Judge Rules Illinois Pharmacists Can Refuse To Distribute Plan B
Via Feministing:
Last week, a Federal court ruled that, despite Illinois law, pharmacists in Illinois can refuse to dispense emergency contraception. The state passed a law in 2005 that requires all pharmacies to dispense EC. As a result, Wal-Mart (and other companies) have disciplined pharmacists that refused to follow the rule. Then came the lawsuits and the bad news.
U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott denied a request Tuesday by Wal-Mart to throw out a lawsuit filed by pharmacist Ethan Vandersand. Scott sided with Vandersand, who had claimed he was legally protected from discipline by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act when he declined to dispense Plan B. Vandersand, who lives in Bluffs, formerly worked at the pharmacy in Beardstown's Wal-Mart. He was put on unpaid leave after he refused to fill a Plan B prescription requested by a nurse practitioner at Springfield's Planned Parenthood on behalf of a female patient in February 2006.
Wal-Mart had contended the state's right-of-conscience law doesn't cover pharmacists. Walgreen Co. has made the same argument in other Illinois lawsuits filed by fired pharmacists.
But Scott wrote in her ruling, "The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience." Read more...
Wonder where the legal line gets drawn now. Can a pharmacist refuse to give me my insulin if they find out I am gay and its against their religion, or refuse to sell condoms if they don't see a wedding ring on your finger?
Hmmm....So if a man's (or woman's) conscience won't allow the saving of a Republican, what then?
...
Pharmacist should do their F*cking job and not play preacher. If they can't they have no business being a pharmacist and they practice they're conscience behind the alter.
If Pharmacists can choose which prescription they wish to fill, then I can choose to shop elsewhere from then on.
The "law" is meaningless, except to the precise extent that someone- anyone- can be punished.
This really disturbs me ... and I am not even directly affected by it... I will never need emergency contraception, but it seems to me that those companies that make a profit selling medications must make all of them available and that includes hiring people who will carry that philosophy out ... Let people get their morality from their pastors and let them get their medications from their druggists. I wonder if druggist are allowed to refuse to sell Viagra or Cialis to unmarried men?????
where does the line get drawn? At what point does someone at pharmacy decide what is best for my soul instead of my body?
Best read the clarification. "it has been brought to my attention that all Wal-Mart has lost is a motion to dismiss in federal court, not the case itself."
That means that the issue hasn't been resolved on the merits yet, so much ado about nothing.
There was a case in the past where a judge refused to dismiss a case about an employee dismissed for theft who filed a wrongful discharge case. The employee's claim - he was a kleptomaniac and therefore covered under the American's with Disabilities act. The denial of the dismissal only meant that the case could go forward for resolution on the merits.
Lame @ 4:
But dude...you'll have to travel out-of-state :(
From the update at the bottom of the post:
"all Wal-Mart has lost is a motion to dismiss in federal court, not the case itself. The misunderstanding arose from the article's statement that "A federal judge's ruling this week upholds the right of Illinois pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception." This is accurate, but the final outcome of the actual case could change that. My understanding, and the impression given in this post, is that an appeal was dismissed, therefore upholding a previous ruling. This is false, and the case can still potentially be won in court. My apologies for the confusion."
My pharmacist refuses to sell hydrogen peroxide to me.
So he caught me dumping a bottle in his gas tank last Tuesday - what's the big friggin' deal?
Why not refuse to give medication to blacks and Hispanics while we are at it?
phew ..false alarm this time. Hopefully the judge really wants to nail the question with a ruling.
This subject has always driven me crazy.
The ruling basically states that the "pharmacists" rights supersede mine, and the pharmacist has the right to impose his or her morality upon me against my will.
Welcome to Bush's Amerika.
I'm sure they can go elsewhere and get it,who goes into Wal Mart anyway?This is not a really big issue...except for ..the pharmacist deciding which ones to fill and not fill..Now that's a problem.If it's such a problem for the pharmicist...maybe they should look for another line of work.If there going to work in the public... well..I would think that they will have to deal with somethings that are unpleasant......just like the rest of us.But we're talking medicine here.How would someone go about securing a patients right to medicine?Have a list of all the open minded Pharmacy's or visa/versa..Now we're talking cost...for people who don't have much money....discount drugs across the border.
If conscience trumps need, (ah, a "vaguely" republican concept, these days) then we have chaos. Or we have a sort of ultimate democracy in which the individual can piss on anybody's parade for any damn reason that comes to mind.
Thanks thugs. You'll get yours one day.
Cut off Bob Dole's viagra. He doesn't need it. Cut off W's lime disease treatment as well as his other pharmacological needs. And leave those ass-polyps alone. They're just doing what comes naturally. We need our president with a clear head and fully occupied rectum.
And just cut-off Big Time, period. He's lived his allotment of days. How could anyone in good conscience continue to supply these morally bankrupt addicts?
I remember trying to buy condoms in the local pharmacy when I was in school....that guy got so pissed off and started yelling at me and threw me out of the pharmacy.....and this was in So Cal...1970/71...never did get the condoms.
Michael @ 1:
You can bet your ass they'll certainly try. How about a doctor refusing to administer chemotherapy because it kills living cancer cells? The sky really is the limit.
Michael @ 1:
I bet some fundies would want to refuse to sell condoms to you regardless. After all, the Catholic Church's official position is that all forms of birth control are bad.
Michael @ 1:
If I was a pharmacist I wouldn't carry the product if it was MY (my wholly owned store) store...
Yet I can't see how or why this law should protect a pharmacist working for a chain outfit that has no problem carrying items the pharmacist has a moral problem with...
The pharmacist doesn't have to work for a place that sells product that conflicts with his/her conscience...
Obviously Judge Jeanne Scott is some sort of socialist...
talk about activist judges......but viagra's ok
OK, anyone wanna take bets on how long before these religious extremists' "conscience" actually does start them on a pogrom of no medical care for...Hmmm... Blacks, Gays, "Hippies", etc. etc, ad nauseam?
“The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience.”
Isn't this the teeniest bit oxymoronic? How can one have a conscience and yet refuse to provide health care?
"How about a doctor refusing to administer chemotherapy because it kills living cancer cells?"
WC, I started to laugh at this--and then came to an abrupt stop. I put nothing--NOTHING--past the people who have decided that their beliefs are going to rule everyone else's world.
"I remember trying to buy condoms in the local pharmacy when I was in school….that guy got so pissed off and started yelling at me and threw me out of the pharmacy…..and this was in So Cal…1970/71…never did get the condoms."
Dad is that you?
What a load of crap. How about we get a bunch of progressives to work in Illinois as pharmacists and refuse to give any medicine to fundamentalists because it's against our religion?
Definition of compassionate conservatism : "We'd reeeeeally LIKE to help you, but fuck off"
nick @ 23:
lol....yes son it is...have you got a job yet?....
Okay... so If there is an Islamic firefighter and s/he comes across:
a christian wearing a pigskin jacket or
the Liberty U Football Team trapped in a fire and they have been practicing with the ole pigskin, or
a family who's morning breakfast included bacon, can he ask if the person eats bacon and/or ham and decide decide not to touch (and not save) the 'unclean' person(s)?
Just asking....
This sort of law rose on the back of thug politics, and will be hard to quash through the courts. Imagine this case going to the Supreme Court. Our rights to any particular med at all, will be meaningless, because we have no such right. We only have the availability of the meds, but no particular right to any of them, even with a doctor's prescription.
If a pharmacy carries a particular drug, and a pharmacist refuses to dispense it, it would seem incumbent upon that pharmacy to find someone else in the damn pharmacy to dole it out, even if the idiot pharmacist has to drag a cashier into the pharmacy and supervise the transaction. Somebody get busy designing THAT into law, rather than taking on the thug-stacked courts and their right-to-life allegiances. Fucking require retailers to find a way to sell what they've got, and dispense with the holier-than-thou horseshit.
Otherwise, I'm going to open up a soda stand, here in Florida, and when the hurricanes come, I'm going to ask to see some evidence of political party affiliation. Thugs get nothing. Everyone else gets a cut-rate deal.
nick @ 23:
“I remember trying to buy condoms in the local pharmacy when I was in school….that guy got so pissed off and started yelling at me and threw me out of the pharmacy…..and this was in So Cal…1970/71…never did get the condoms.”
Dad is that you?
lol….yes son it is…have you got a job yet?….
It's about college, very costly, can you send cash?
juandos @ 19:
Then she must be a Democrat...
(snark!)
“The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience"
Well, anyone who's conscience forces them to refuse medical care is fucked in the head. Now, the semantics are complicated yes, but this is not territory the pharmacist should want to foray into.They want to use them only so far as to say something like "there was no harm done to the person resulting from witholding of the medication" and stop there. They know that if they venture any further down the circumstance pole that they are in a world of willful ignorance that tells them they can regulate womens bodies because boogie boo boo jesus told them to.
It appears that two laws are in contradiction to each other and the judge will have to decide which law carries more weight: The "moral" objection law or the "you don't get a moral objection" law. Let's hope the judge goes for what the legislature wanted or at worst says he has no jurisdiction since it hasn't moved its way through state courts.
Ouch; That's the second time I've heard good thinx about Wal-Mart. Makes it hard to demonize them.
maldoror_is_ded_ded_ded @ 25:
Yup - total and absolute hypocrites.
The sad results of 6 years of far right power that the people don't even see. These bastards have passed so many laws that many of us don't even know about - they have placed conservative judges in as many places as possible... The damage is so far reaching. It's going to take decades to recover, if we ever do. Will the pussy sellout democrats ever be able to undo the damage? Will they even try?
Joe Klein's conscience @ 18:
It is the position - and ULTIMATE GOAL - of one of the radical religious groups - either the Dominionists or the Reconstructionists - not sure which and possibly both - that birth control of any type be banned by law regardless.
This is the crowd that Bush is aiming to please, and America is moving more and more in their direction with the courts. It's basically a men's movement of course.
The Handmaid's Tale is a warning. Women with rights solely as breeding machines. - and the property of men. White christian psychopathic men.
*
Not sure you can FORCE someone to sell something.
I'm not sure we WANT to force people to sell something they dont want to sell.
I dont think the solution is law, the solution is not patronizing establishments that wont seel contraception or protesting those establishments, but not sure a law that says, you must sell X IS constitutional.
Oh. Ok.
So its ok for this phuck-up pharmacist to discriminate against customers because of his philosophical beliefs, but he can't be punished because of his discriminating beliefs. Because the punishment would be discrimination.
And these are the same people who complain when a cabdriver refuses to pick them up at a minneapolis airport, because they are carrying alcohol. . .
nick @ 29:
yer killing me son....sorry..I need to get another job....the one I have isn't cutting it...just lost my med benefits......so your on your own....sorry.
nick @ 29:
nick @ 23:
“I remember trying to buy condoms in the local pharmacy when I was in school….that guy got so pissed off and started yelling at me and threw me out of the pharmacy…..and this was in So Cal…1970/71…never did get the condoms.”
Dad is that you?
lol….yes son it is…have you got a job yet?….
It’s about college, very costly, can you send cash?
yer killing me son….sorry..I need to get another job….the one I have isn’t cutting it…just lost my med benefits……so your on your own….sorry.
That does it....Your ass is going into a nursing home!
C&L - I wish you would correct this headline. There is a correction in the source article that is not mentioned in your posting of the story. From source article at Feministing.com:
Here's the phuck-up's contact information. Remember, its a felony to threaten a judge. So be nice - even though she doesn't deserve "nice".
Dishonorable Jeanne E. Scott
United States District Judge
319 U.S. Courthouse
600 E. Monroe Street
Springfield IL 62701
Telephone: 217-492-4000
Fax: 217-492-4004
I'm simply amazed that the "conscience" argument on this subject continues. The same people that argue that it's perfectly acceptable for a pharmacist to not carry out the job they're hired to do would go on a fundamentalist meltdown if, say, a scientologist refused to fill their Xanax prescription... a muslim or jewish butcher refused to sell them pork chops... an environmentalist refused to sell them gasoline for their SUV...
Could an atheist or agnostic work for a christian bookstore, then refuse to sell certain materials due to their own religious beliefs? The only reason this argument continues is that for the extreme anti-choice crowd, any shred of reason, rationality, or balance goes out the window if it doesn't match their view in lockstep.
If this continues to gain traction, look to an army of faith trained pharmacists for Jesus in the same vein as the faith trained army of Pat Robertson U lawyers for Jesus.
I will refuse to provide health care to pharmacists who refuse to provide Plan B.
Mugsy @ 13:
Apparently the ruling isn't a done deal yet - but this nicely explains the essence of the concern in the matter - the pharmacist's rights pitted against the customer's rights.
It absolutely comes down to imposing - or legislating - morality.
*
Trittydi Says: The Handmaid’s Tale is a warning.
Add to that warning:
1984
Brave New World
Enemy of the State
V
Soylent Green
Children of Men
Minority Report
What's next? Planet of the Apes?
Sam I am @ 44:
I do hope you're a doctor...
Can a vegetarian work at KFC and refuse to sell chicken because it's against his or her own personal moral beliefs? This ruling is incredibly fucking stupid.
Well if this pharmacy and pharmacist also dispense any prescription or OTC products that carry warnings not to be used by pregnant or nursing women, or products that might be used for contraception, their position on this selected product is fraudulent.
They should be sued for impeding customers lawful right to make their own medical and religious decisions.
I hope this fucker is fired, sued, and the pharmacy along with him. They need to pay dearly for this phonily "moral" selective persecution to harass women from exercising their inalienable rights. Customers who aren't a signatory to this asshole's bible shouldn't be held prisoner under its extra-judicial, illegal yoke.
.
This is not a ruling, only a motion to dismiss has not been granted.
Well, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here (pun intended), because that’s NOT what the judged ruled.
As noted in one of the links, this case was only at the "motion to dismiss" stage. All the court has said is that the plaintiff gets to go forward and now try to prove his case. Most motions to dismiss are thrown out, so it's not a big surprise to lose that motion.
With respect to the federal claim, all the judge has said is that the pharmacist might be able to prove his case for federal discrimination. The pharmacist still faces a very significant burden to prove discrimination: he must show that his behavior did not pose an "undue hardship" to Wal-Mart’s ability to comply with the Illinois regulation requiring it to provide Plan B. Even if he does win his individual case (for instance, by showing that Wal-Mart didn't attempt to accommodate him at all) this case doesn't strike down the Illinois Plan B regulation. All it says is that Wal-Mart must provide a reasonable accommodation, which is a well established (and pretty important) principle of anti-discrimination law that applies to most kinds of discrimination - race, gender, religion, disability, etc.
Seems to me walmart only has to prove the employee was not qualified. If they are licensed to operate a pharmacy, then they have to abide by certain rules. If their employee is unable to abide by these rules he is unqualified. Walmart has every right to regulate how the employee behaves with the customer.
These religious nuts are simply gung ho on creating more little copies of themselves to brainwash.
First, because religious beliefs have absolutely no bounds (since they are tied to 'faith' and not logical or empirical evidence), if a pharmacist is allowed to refuse to dispense based on "religious beliefs" then they basically have the power to not dispense for any reason they can think of. For instance, they may refuse to dispense to a person because they believe that "she is posessed."
Second, a lot of physicians prescribe chemical birth control for reasons that do not have anything to do with preventing pregnancy. The hormones in the birth control pills are used to treat a variety of health issues and can be dispensed to women who are not even ovulating.
Third, it is no business of the pharmacist to suppose for what reason a medication is being prescribed. That is between patient and physician.
Fourth, refusing to dispense medication on the basis that "it may cause an abortion" could be used as the basis for refusing to dispense virtually any kind of medication. Birth control pills have not been shown to cause abortions. Neither has insulin or penicillin. So if a pharmacist is permitted to refuse to dispense birth controll pills, that amounts to allowing the pharmacist to choose which medications are dispensed, and to whom. It is legal discriminition; discrimination that could cause death.
Reich-wingers think this is some sort of "victory". Sadly, these deluded losers do not realize the frightening ramifications of such a completely fascist ruling.
If you don't want to do your job because of your religious beliefs, find a new job. Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever - I do not give a fuck about your religious beliefs; please get them out of my face. If you're stupid enough to take and keep a job that goes against your religion - do the world a favor and go play in traffic, at night, dressed in black.
I'm from Illinois and I believe this is unconscionable. I guess they could refuse people's chemo prescription if they thought it opposed their religion. This really lets pharmacists play god. Terrible. I hope this gets challenged.
I always wonder if the people who oppose birth control really think about what they're doing. I know lots of women who are in this crazy christian movement. Their daughters practice birth control. They used birth control when they were young. Do these people ever think what would happen if every woman who conceives has to give birth? I doubt it.
It's just this sort of thing that distracts average people from the truly heinous developments the federal government at every level and in every branch is implementing in the U. S. There's no democracy anymore, just corporatations backed up by crazy religious freaks.
"Can a vegetarian work at KFC and refuse to sell chicken because it’s against his or her own personal moral beliefs? "
Well, yes he can, but he risks being fired obviously. But no law says he can be FORCED to sell chicken.
Jeon Ji-Yung @ 55:
Amen, brother.
Wonder if Laura and the twins use birth control?
qazplm @ 36:
So if I own a restaurant and I don't want to sell to blacks, you're ok with that? Just tell the blacks to go somewhere else?
I think if a Pharmacy does not want to sell a product, that's fine, but for some of them to keep the prescription is way over the line. From the article, That does not seem to be the case here. Looks like The pharmacist didn't dispense the prescription, but does not say if he kept it as in other cases. IMO, since the store did stock it, he should have allowed another pharmacist on staff (Assuming he wasn't the only one there) to do it.
Looks to me (and maybe the Judge) like Illinois needs to fix their apparently conflicting laws.
"Zenrage", #42, IMO, you're WAY out of line! This isn't MichelleMalkin.com....
Bit NOLA @ 15:
pissing on anyone yhou want with not conscience, that's not democracy, that's anarchy.
FreeDUMB @ 52:
Unfortunately, it's more insidious than that ~
"The Despoiling of America" - Yurica Report
Scroll down a bit.
Jeon Ji-Yung @ 55:
Exactly.
Chris @ 59:
Thats different, thats about who you sell to, not what you sell.
qazplm @ 57:
So, there should be a law that protect the vegetarian?
Anyone that supports this is no doubt a complete and utter anti-American.
The civilized progressive world is laughing at this "sick America".
Find out which Pharmacies in your hometown won't sell the day after pill,condoms,etc then rent add space in your daily paper, and then list all the pharmacies and Pharmacists by name. hand out fliers around your neighborhood!
There's alot of these holy-roller types that will get pissed now that have to drive out of State to purchase the morning after pills cause one of their daughters might get pregnant after sleeping with daddy!
Some folks might be offended by advertising it, but there's nothing anyone can do, you're advertising the truth! The ones that scream the loudest, are more than likely the ones to need it!
Dr. Matt @ 54:
True. Even your basic run-of-the-mill fundy does not realize the complete and true goals of the group that leads them.
*
Why did Ethan Vandersand become a pharmacist in the first place? All them drugs is the devil's work anyways. Don't he know that?
I hear New Zealand is a nice place to live... may hav to get out of here before we see a repeat of the 1930's in Europe...
Dr. Matt @ 65:
no, I dont think so. But then again, put the shoe on the other foot, what if it were a moral belief WE agreed with, would we be as quick to say, sorry, suck it up and get a new job?
I dont know. Now me personally? I'd say its up to Wal-Mart. If they want to accommodate them great, if they want to fire them, great, but again remember, when it comes to the former that saying firing if you have moral/religious qualms wont stop at this issue.
qazplm @ 64:
I don't think that argument will fly. Usually only a certain clientle will want/need Plan B. Refusing to sell to them (presumably because of their actions) is tantamount to refusing to sell to anyone based on their skin color or ethnicity.
A better analogy might be refusing to sell chili dogs to blacks, instead of completely refusing services. And the slippery slope is if you don't sell them chili dogs, what will you not sell to them next?
(Its too close to lunch...)
Read the last line. The person who wrote the article corrected themselves..it said that WalMart could pursue the case they just lost one of the provisions or something like that. In other words the case is still alive.
Lame @ 4:
Not if live in Bumfuck, Illinois where there is a higher likely of encountering someone who thinks that their morals trump yours.
As several people have already noted on this thread, this "ruling" was not in fact a ruling on the merits, but just a ruling on a procedural motion, and motions to dismiss seldom win if there is any possible way that the other side could win; therefore, when the judge denied Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, all it meant was that there were unresolved legal issues that actually deserved attention on the merits. Given that there is an active conflict of laws here ... the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act vs. the Illinois statute mandating the dispensing of Plan B ... the existence of unresolved issues requiring attention on the merits is a no-brainer. The court could not possibly have disposed of the case at this point, assuming, as I think is almost a certainty, that there is no Illinois Supreme Court ruling on the issue already.
Wal-Mart may have the right of the issue on the merits. It doesn't matter at this point. All that matters is, in a nutshell, that this is not a frivolous lawsuit ... two laws really are in conflict here, and that means a court has to get involved. The federal court does have one opportunity to "punt," which is that it could abstain from exercising its jurisdiction if there were a concurrent proceeding in a state court, since state law issues predominate in this case. As far as I know, however, federal courts cannot abstain on the basis of a mere promise to file the same lawsuit in state court in the future, however; there must be an active case in state court, so that the federal court can be certain that the issues are actually going to be considered. That's not the case here, so the federal court can't punt and can't dismiss for failure to state a claim, so on we go.
Mudshark,
It may not seem like a big problem to get EC when there's a WalMart everywhere; but not all places have them. and, there are hospitals in connecticut that will not give out EC, even if the screaming rape victim is lying right before them.
People who have "issues" with other people's business should not be working in jobs that require them to dispense drugs or health care fairly. Time and again we find that "christian" morality assholes cannot do their jobs because their magical sky daddy talks to them in voices nobody else can hear, telling them to fuck other people over.
I actually agree with this ruling. I think the requirement to dispense any and all drugs should apply to the pharmacy, not the pharmacists themselves. Thus, if any pharmacist has qualms over a certain dispensing, the pharmacy would be required to have on staff at all times another pharmacist who will dispense that medication. AT ALL TIMES!!!
This might mean that pharmacies would be required to have 2 pharmacists on duty to cover for the conscience of certain pharmacists. But if there is not enough business for 2 pharmacists, the pharmacy would be free to limit the working hours of those pharmacists whose "principles" limit what they can dispense. And if this means there is simply not enough work at all for such pharmacists, the pharmacy would be free to lay them off.
People of conscience should be free to follow their conscience as they see fit, but the employers, and customers also have rights. Those pharmacists can follow their conscience, but be prepared to own the consequences. Martin Luther King Jr spent time in jail for his principles, as did Henry David Thoreau, as did thousands of demonstrators over the years.
And this should even apply to the pharmacy that is owned by the "principled" pharmacists. He would have to hire another pharmacist if he wanted to say open. So they all can have whatever "principled" position they want, they just have to be prepared to own the consequences.
Bud @ 73:
Nope I dont agree and dont think that will fly. All sorts of people buy contraceptives, religious and atheist, all races, straight and gay, tall and short, beautiful and ugly, men and women, liberal and conservative and moderate. It is a clear minority who DONT buy contraceptives.
Using your argument, I can't ever refuse to sell anything because after all almost anything can be said to have a "certain clientèle". But in this case, the clientele is so large that I dont see how you can begin to compare it to selling a coney dog to a black.
Under what part of the constitution can you argue I MUST sell a particular item and if I dont I can be forced to?
I can certainly be stopped from only selling contraceptives to some (say Whites) and not to others (say Blacks), but to not sell to ANYONE? Sorry, that's completely different.
timmm @ 75:
The either:
a. move to someplace better
b. travel to someplace that gets it
c. protest/picket/petition to get it to change
As for morals trumping, while isnt saying you must sell me contraceptives also moral trumping, simply you believe your morals trump theirs?
I'd agree your morals are better than theirs, but is that really the calculation we want to embrace?
Hypothical question....You are in the back woods of a town. bush has a seizure or whatever. They call the paramedic, as he is the only help available, who won't treat bush because of his conscience. He thinks that bush's crimes against humanity are outrageous and he doesn't want to touch him. Bush is seriously impaired because the lack of care. Who is to blame. Remember the courts are ruling you can "let your conscience" be your guide. Who can blame the paramedic...nobody right. Just because it is bush, should the law be changed....hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
these activist pharmacists should go wash cars if they don't want to do their job
WOW AMERICA IS FUCKED.
Marge @ 74:
I think most of the people here know that now - not all but most.
The discussion has evolved into to a "what-if" discussion at this point, I think.
*
dejah thoris @ 77:
picture this if you will......A backwoods town not really close to anything but big enough to have a pharmacy.A young female walks in and secretly tells the pharmacist that she needs a particular kind of medicine. She has a prescription for it.From the Hospital in the closest city. But the pharmacist knows that if people find out he sold her her medicine he would get in trouble with the local population.He sells it to her feeling uneasy but thinks it was the right thing to do.That night...her father finds her medicine.The next night his pharmacy is burned down to the ground. fundies....
Marge @ 81:
ok let's reverse it then since we are using extreme examples. you are a doctor who doesn't believe in euthanasia or the death penalty, but you work for the department of prisons and its execution day and they use lethal injection. By this argument, he has no right to refuse to participate in the lethal objection as the prison doctor because after all, we can never let conscience be our guide.
This is not about "blame". We can blame your paramedic and we can blame the Pharmacists, but the question is can either legally be forced to do anything, and the answer aint so clear.
qazplm @ 86:
the answer is...they picked the wrong profession.If they any objections to filling out all persciptions or doing their job they should look for another profession......btw...I'm against the death penalty.....only in the most extreme cases where this absolutely no doubt as to the persons guilt.people who admitted to such crimes as child molestation w/ murder.and the like
exit7a @ 20:
yes, because it benefits men. if men could get pregnant, abortions would be available by drive thru.
People willing to harm others in the name of their religious convictions should be behind a pulpit not a pharmacy counter.
mudshark @ 87:
not the answer to my question. The question is, should they be forced or otherwise legally held liable for not doing that?
So can a Scientologist pharmacist refuse to dispense all psychiatric medication? From this precedent, I would have to guess 'yes'.
qazplm @ 90:
They should not be forced or held legally liable....what they should do is look before they leap..get a full understanding of what the job requires.And if they have any objections......look for somewhere or something else.
knowbody is forcing them to take the job.
The way i look at this ruling is that it may set a president where the state in order to protect it's citizens may now have the right to discriminate against hiring pharmacists with a 'conscience'? lol ...
oooppppssss....Nobody...damn I hate it when I do that.......
Next there will be faith tests, so only those saved will get life saving medications. So fundie Christians will deny all other faiths and the non-believers or give them sugar pills or poison. All in god's name and in god's love of course.
I have no problem with people refusing to sell certain products to people. All I ask is that if a pharmacy should happen to employ a person that refuses to fill certain prescriptions, a big notice to that effect be posted on the front door. That way, if I am having chect pain and need an emergency refill of my NitroQuick (or whatever, you get the point), I don't waste my time dealing with a friend of Jesus. I want to know up front if I am dealing with someone that in my mind, is nuts, and avoid them altogether. If they can descriminate, so can I, and I intend to.....
fwacbar @ 97:
What if the only pharmacy near you is a stupid fundie one? What if the pharmacy you normally go to suddenly changes into a stupid fundie one? What happens when the fundies get a stupid fundie working at every pharmacy (which I bet is their goal)?
What the fundy dispenser is doing is determining the course of the woman's life. This is wrong. There is one way to make them back down- if they refuse, have them sign a document to that effect. At least have the document list date of the event, the business's name & location, the woman's name & address, the reason for refusal, and the dispenser's name and professional license number.
Better yet, add in that they & the company they work for will be held responsible for their refusal to fill the prescription. In short- put their wallet where their belief is.
If you're a Christian Scientist, here's a career for you. Graduate from pharmacy school and take a job at a Wal-Mart pharmacy. Your very first day on the job, when you are given the first prescription to fill, you refuse on religious/conscience grounds. You simply state that you cannot dispense any drugs because you are a Christian Scientist. Go home and collect your pay until you retire many years later. Now, that's the good life!
I've experienced pharmacist's discression; sometimes my mail order of insulin syringes is used up before the next one arrives. If you can't get what you want from the pharmacist, find another pharmacy. If you get really pissed off at the pharmacist, knock everything off the pharmacy counter before you leave. Sure, it's petty but it will make you feel vindicated. Trust me, I did it in Hayward once.
What exactly is having a free society mean anyway?
We keep edging backward in the 21st century.
Marge @ 81:
Under law he has a duty to act. If he refused to act it is neglect. Firefighters, Paramedics, and EMTs cannot refuse care while on duty to ANYONE. If they do, they will go to jail for faliure to act, neglect, and, abandonment to name a few broken laws.
Call your local pharmacy, see if anyone working there has a 'problem'. Then take your business elsewhere. If you live in a small town that has only one drug store and the fool behind the counter is the type to refuse to fill a certain prescription, find out now, then work to put the turd out of business. Use a mail-order pharmacy. Don't just sit there. Make sure you remember who the ass hole is so you can return the favor if you ever get the chance.....
so the wingnuts get all upset when muslim taxi drivers refuse to pick up those with dogs or booze....they say, "go find another profession"
but when it comes to a pharmacist doing his or her job, and choosing not to, as a result of his/her religious beliefs....thats ok
this country makes me vomit
So what other things that we take for granted as mandatory can now be skipped due to religious belief/excuse?
God told me that Republicans are evil, so when Republicans pass laws I can ignore them and not pay taxes when Republicans hold the majority in Congress or the Presidency. I also can steal from Republican owned or Republican leaning businesses. Give me an argument that invalidates that position that doesn't also invalidate all the other religious stupidity.
but didnt we support the muslim taxi drivers?
The onus is also on the pharmacy to warn customers in advance that this type of discrimination and interference in their health may occur. There should be a prominently visible sign on the premises so customers can have the same right of choice as the human rights impeding pharmacist:
"Torque-Mart will absolutely dispense boner medication to men that might be used for anti-Ten Commandment extramarital fucking and will even look the other way if men aren't restricting its use to the biblically mandated opposite sex.
We won't be extendi that equal courtesy to women, choosing instead to impede her exercise of constitutional rights and endanger her health.
Let this serve as notice that some asshole out back has a self-endowed say over her life. We will continue to dispense a virtually unlimited array of products askance to this particularly hyperspecific, phonily held, nonsesically titled, extra-judicial "moral values" bludgeon to persecute sexually active women. though we don't have any legal, moral or ethical right to do so.
We hope you will continue to patronize us so we can SUPER patronize you!"
.
The funny thing is that I thought Plan B contraceptives action was mainly suppression of ovullation, much less likely prevention of implantation. This dumbass pharmacist should go back to school.
Then pharmacists should have the option of refusing to fill Viagra prescriptions as well. Right?
I'm no fan of WalMart.... however.... WalMart should be free to fire any employee that doesn't follow its companies policies. If WalMart's policies are found to be illegal, then the court should be allowed to rule.
So if pharmacists are allowed to make judgements on filling prescriptions based upon their own warped values, how long will it be until doctors and nurses in emergency rooms decide NOT to provide treatment to someone because of their own warped values.
As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and these pharmacists should just find another career and be blacklisted.
Doctors and nurses also have a duty to act. So that will never happen.
And when the nurse refuses to give a patient a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs, etc., etc., who's going to take responsibility if the patient dies? If you're going to go into the health care field, you must leave your personal beliefs at home. To echo previous comments, either do the job, or find something else.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 105:
If it's a taxi....tell them to FO...and get another taxi.I think that Pharmacists are a little different...no?
Zenrage @ 42:
We don't want to be like the extreme right now. Oh wait, they send death threats. Just be nice and express your opinion that she's nuts.
What nonsense.
“The statute prohibits discrimination against any person for refusing to provide health care because of his conscience.”
Somebody should inform this idiot judge that pharmacists don't "provide health care." Physicians do that. Pharmacists count pills.
Attacking the judge is a stupid thing to do. Judge Jeanne Scott is an extremely well-respected judge. She ruled on the law, which is what she is supposed to do. The patient was able to get the EC at another pharmacy (in a fairly small town, I might add).
I've followed her career for years, and lawyers who've appeared before her think she's smart and knows the law. Back off. She's not nuts. She's doing what judges are supposed to do, which is rule on the law as it is written.
I strongly suspect that those who support the Judge are extremely wealthy and part of the kool-aid drinking crowd.
To those individuals, not everyone has a six-figure income and drives a late model SUV. For those women who reside in isolated rural areas, have been disadvantaged (and had you not been born with a silver spoon planted in your mouth, you might be one of these people, too), and can't afford their own transportation, with only one pharmacy and pharmacist in the area, how do you propose that such individuals be able to go to another area where such a prescription would be filled?
Perhaps you could write to your member of Congress and insist that they pass legislation mandating that such medications be provided free of charge (after all, you don't want more new welfare babies trying to suckle off the welfare dole, taking money out of the pockets of righteous individuals such as yourself, do you?), prompt and reliable transportation to pharmacies that carry these medicines and also employ pharmacists who will actually fill such prescriptions.
If nothing else, place your name on a list as someone who will take full, personal financial responsibility for at least one child who is born because of the cause you support. Unless you are willing to devote a considerable portion of your wealth to stand behind that which you preach, you may wish to reconsider your statements. Otherwise, the taint of rank hypocracy will cling to the bottom of your Gucci loafers with the tenacity of well-chewed bubble gum.
I'm guessing that you are also someone who invokes Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Please explain to all of us how you interpret the following Biblical passage (English Standard Version), from Matthew 25:40 -- "40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"
Any pharmacist that is not prepared to fill a properly obtained prescription should be fired.
End of story.
I work in the IT world. If some geek server admin decides they refuse to support (insert company product here) because they don't like that company, that person would be fired.
Pharmacists don't get to pick and choose.
IF a pharmacy is owned by a scumbag that doesn't want to CARRY certain drugs because they think they have the moral authority, that's another story.
Otherwise, it's it's behind the counter and I have a prescription for it, they better well fucking fill it.
It's bad enough that they get to enjoy all the good drugs before everyone else..
Added note to those who support the Judge's decision:
First, please excuse my typo in my previous posting. I forgot to use the spell check feature. "Hypocracy" should be "hypocrisy." That said, the previous spelling is perhaps a mangled version of the word "hype" so perhaps it also conveyed an accurate meaning.
If you are an uptight, sanctimonious holier-than-thou person (perhaps not unlike the Pharisees of the Bible), please consider the following scenario. I am the only physician in a small town where you are traveling, and you came in with an urgent medical need. Your condition is frightening, but not life-threatening. By going the extra mile, I could spare you some considerable disfigurement, although the treatment must be administered immediately to have any chance of succeeding. I discover that your religious and/or political views don't square with mine, and choose not to provide that treatment to you. You still survive although in a permanently disfigured state. Surely, you would support my actions, would you not?
what if it can be proved that none of these right-wing zealots have any conscience...hell, it has the word science in it, of course they don't have one!!!
curmudgeon @ 121:
you do realize the people who complain about such things are only in their religion for convenience, they use Jesus as a doormat when it's something they are upset about or want to wash their hands of then it's their belief, but if it's something that goes against something they have previously said then all of a sudden it's not about faith!!! these idiots change the rules as it suits them and then call you a crybaby for pointing out that they keep changing the rules. so you are 100% correct when using the word Hypocrisy
I used to have some respect for people's religion. But, after what I have observed from so-called religious types for the last 12 yrs. my respect for them and religion is zero. I have become convinced from first hand observation that religion is truly one of the most evil, destructive, and negative forces on this planet. As far as I am concerned, these religious people can stick there religion up their ass. And don't be trying to proselytize to me about Jesus ,because I won't turn the other cheek if you do.
'Judge' Scott is one of Bubba's picks.
Interesting. Is she afraid of Bush and the Junta removing her from the bench?
Daisy Zimmerly @ 124:
Check this picture from Post Secret!
Religion doesn't mean what it used to mean.
I am actually quite happy about this ruling. Now I can encourage my wife, who is a pharmacist, to withhold any life-saving prescriptions from Republicans. Oh happy day!! Let the dying begin!!!!!!
It is, after all, a matter of conscience.
Certainly, no self-respecting Christian pharmacist would fill a Viagra prescription for someone who wasn't married, would they?
Oh, yes, there was that matter of Rush Limbaugh being caught at the Palm Beach County airport on his return from the Dominican Republic in June, 2006, however, the pill bottle had two doctor names on it even though he admitted that they were for his use.
Oh, and there was also the matter of Limbaugh's having just made a deal a month earlier with prosecutors who had accused him of illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping painkiller prescriptions. According to contemporaneous accounts, the plea deal included the provision that as long as Limbaugh "completes an additional 18 months of treatment" by his physician, and pays $30,000 "to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation," and $30 for the cost of supervising his case, the charge would then be dropped.
For further details about the oxycontin deal: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12536446/
Should you wish to plunge further into the abyss regarding the Viagra debacle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003087676_weblimbaugh...
Yes, it is important to remember that forgiveness of others is probably the Christian thing to do -- just as long as you are forgiving the "right" people and condemning the "wrong" ones.
Hypocrisy rules!
This is yet another example of how religion poisons everything.
Yes, even yours.
...Yours too.
Why is a federal district court judge ruling on conflicts between two Illinois laws? I thought the normal venue for that sort of thing were the state courts.
What would Zeus do? @ 131:
Actually all Wal Mart lost was their motion to have the case bounced from Federal court. Nothing actually changed regarding the IL law, that is probably next. But it is curious why they allowed this state law issue to have standing in a Federal court. The Buscovite Junta probably thought their chances were better there with their pack of judicial syncophants versus heavily Democratic Illinois.
Last time I checked the word 'pharmacist' does not equate 'God'.
Can I get a job at a gas station and refuse to sell cigarettes?
So...what happens when someone jumps off the bridge because the Scientologist at the local Walgreen's refused to fill her/his antidepressant prescription because all negative emotions are just bad karma leftover from Xenu? Somehow I don't think that the theocrats and rethugs currently fouling the benches will see it the same way.
Personally, I think that the pharmacist should be forced to financially any child that results. Just like the rest of the @#$%^&*s in the anti-choice movement. If the busybody wankers want to call the tune, they can pay the piper.
Look for a flood of applications to pharmacy schools by Christian Scientists -- one of those rare opportunities to earn a good living and not have to work very hard. By refusing to fill any and all prescriptions, based upon religious belief, this could be a very low stress job. And the federal government would protect their right to do just that.
Walgreen's, Rite-Aid, Bartell's, etc. may not be pleased about being required to pay full salary to a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions, but as Judge Scott has ruled, that's just the price of progress.
Now, what's gonna happen if Wal-Mart starts asking their pharmacists their religious views so they can ensure that they can always have 2 pharmacists on the clock, one that doesn't want to and one that will give these prescriptions? They'll whine and bitch, even if Wal-Mart doesn't use the info to not hire them, just have both sides on duty at the same time. That way, if the guy doesn't give you the pills, just ask the other pharmacist.
Cigarettes cause cancer, so I can't sell you those sir.
Gas harms the environment, so I can't sell you that sir.
Potato chips make you fat, so I can't sell you those sir.
Condoms are immoral, so I can't sell you those sir.
Penthouse objectifies women, so I can't sell you those sir.
Soda rots your teeth, so I can't sell you those sir.
Stonicus @ 138:
Sigh...America has become a gag from a Monty Python skit.
Let's see if we can follow this to a logical conclusion.
Hire a Christian Scientist pharmacist and he can refuse any and all prescriptions and the need for a pharmacy and all its potntial abuses simply goes away.
Problem solved.
I took an early retirement in 1988 and had been fortunate enough to live on my retirement pay, but, it's to the point where my wife had to go to work, and I'm looking for a job. She's 61....I'm 68. Then, while cruising the internet today, I find this about Woodrow Wilson.
I'm not naive....I knew the money was controlled by a small group of people, the elite rich of the world, but, it just pissed me off to read this today, knowing that we're not in the best of health and have to look for a job.
I feel even worse knowing that our monies are going toward an unjust war, lining the pockets of politicians and companies screwing us royally for the shoddy products they supply our military, and most of all, for the lives of our troops that have been lost, injured, gone mentally bad, and in so many other ways, are no longer functioning normally. My son is one of these mentioned.
Enough for now......Ron Paul 2008!!!
Woodrow Wilson Legacy
I am proud to be an American when I see the way the straw poll seemed to cut through some of the hype created by the media.
Back about 1915 or so we had a politician named Woodrow Wilson that
to create the Federal Reserve. They were a group of very powerful bankers and businessmen from around the world at the time. Through the monopoly of being the source of our money and by being outside of our government, or paying any taxes, they have built up a fortune that, I believe, includes owning most of the politicians of the world.
It is going to take a determined, We the People, to restore law and order in our government before we can restore law and order in our once great nation.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson
Comments are closed on this entry