Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you ever read the side effects on the birth control literature they give you at the pharmacy?

It's quite extensive.

This is religious objection because they don't understand the difference between birth control and abortions.

The problem here is not their misunderstanding, but yours. Plan b prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which, to a person who believes life begins at conception, is the moral equivalent of an abortion.

There is legal precedent for this in that a person can be charged with being an accessory before the fact of a crime. If the law can recognize that it is possible to aid and abet a criminal by doing something that is perfectly legal, and is not a crime, until another person commits a crime, why do you have a problem with seeing that there is no real difference in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and aborting that same egg after it implants?

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

Pharmacies do not have the storage space to carry every possible drug that might be needed, they have to make choices based on their community and their profits. You want to take that ability away from them, and force them to carry something just because you equate it with women's rights.

Guess what, it is not a right. You do not have any more right to force that pharmacist to carry a certain drug than I do to force him not to. End of story.

You are the one who has a serious problem with definitions here, and I was trying to be nice about explaining it to you. If you refuse to see truth just because you do not like it, then I do not have to be patient or nice about explaining it. Go whine to someone who thinks you are entitled to things, not to me, or the other reasonable people on the planet.

 

[Immanuel]

The problem here is not their misunderstanding, but yours. Plan b prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which, to a person who believes life begins at conception, is the moral equivalent of an abortion.

There is legal precedent for this in that a person can be charged with being an accessory before the fact of a crime. If the law can recognize that it is possible to aid and abet a criminal by doing something that is perfectly legal, and is not a crime, until another person commits a crime, why do you have a problem with seeing that there is no real difference in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and aborting that same egg after it implants?

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

Well I hope every pharmacist that is forced to carry it puts a price tag on it of $200.00. Or do you want to set the price too?

I like that idea even better than my, "I'm sorry, I am out of stock" answer.

In fact, I would offer to sell it for say $20,000/dosage. If I could still sell it at that price, I would simply increase the price tag until no one wanted to purchase it from me.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

Well I hope every pharmacist that is forced to carry it puts a price tag on it of $200.00. Or do you want to set the price too?

Sorry, there are laws against that sort of thing.

What laws?

Link please!

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

The problem here is not their misunderstanding, but yours. Plan b prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which, to a person who believes life begins at conception, is the moral equivalent of an abortion.

There is legal precedent for this in that a person can be charged with being an accessory before the fact of a crime. If the law can recognize that it is possible to aid and abet a criminal by doing something that is perfectly legal, and is not a crime, until another person commits a crime, why do you have a problem with seeing that there is no real difference in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and aborting that same egg after it implants?

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

It seems pretty arrogant to tell a business owner what products he/she has to carry or to tell them who they have to do business with.

Immie

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

 

[judyd]

Women still use diaphragms?

I thought they got rid of those when IUDs, the Rods, and BC pills came out?

I'm beyond the years of worrying about getting pregnant--so I'm not up on the latest "barriers". I found the sponge to be effective!

My only point was that if you really couldn't be pregnant--plan ahead and make sure you have this pill on hand. I know I would have done that. I wouldn't have whined about a pharmacist that wasn't comfortable keeping it in stock for whatever reason.

Sponge? Never heard of- you know what, I don't want to know. They have rods that go in the forearm and pills now.

I have more of a problem with those. Did you ever wonder why there are so many cases of increased breast and ovarian cancers these days? I never liked the idea of taking hormones for years. Now that I see so many other women my age who are going through so many problems, I think I was on the right track!

 

[Immanuel]

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

It seems pretty arrogant to tell a business owner what products he/she has to carry or to tell them who they have to do business with.

Immie

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

So anyone that disagrees with you is a religious nut?

I think JB is correct, you have jumped the shark.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

It seems pretty arrogant to tell a business owner what products he/she has to carry or to tell them who they have to do business with.

Immie

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

So anyone that disagrees with you is a religious nut?

I think JB is correct, you have jumped the shark.

Immie

You two are on the wrong side of this so I really don't care what you think of me.

 

[Immanuel]

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

So anyone that disagrees with you is a religious nut?

I think JB is correct, you have jumped the shark.

Immie

You two are on the wrong side of this so I really don't care what you think of me.

Did I say I thought poorly of you?

Do you know what jumping the shark means?

Gotta run for 45 minutes but I will be back.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

So anyone that disagrees with you is a religious nut?

I think JB is correct, you have jumped the shark.

Immie

You two are on the wrong side of this so I really don't care what you think of me.

Since when is the side of liberty and freedom the wrong side?

That you'd say any such thing tells us all there is to know about you.

 

[judyd]

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

Well I hope every pharmacist that is forced to carry it puts a price tag on it of $200.00. Or do you want to set the price too?

Sorry, there are laws against that sort of thing.

You think? I don't. I check prices for my eye drops every month. There is a huge difference among the pharmacies in the area--from $75 to 150. No one has put a law into place about that!

 

[Shadow]

It is not the job of a pharmacist to be judge, jury and executioner. They are there to dispense drugs. Now a rule had to be created to let them know that.

It's arrogant to attempt to tell someone they can't sell you what you want because you're too stupid to know when conception is.

They need to shutup and do their work.

Well I hope every pharmacist that is forced to carry it puts a price tag on it of $200.00. Or do you want to set the price too?

I like that idea even better than my, "I'm sorry, I am out of stock" answer.

In fact, I would offer to sell it for say $20,000/dosage. If I could still sell it at that price, I would simply increase the price tag until no one wanted to purchase it from me.

Immie

Sometimes they would have to sell it for an extremely high price anyway. Some items the distributors just don't offer under certain contracts unless the customer ( in this case the pharmacy) uses it in bulk, and purchases large quantities every month. If they have to order a small amount, it may not even be an item they can get for a reasonable price from the manufacturer.

 

[Againsheila]

Do you support "Whites Only" restaurants?

Do you support a vegan restaurant being forced to serve steaks? A kosher deli being forced to carry pork? Those are the equivalent questions to be asking here, not the false equivalency you are spouting.

Not the same at all. You are comparing the kind of customers you will serve, with the kind of food a restaurant will serve. Unless they are actually cooking the people, I don't think it's a good analogy.

 

[JBeukema]

Do show how not forcing businesses to sell something is socialism.

 

[manifold]

JB indirectly supports socialism and he doesn't even realize it.

Your post is a total non sequitur.

To a linear logic shackled, absolutist minded psuedo-intellectual, sure.

 

[manifold]

For the record, I'm not convinced that this law is necessary. I simply reject the absolutist nature of the arguments being presented by it's opponents here. Yes, it's an infringement on a business owners decision making autonomy. But there is ample precedent demonstrating that business owners do not retain autonomous decision making rights. So the question becomes is the benefit worth this particular infringment. To that I say, I don't know, and quite frankly, I'm largely ambivalent. But to suggest that there exists no logical arguments in support of it is ludicrous.

 

[Flopper]

The court did not rule that pharmacies must sell Plan . The court ruled that the pharmacy can not refuse to sell the drug based on the pharmacist personal religious preferences. It is not the action of refusing to sell the medication that was at issue. It's the reason for refusing to sell it that is the issue. A good analogy is employment. You can refuse to hire people but you can't refuse to hire them because of their race. There would have never been a court case nor would there have been this thread had pharmacist told the customer he did not stock the drug because there was not sufficient demand or any other reason other than his religious beliefs.
[/B]

 

[Immanuel]

It seems like a big deal here but there are very few pharmacies that will go to the mats for this. They mostly go to work, earn their money and call it a day.

Only religious nuts like this sort of drama. I'm on the female side of the argument.

So anyone that disagrees with you is a religious nut?

I think JB is correct, you have jumped the shark.

Immie

You two are on the wrong side of this so I really don't care what you think of me.

Sarah,

For the record, I did not say I thought poorly of you. Quite truthfully I do not. You are one of the liberals that are fun to have a discussion with even though we don't have many discussions.

Here is what jumping the shark means:

Jumping the shark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jumping the shark is an idiom used to describe the moment of downturn for a previously successful enterprise. The phrase was originally used to denote the point in a television program's history where the plot spins off into absurd story lines or unlikely characterizations. These changes were often the result of efforts to revive interest in a show whose audience had begun to decline, usually through the employment of different actors, writers or producers.[1][2][3]
[edit] History

The phrase jump the shark refers to the climactic scene in "Hollywood," a three-part episode opening the fifth season of the American TV series Happy Days in September 1977. In this story, the central characters visit Los Angeles, where Fonzie (Henry Winkler), wearing swim trunks and his leather jacket, jumps over a confined shark on water skis, answering a challenge to demonstrate his bravery. The series continued for nearly seven years after that, with a number of changes in cast and situations.

The expression was popularized in 1985 by Jonathan M. Hein,[citation needed] who would later create the web site jumptheshark.com. Hein explained the concept as follows: "It's a moment. A defining moment when you know that your favorite television program has reached its peak. That instant that you know from now on...it's all downhill. Some call it the climax. We call it 'Jumping the Shark.' From that moment on, the program will simply never be the same."[4][unreliable source?] Hein created the web site in 1997, inviting visitors to give their opinions of when various TV series (and other things) jumped the shark. Hein sold the web site and the domain name to Gemstar (publishers of TV Guide) in 2006, and, in early 2009, the domain was redirected to the main TV Guide web site as part of the dissolution of various TV Guide properties.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

The court did not rule that pharmacies must sell Plan . The court ruled that the pharmacy can not refuse to sell the drug based on the pharmacist personal religious preferences. It is not the action of refusing to sell the medication that was at issue. It's the reason for refusing to sell it that is the issue. A good analogy is employment. You can refuse to hire people but you can't refuse to hire them because of their race. There would have never been a court case nor would there have been this thread had pharmacist told the customer he did not stock the drug because there was not sufficient demand or any other reason other than his religious beliefs.
[/b]

So I can refuse to sell it, but the man in the article can't? I have more rights than he does because he happens to be religious?

And people are okay with that?

And why does everything always end in cries of racism? Refusing to sell a given product and discriminating against someone based on their race are two wholly separate issues.

 

[Immanuel]

The court did not rule that pharmacies must sell Plan . The court ruled that the pharmacy can not refuse to sell the drug based on the pharmacist personal religious preferences. It is not the action of refusing to sell the medication that was at issue. It's the reason for refusing to sell it that is the issue. A good analogy is employment. You can refuse to hire people but you can't refuse to hire them because of their race. There would have never been a court case nor would there have been this thread had pharmacist told the customer he did not stock the drug because there was not sufficient demand or any other reason other than his religious beliefs.

So, what you are saying is that as long as I don't give a reason for not selling it, I don't have to sell it?

Okay, works for me. If I were a pharmacist, I would simply refuse to sell it and not give my reasons for doing so.

Immie

 

[Flopper]

Yes, you have the idea. The guy in the article can't refuse to sell it because his reason for doing so is his religious preferences. If you are pharmacist you can choose to sell it or not, as long as your reason for doing so is not your religious beliefs. A fine line, but important to the courts.

If you don't like my analogy using race, then you can substitute sex. The principal is the same.

BTW I think this entire case should have been throw out of court. I think it was frivolous.