticals. hence why you need to go to a pharmacy to get certain drugs. anything considered OTC (over the counter) is not regulated. but if you wanted codine, or vicodin, you would need a doctors prescription in order to have access to them in the first place. so a doctor tell you that you should take this drug. you as the patient are free to choose whether you want to or not. what give the pharmacist the right to deny you that choice?

 

[Gem]

what give the pharmacist the right to deny you that choice?

But you are not the only person with rights in this equation. You have the right to have a legal prescription filled. The pharmacist in question has the right not to fill that prescription. You have the right to go elsewhere.

What you are asking for is NOT for your right for that medicine (you have that already)...but rather for your "right" to get that medicine at the location of your choosing...

Is it worth trampling on another person's Constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religious beliefs because you don't want to go to RITEAID instead of the pharmacy on the corner?

No one is forbidding people from getting access to the medicine...they are simply protecting other people from having to violate their religious principals. AND, in my opinion, if the pharmacist's employer wants that medicine sold in their pharmacy and the pharmacist they hired refuses to proscribe it...then that pharmacist can be fired. S/he is protected from being FORCED to sell something that violates their religious beliefs...and just like the woman can get her prescription filled elsewhere, the pharmacist can get a job at a pharmacy that doesn't provide that medication.

 

[Immanuel]

i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.

lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?

Point one: not all OB/GYN's perform abortions. In fact, without doing the research, I am fairly certain the percentage of OB/GYN's who do perform abortions is extremely small. Planned Parenthood or Alan Guttmacher might have those numbers somewhere. Now, if President Obama signed an executive order tomorrow stating that all OB/GYN's must perform a minimum of 10 abortions a year would you then tell all practicing OB's that they must either perform those abortions or find another line of work?

Point two: it is sad to say, that you as an employee of the DMV would, I presume not knowing what the DMV requirements are, have the right to deny that person the extension of his license. I also would assume that the driver, your customer, would have both the right to appeal your decision AND the right to complain to your employer. If he chooses to complain and your action or a compilation of this and earlier actions are aggrevious enough, then the manager at the DMV would have every right to terminate you from your employment... oh wait! There is one small complication there and that is that as a government employee you would be a member of the union and they would probably demand you be given a commendation and a raise... go figure. Is that why government employees are held in such low esteem by others?

Immie

on the abortion front, i used the example of a mother's life being at risk because of the child. not your typical "i want to have an abortion." if an OB/GYN is part of that mothers care, she her personal morality rule over what is best for her patient? why should the patient not be the one to choose? i am simply showing the conflict that can arise in other situations should people be able to make decisions for other people.

as to your other comment, i am simply making a point that at what point does this stop. i could have used medicare or medicaid as an example instead of the DMW. a gate keeper is a gate keeper. what gives them the right to tell me what i can and can not do? is that not a violation of my personal freedom? they are not the drug manufacturer. why are they not protesting that company?

I appreciate your statements and the fact that you are willing to discuss this civilly. I would rep you for that except I repped you yesterday and can't do so until I spread some of that around.

I am not a doctor and don't know the answer to your first question. Geauxtohell is a poster on this site who is I believe a medical student. He is well informed on these issues and (well he is not perfect) he is pro-choice. I think he has participated in this discussion earlier so maybe he can answer that question.

From my perspective, in regards to the OB/GYN, I do not believe that the mother can force the doctor to perform the abortion or even force the doctor to recommend an abortion doctor. And in that light, if you were the mother and you had just forced a doctor by any means to perform an abortion against their will, would you really want them performing that duty on you?

In the case of the DMV worker, the fact that they are employed by the DMV and given the authority to issue or deny driver's licenses gives them that right. If you disagree with their decisions you have the right to appeal.

Taking that to the idea of the pharmacists, the fact that an employee of the pharmacy is given the authority to act as the business representative of the owner of the pharmacy gives them the right not to serve you as their customer. If you don't like their decision you have the right to take your business elsewhere and/or to complain to their boss who then has the right to decide whether or not they will continue to represent the pharmacy.

Immie

 

[Ernie S.]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

True. Next stop is the 9th Circuit.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.

lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?

completely different because in that scenario you are the gatekeeper to a license that is regulated by the state.

A better comparison is pretend you're a minister who performs marriages, now assume a couple has obtained a marriage license from the state and comes to you wanting you to perform the marriage. You decide that you don't think the marriage will last so you decline to wed them. Now have you taken away their right to marry? Of course you haven't, you've merely declined to be the tool they use to do so. Perfectly legal.

While reading that, I was almost certain you were going to say, but the couple was homosexual and that was why you decided not to perform the wedding.

I would think, though, that this argument is not a better argument because you are actually crossing the line between the Separation of Church and State. In this case, the goverment really would not have a say in whether or not you chose to marry the couple. At least not yet.

Immie

Correct sir, and they really should not have a say in what products we sell PERIOD.

Oh as for gay marriage, you're absolutely correct the state should have NO say in whether a church chooses to marry two gays. How dare they? And I'm disgusted by homosexuality.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

i partially agree with you. if you choose a job knowing that parts of your job could interfere with your personal morality, then you should not have chosen that profession. this would be akin to a religious conservative becoming on OB/GYN but refusing to perform a late term abortion because the mother is in serious risk of dying. the patient suffers in the end. the same could be true for many other religions.

lets look at this from a different point of view. i have a personal objection to elderly drivers since they cause a lot of death (same argument could be used for teenage drivers as well). lets say i work at the DMV and an 80 year man comes in. he has had no accidents or tickets in 20 years. he has perfect eye sight, and is in great physical shape. but my morality tells me that those people shouldnt drive. so i deny the extension of his license. how is this any different that a pharmacist acting as the gate keeper?

completely different because in that scenario you are the gatekeeper to a license that is regulated by the state.

A better comparison is pretend you're a minister who performs marriages, now assume a couple has obtained a marriage license from the state and comes to you wanting you to perform the marriage. You decide that you don't think the marriage will last so you decline to wed them. Now have you taken away their right to marry? Of course you haven't, you've merely declined to be the tool they use to do so. Perfectly legal.

not exactly the same since a church does not provide a product, it provides a service.

and the state (FDA) actually does regulate the distribution pharmaceuticals. hence why you need to go to a pharmacy to get certain drugs. anything considered OTC (over the counter) is not regulated. but if you wanted codine, or vicodin, you would need a doctors prescription in order to have access to them in the first place. so a doctor tell you that you should take this drug. you as the patient are free to choose whether you want to or not. what give the pharmacist the right to deny you that choice?

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?

 

[Immanuel]

are you fucking stupid or something, because i never stated this. I dont care what a private owner does in the way of stocking.

I do care when its an employee who decides for themselves that they wont while the store carries said item.

seriously are you stupid?

I believe it is YOU who are behaving stupidly in this thread. You keep crying about employees. Employees don't make decisions about what items are stocked, the owners do. Likewise owners make decisions about how to handle employees who don't sell certain products to their customers, not the state.

Sigh. States Can decide what products a pharmacy can sell, They can also have optout laws ( four states currently that i read have said laws.)

What i have said and it would seem you are too fucking stupid to realize that we actually agree about the Owner of a drug store. Is that an Owner has the right to not stock certain products that owner chooses not to sell.

With that in mind it has come up where EMPLOYEES have taken it upon themselves to not issue out drugs because of their religious beliefs.

One was fired and the other SUED. I've said the OWNER should either FIRE said employee or just to find some opt out system for said employee. That is up to the Owner to deal with.

Now i'm not sure how fucking stupid you are, but i clearly stated my opinion here. If you can't understand this Or you Immie then you both are hopeless morons.

I understand all of that just fine. That has not been the issue between you and I. The issue between you and I has been your claim to be a protector of liberty when, in fact, in the post right before your claim, you were willing to remove other people's personal liberties.

In regards to this post, we don't have an issue. We have been on the same page in that regard all along.

If you can't understand that, then you are a hopeless moron.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I believe it is YOU who are behaving stupidly in this thread. You keep crying about employees. Employees don't make decisions about what items are stocked, the owners do. Likewise owners make decisions about how to handle employees who don't sell certain products to their customers, not the state.

Sigh. States Can decide what products a pharmacy can sell, They can also have optout laws ( four states currently that i read have said laws.)

What i have said and it would seem you are too fucking stupid to realize that we actually agree about the Owner of a drug store. Is that an Owner has the right to not stock certain products that owner chooses not to sell.

With that in mind it has come up where EMPLOYEES have taken it upon themselves to not issue out drugs because of their religious beliefs.

One was fired and the other SUED. I've said the OWNER should either FIRE said employee or just to find some opt out system for said employee. That is up to the Owner to deal with.

Now i'm not sure how fucking stupid you are, but i clearly stated my opinion here. If you can't understand this Or you Immie then you both are hopeless morons.

I understand all of that just fine. That has not been the issue between you and I. The issue between you and I has been your claim to be a protector of liberty when, in fact, in the post right before your claim, you were willing to remove other people's personal liberties.

In regards to this post, we don't have an issue. We have been on the same page in that regard all along.

If you can't understand that, then you are a hopeless moron.

Immie

He's a moron who is clearly trying to backtrack. He? Went from pharmacies can't not sell this product to "well employees of those pharmacies can't decide on their own " just like that.

Fact is, how do you know that some pharmacy owners aren't giving employees their consent not to sell certain products? You don't know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

IF I own a store and you come in wanting to buy something. I have a right not to do business with you. I have the right to only do certain businesses with you. I reserve the right to refuse service.

Not saying I disagree with the way it should be...


But from a technical perspective on the law, you may want to check that. There are a body of laws that deal with Public Accommodation and what it boils down to is the reason that service is refused. Under Public Accommodation laws, which can vary from state to state or by locality, you may be restricted as a business owner to not refusing the full range of goods and services you provide if the basis of that decision is on religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, parental status, veteran status, disability, or if wearing a pirate suit with a parrot on your shoulder that goes "Arrrg Matey!". (OK, the last part was a joke.)



>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

Sigh. States Can decide what products a pharmacy can sell, They can also have optout laws ( four states currently that i read have said laws.)

What i have said and it would seem you are too fucking stupid to realize that we actually agree about the Owner of a drug store. Is that an Owner has the right to not stock certain products that owner chooses not to sell.

With that in mind it has come up where EMPLOYEES have taken it upon themselves to not issue out drugs because of their religious beliefs.

One was fired and the other SUED. I've said the OWNER should either FIRE said employee or just to find some opt out system for said employee. That is up to the Owner to deal with.

Now i'm not sure how fucking stupid you are, but i clearly stated my opinion here. If you can't understand this Or you Immie then you both are hopeless morons.

I understand all of that just fine. That has not been the issue between you and I. The issue between you and I has been your claim to be a protector of liberty when, in fact, in the post right before your claim, you were willing to remove other people's personal liberties.

In regards to this post, we don't have an issue. We have been on the same page in that regard all along.

If you can't understand that, then you are a hopeless moron.

Immie

He's a moron who is clearly trying to backtrack. He? Went from pharmacies can't not sell this product to "well employees of those pharmacies can't decide on their own " just like that.

Fact is, how do you know that some pharmacy owners aren't giving employees their consent not to sell certain products? You don't know.

Actually, if I remember the beginning of this thread, he stated that pharmacists (and it was evident he was speaking of employees) were required to sell the product. Then, I think it was me who said it was the owners decision, blah, blah, blah, and I think he clarified his point of view right away to state that the owner of the pharmacy had the right to decide what products to sell. And if I am not mistaken he did so clearly.

Part of the issue has been that the conversation has gone on and quotes are used and it looks at times like people are saying that he said something he did not. However, he clearly said he was a defender of personal liberties right after preaching the removal of personal liberties from smokers, those who choose not to wear seat belts and those who choose to drive certain vehicles.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is stupid. The state is perfectly within its rights to require someone have access to plan B. This is not a federal issue at all. What is funny is sitting here watching you guys argue the opposite side of the issue when it comes to the Constitution.

Civil rights are a federal issue because those rights are protected by the constitution.



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.



You shouldn't stop reading so soon.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That makes all of this federal, but I do appreciate your attempt to rewrite the constitution.



Actually, it just proves you don't understand the constitution or law.



Sure it is.

Oh, and for the record, I think they should be able to refuse to sell it. I don't live in Washington though and I'm quite sure that Washingtonians should be able to figure out how they want their pharmaceutical licenses to work.

Mike

Not if they decide to discriminate and infringe on people's rights while they are doing it.
Another idiot.

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

As is typical, you don't actually know anything. You FEEL things. Incorporation doctrine was not intended by the ratifiers of the document. It was written to ensure that states would not discriminate against former slaves. Go read your history, or go get minutes from the debates. It wasn't until 30 years later that some federal judge invented the incorporation doctrine to advance a social issue.

I never rewrote anything. That is courtesy of 200+ years of SCOTUS that rewrote the document.

Mike

Umm, what? I don't even know what you think you are saying here. If you are saying the original signers of the Constitution did not mean for it to be incorporated against the states, I agree. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment did not mean for it to incorporate the Bill if Rights against the states, I suggest you go back and review the debate that occurred in Congress as the amendment was being voted on. They specifically argued that, without the amendment, states would be able to deny freed slaves the right to vote and even own guns.

You are not only rewriting the constitution, you are rewriting history and the Congressional record, and then trying to blame the Supreme Court, when they actually ruled that the 14th did not apply to states despite having people who wrote it testifying in front of them that it did.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religious edicts do NOT supercede secular laws in a secular society.

I know a lot of us might want to turn the USA into CHRISTO-TALIBANIA, but most of us would prefer not to live in THE 13TH CENTURY.

And the most of us ALSO happen to be Christians.

No one said they do. What we are saying is that secular laws cannot abridge on anyone's right, even if they are religious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

I’m pleased to report that a federal district court in Washington state today delivered an important victory for religious liberty. As I outlined in several posts some weeks ago, Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the abortifacient drug Plan B, notwithstanding their religiously informed conscientious convictions not to participate in the destruction of the life of an unborn human being.
In its opinion today, the federal district court correctly ruled that the regulations do violate plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights. Specifically, the court determined that the regulations are not neutral for purposes of deference under Employment Division v. Smith. Rather, they“are riddled with exemptions for secular conduct, but contain no such exemptions for identical religiously-motivated conduct” and thus amount to an “impermissible religious gerrymander.” Likewise, the regulations are not “generally applicable” but rather “have been selectively enforced, in two ways”: First, the rule that pharmacies timely deliver all lawful medications has been enforced only against the plaintiff pharmacy and only for failure to deliver plan B. Second, the rules haven’t been enforced against the state’s numerous Catholic-affiliated pharmacies, which also refuse to stock or dispense Plan B.
For each of these reasons, the regulations are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they can’t survive.
The court also found that the state regulations were “aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception.” Indeed, “the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.”

Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online

I say we have a "Church Tax". A tax on chruches are religiously stupid people for all the expenses from unwanted children that their stupid beliefs create.

Sounds fair to me.

We can add on a stupid tax, but I don't think that Bill Gates makes enough to pay yours.

 

[Syphon]

completely different because in that scenario you are the gatekeeper to a license that is regulated by the state.

A better comparison is pretend you're a minister who performs marriages, now assume a couple has obtained a marriage license from the state and comes to you wanting you to perform the marriage. You decide that you don't think the marriage will last so you decline to wed them. Now have you taken away their right to marry? Of course you haven't, you've merely declined to be the tool they use to do so. Perfectly legal.

not exactly the same since a church does not provide a product, it provides a service.

and the state (FDA) actually does regulate the distribution pharmaceuticals. hence why you need to go to a pharmacy to get certain drugs. anything considered OTC (over the counter) is not regulated. but if you wanted codine, or vicodin, you would need a doctors prescription in order to have access to them in the first place. so a doctor tell you that you should take this drug. you as the patient are free to choose whether you want to or not. what give the pharmacist the right to deny you that choice?

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?

we are not referencing the business owner in this argument. we are talking about his employee. i have already stated that if a business owner has chosen not to carry a product, then that is his right. but for an employee to be able to pick and choose which prescription to fill can get hairy and cause a lot more problems.

 

[uscitizen]

Lets just have a religious theocracy.

See how much liberty you have then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

if they have a moral objection to dispensing medication, they have freedom of religion to find another job.

same as if you're a muslim who can't handle pork products, you're free not to work in an italian deli.

Why is it that the people who are supposed to defend the law are the ones most willing to ignore it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

if they have a moral objection to dispensing medication, they have freedom of religion to find another job.

same as if you're a muslim who can't handle pork products, you're free not to work in an italian deli.

Why is it that the people who are supposed to defend the law are the ones most willing to ignore it.

Boils down to " MY rights can't be violated god dammit"

never caring about the rights of others.

How about this YOU have the right to do business with another pharmacy. Simple as that.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Sigh. States Can decide what products a pharmacy can sell, They can also have optout laws ( four states currently that i read have said laws.)

What i have said and it would seem you are too fucking stupid to realize that we actually agree about the Owner of a drug store. Is that an Owner has the right to not stock certain products that owner chooses not to sell.

With that in mind it has come up where EMPLOYEES have taken it upon themselves to not issue out drugs because of their religious beliefs.

One was fired and the other SUED. I've said the OWNER should either FIRE said employee or just to find some opt out system for said employee. That is up to the Owner to deal with.

Now i'm not sure how fucking stupid you are, but i clearly stated my opinion here. If you can't understand this Or you Immie then you both are hopeless morons.

I understand all of that just fine. That has not been the issue between you and I. The issue between you and I has been your claim to be a protector of liberty when, in fact, in the post right before your claim, you were willing to remove other people's personal liberties.

In regards to this post, we don't have an issue. We have been on the same page in that regard all along.

If you can't understand that, then you are a hopeless moron.

Immie

See now you are just lying to my face.you cant say we dont have any issue and then like other peoples posts who say exactly what you started off doing in this thread.

I am for liberty and ive explained my reason behind it already. Feel free to go back and look...again...

Let me ask you this. Can a pharmacist run around insisting that someone buy said pill from them?

 

[elvis]

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

you think birth control is killing babies?