Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Choice' means no choice
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/28/5 | Debra J. Saunders

Posted on 04/28/2005 7:57:16 AM PDT by SmithL

YOU know the world is changing when the left -- which used to believe in respecting choice and requiring businesses to accommodate workers' personal preferences -- opposes choice and letting individual workers say no to tasks they find morally abhorrent, while the right -- which used to stand for letting businesses choose policies that promote their bottom line -- supports laws that could force employers to accommodate workers whose personal scruples prevent them from selling a product.

Yet that's exactly what you get as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and other Democrats introduce bills that would force pharmacists to sell birth- control pills and emergency-contraception pills such as RU-486 and Plan B, even if the pharmacist is morally opposed to one of these forms of birth control.

The issue here isn't hypocrisy. The issue is that these laws can present serious consequences. Do Americans want the government to tell a business what it has to sell?

Some states have laws protecting pharmacists' objections of conscience. Do employees have a right to expect legal protections that allow them to say no to tasks to which they morally object?

And: How can feminists -- read Boxer -- say they support "choice," as they conspire to outlaw the right of pharmacists to make a choice they don't like?

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freedomofcontract; nochoice
Well said, Debra!
1 posted on 04/28/2005 7:57:16 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How do you write a law that says someone HAS TO sell something they dont want to..?


2 posted on 04/28/2005 7:59:09 AM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I believe that there is a law that states that employers cannot force their employees to perform a task at work that goes against their religious beliefs. Looks like it should be amended to include the government, too.


3 posted on 04/28/2005 8:01:44 AM PDT by wmichgrad ("The only difference between what Senator Kennedy said & a bag of excrement is the bag" Rush 3/2/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Govenment shouldn't tell business what they should/shouldn't sell. But if the business sales a product and doesn't want to sell it to me,
1st, they shouldn't offer the product,
second, Employee shouldn't go work for that company if you don't want to sell the friggin product.

The reason I don't work for a place that sales crappy products is because i don't want to work for a business that sales crappy product. If my boss wants to sell crappy products, i'll go somehwere else. This isn't a perfect metaphore but you get the drift. Don't sell guns if you don't wanna sell me bullets.


4 posted on 04/28/2005 8:04:14 AM PDT by 1FASTGLOCK45 (FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I don't understand it either. Most pharmacies are big chains - on the east coast we have Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, I bet Wal-Mart has a pharmacies too. I am sure any of those big chains would fill that script.


5 posted on 04/28/2005 8:04:38 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Good article.


6 posted on 04/28/2005 8:07:12 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

All this means is that people will find pharmacists who will fill their prescriptions. Business continues as it should.


7 posted on 04/28/2005 8:08:07 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

It's actually very simple to write such a law, when one is dealing with a state-granted monopoly guild. Pharmacists, lawyers, physicians, psychologists, actuaries, school teachers in states w/o right to teach laws. . . are all subject to state pressure in a way the rest of us aren't: the state can declare that if they refuse a certain service, then their license is revoked.

(They could also have their fees set by the state, and there is an argument for doing so, since they do not really compete in a free market, drawing the advantage of their state-granted monopoly status. But that's a discussion for another time.)


8 posted on 04/28/2005 8:15:57 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will understand. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1FASTGLOCK45
Don't sell guns if you don't wanna sell me bullets

It's not that simple. And a gun store is not required by law to sell every gun and ammo manufactured. This would force people who have spent years training to be pharmacists to choose between their conscience -- which tells them not to prescribe life-ending euthanasia drugs, abortion pill drugs, or things like that -- to choose between their job and their conscience, or go to jail. That's not right. That's enforcing a law that says only liberals can be Pharmacists.

If you can't find what you want at one business, or you don't like the service, go to another one. If you live in rural America, there are many things you can't get locally. Just add one to the list. Abortion and euthanasia drugs are not emergency drugs. You can kill whomever it is you want to kill next week just as well as you can this week.

9 posted on 04/28/2005 8:16:26 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I don't understand it either. Most pharmacies are big chains - on the east coast we have Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, I bet Wal-Mart has a pharmacies too. I am sure any of those big chains would fill that script.

I know CVS and Walgreens have policies that allows their pharmacists the option of filling certain perscriptions.

10 posted on 04/28/2005 8:20:08 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The illinois governor by executive order did this a couple weeks ago, and there were a couple Freepers actually defend the governor. Besides the fact a governor has no such authority to impose such a law, it is just wrong on so many levels.


11 posted on 04/28/2005 8:22:32 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

The Ghost of FReepers Past wrote:
You can kill whomever it is you want to kill next week just as well as you can this week"

UUUM no thanks, then i'd have no friends to play with! hahaha.
This reminds me of those "Concscience objectors", Join the military then beg to get out. Come on, you knoww what your possibly going to get into. People aren't that dumb, they know sicko's are gonna wanna come in and purge their little babies out.


12 posted on 04/28/2005 8:23:52 AM PDT by 1FASTGLOCK45 (FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wmichgrad

"I believe that there is a law that states that employers cannot force their employees to perform a task at work that goes against their religious beliefs."

There is. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires reasonable accommodation of employees' religious objections. We got into a long argument over this the other day.

It seems that some folks don't like Civil Rights, even though they be for people of faith, if they interfere with the employers' right to fire whomever they please. In some peoples' opinions, it appeared as though no amount of accommodation would be considered "reasonable".

Fortunately for people of faith, the law of the land nevertheless offers a modicum of protection against religious discrimination in the workplace. If a reasonable accommodation can be made - that is, one that won't hurt the employer too much - it must.


13 posted on 04/28/2005 8:40:35 AM PDT by BMIC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
That's enforcing a law that says only liberals can be Pharmacists.

It's enforcing a law that says only people who don't let their personal beliefs get in the way of being pharmacists get to be pharmacists. If you can't do that, don't become a pharmacist.

When it becomes acceptable practice to morally object to your job and still keep it, I'm going to become an Old Order Mennonite and get a job at Radio Shack. "You can't make me sell that!"
14 posted on 04/28/2005 8:57:41 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: crail

So you only want pharmacists with no conscience? As long as they have no moral sense they proceed with their training? Or do you just mean that they have to 100% agree with YOUR conscience? I want to be clear on what you expect the law to demand.


15 posted on 04/28/2005 9:02:36 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
I want pharmacists who are pharmacists. period. When your at your job, do your job. If you can't get a new job.

Where would this your kind of logic really end? Environmental GM car salesmen who refuse to sell SUVs? Vegetarian grocery store checkout clerks that refuse to sell meat? Blockbuster clerks who take your DVD rental away and yell at you for not reading more books? Wouldn't want pacifists selling kitchen knives, but firing them over their morals seems cruel. How about the anti-smoking militia all getting jobs at convenience stores? That would be, um, convenient. It's stupid. Do your job or do something else.
16 posted on 04/28/2005 9:10:41 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: crail

Where does your kind of logic end? Are pharmacists just mindless servants of the government? Your idea leads to Nazi Germany. My idea respects freedom of conscience. You can come up with all the far-fetched scenarios you want, but this is about pharmacists who respect life. What's wrong with that? I want a pharmacist, a doctor, and all other health related professionals to respect life. That's precisely the kind of pharmacist I want. But you think your desire to kill yourself or your unborn child should trump what everyone else wants -- by force of law. Why can't you just go find a pharmacist who dispenses your life-ending drugs and leave the rest of us alone? Why must you impose your beliefs on others? Wasn't that the argument for abortion and "assisted suicide" in the first place? So where's that argument now? Now YOU want to impose YOUR beliefs. At least our beliefs are about protecting life, not ending it. In the case of abortion, the baby has no rights. So now you think the doctors and pharmacists should have no rights either. Who's next on your list?


17 posted on 04/28/2005 9:28:52 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
That's enforcing a law that says only liberals can be Pharmacists.

There are plenty of conservatives that do not approve of employees selecting which duties they will perform and which they will not.

If you can't find what you want at one business, or you don't like the service, go to another one.

That is not the point. If you want to work for a business that sells certain products, you should not be able to determine which of those products you will sell and which you will not. Would you hire workers who will not perform all the duties of the job? Should a food server be able to decline to serve food which he determines to be not appropriate for that customer?

18 posted on 04/28/2005 9:31:51 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I think if I owned a drug store though, and I couldn't fire my current pharmacist for not filling certain perscriptions due to his religious beliefs, I should have the option of hiring a second pharmacist with different beliefs to compliment the first. It makes business sense. That way I don't lose sales of any product to the neighboring drug store. Of course this would mean asking potential candidates about their religious beliefs and ruling them out if they aren't qualified on religious grounds.

I want one guy who won't sell RU-486 but will sell pain relievers. Next I want a masochist pharmacist who tries to sell RU-486 to every woman who comes through the door, but won't sell asprin because it kills the sweet, sweet pain.

Ying and Yang and all that stuff
19 posted on 04/28/2005 9:32:15 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Semper

No one is saying a company must hire one of these pharmacists. You are changing the argument. There is no MUST here. This is about whether or not the government can force all pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense these drugs when it violates their conscience. The MUST is on the side of the government. Can the government force people to choose between their job and their conscience? An employer can hire or not hire someone on these issues. Fine. But can (or should) the government trump them both and say "you must!"?


20 posted on 04/28/2005 9:38:31 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
...by force of law.

Hey I'd be OK with a pharmacist who won't sell the drugs if the employer is free, at any time, to fire him based on that decision, if it makes business sense. If the employer shares his beliefs, maybe you'll have your drug store and I'll have mine. Capitalism will sort out the rest. No force of law here. The pharmacists are *free* to object and be fired, to quit, and to find a new pharmacy where he fits in better with the employer. The employer is free to accept the objection, or fire based upon it. Just business. Pure capitalist freedom. Any other way and one of the two is not free. As to your objection to abortion, that's to be sorted out in legislature, not by taking away the freedom to make good business decisions.

Why must you impose your beliefs on others?

Because I believe in people doing what they are paid to do. If your not doing what your paid to do, what exactly are you doing getting paid?

Your idea leads to Nazi Germany.

How so?
21 posted on 04/28/2005 9:44:09 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
No one is saying a company must hire one of these pharmacists.

But if I'm correct and employer, by law, can't ask about moral/religious issues in a job interview. That makes it difficult to not hire someone who will then refuse to do part of what he was hired to do. I think this issue is really about those who object to RU-486, but RU-486 is legal for now, and objections to that should go through legislature. That would have the effect of *every* pharmacist not selling it. People who won't do what they were hired to do should be dealt with the same way as always.
22 posted on 04/28/2005 9:53:09 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
This is about whether or not the government can force all pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense these drugs when it violates their conscience.

The government determines the parameters of the pharmacists' job and issues a license. If the parameters of that job allowed individuals to determine which medicines they would dispense and which they would not, that would create chaos. If someone has a problem with dispensing any particular medicine, they should get a different job. That is why Christian Scientists are not pharmacists (they do not use medicines). But, are you saying that if a Christian Scientist wanted to be a pharmacist, they could get paid for not dispensing any medicine?

23 posted on 04/28/2005 9:56:50 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: crail
Hey I'd be OK with a pharmacist who won't sell the drugs if the employer is free, at any time, to fire him based on that decision, if it makes business sense. If the employer shares his beliefs, maybe you'll have your drug store and I'll have mine. Capitalism will sort out the rest. No force of law here. The pharmacists are *free* to object and be fired, to quit, and to find a new pharmacy where he fits in better with the employer. The employer is free to accept the objection, or fire based upon it. Just business. Pure capitalist freedom. Any other way and one of the two is not free. I agree. As to your objection to abortion, that's to be sorted out in legislature Not according to the Supremes. The legisture is out of the loop. The black-robed-rulers have said that it is a constitutional right to kill your unborn child. I am just waiting to see if that "right" trumps the conscience rights of others), not by taking away the freedom to make good business decisions.
24 posted on 04/28/2005 9:58:04 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Not according to the Supremes.

Well that's an entirely different problem, for an entirely different thread. In this case at hand I think, as usual, both sides have run amok and gone too far trying to protect the rights of one by limiting the rights of another. The only trick is left and right are backwards to the traditional norm and there's still no one screaming for the center.
25 posted on 04/28/2005 10:06:44 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: crail
Where exactly is the center on abortion? It's as either/or as an issue gets. Dead or alive? Every case involves two lives, so you can't put "the center" at killing some of the babies instead of all of the babies. Would it be acceptable to kill some of the mothers? Or some of the abortion doctors? Of course not. There is no center to this issue.

That said, I would ashamedly settle with killing some of the babies if we could save some. But there is nothing "center" about that for the babies who die. How about this center: Let mommy, doctor and baby all be euthanized at age 35. That way they all get half a life. There's the real center for you. The other way, the baby pays the whole price for the irresponsible actions of others.

26 posted on 04/28/2005 10:26:29 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Where exactly is the center on abortion?

Well this isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about abortion. As I said, that should be worked out in legislature, and if there is problems with legislature those are separate from this issue, which is about an inappropriate use of law.

This is about one side wanting to use the law to protect business freedoms by forcing pharmacists to sell drugs they don't agree with. And the other wanting to use the law to protect employee freedom by forcing businesses to continue to pay employees who won't do what they're told. The balance lies in not using the law to force anyone at all. Some pharmacists will be fired for not fulfilling their duties. Fine. They are very moral characters and deserve applause for taking the bullet based on personal held beliefs. I would say so in spite of the fact my beliefs may be different. Some businesses will choose not to sell RU-486 because many customers will get very upset and go elsewhere. Fine. That could be a good business decision. Others will sell it very discreetly. Sometimes a new pharmacy will open that sells everything to anyone. If the moral pharmacy goes out of business or changes to meet demands, that's capitalism.

This is entirely analogous to an environmentalist refusing to sell SUVs, and I don't think that's far fetched at all. I know we both know/know of people who would lie their way into a job as a car salesman where they would then get to say no to SUV buyers every day, and can't be fired for it.
27 posted on 04/28/2005 10:48:47 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

My aunt and uncle, Yasmin and Ru, worked at Honolulu's Longs Drugs store for years before being given their walking papers for refusing to sell two contraceptives that bore their names.

So they walked out of the store and kept on walking until they walked so fast that they broke into a jog. The next thing you know they were running, and running and running.

Today they're both accomplished marathon runners, fit as a fiddle.

I like stories with happy endings.


28 posted on 04/28/2005 10:59:44 AM PDT by RedwineisJesus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: crail
This is about one side wanting to use the law to protect business freedoms by forcing pharmacists to sell drugs they don't agree with.

Didn't we just have this conversation? It is not about protecting business freedoms. It is about government forcing businesses and pharmacists to do what the government tells them to do or lose their jobs, or go to jail. It's about giving pro-life pharmacists no options other than to quit their profession or live with intense guilt.

Personally, I think a pharmacy should accomdate an employee on these matters, but I don't have to shop at one that won't. It works the other way for those who think valuing life is a bad quality in a pharmacist.

Regarding the SUV analogy, I don't give a rip if my local car dealership employs people who refuse to sell them. If I want one I will find someone who will sell it. Big deal. If I live in an area with only one dealership I will travel to another. So what? They are likely to please as many people as they make mad.

I will avoid any and all businesses that have anything at all to do with RU-486. There are several products I don't buy and stores I don't shop at because of issues they support. On the subject of the abortion pill, there is a large market of principled people who want a pro-life pharmacist. Having such a person would be good for business. I'd drive quite a distance to support that buisness. I'd pass any number of unprincipled pharmacies to do it. Where's my choice? It's tied up in the freedom of the pharmacist.

29 posted on 04/28/2005 11:15:18 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RedwineisJesus
LOL!

As long as they are free to work elsewhere then fine. Sad, but fine. People like me can then boycott the pharmacy that fired them and take our business elsewhere.

30 posted on 04/28/2005 11:17:25 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
...quit their profession or live with intense guilt.

Life is filled with difficult decisions, and contradiction.

Government licenses pharmacists. Government determines what drugs can and can't be sold. In a way, government then has a hand in employing pharmacists in that it determines their duties. RU-486 is currently legal. Pharmacists are employed to sell drugs determined legal by the government, not to sometimes sell drugs based on their own ideas much as cops are hired to enforce the law, not decide on it. If one is opposed to this manifestation of the government, and can't perform the duties, don't work for it. If you're a pharmacist opposed to RU-486, go through the proper channels to make it illegal. Proper channels would include convincing a large number of voters to agree with you. Pharmacists on the other hand should do at work what they are paid to do at work... sell legal drugs to people who want them.
31 posted on 04/28/2005 11:45:42 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: crail
If you're a pharmacist opposed to RU-486, go through the proper channels to make it illegal.

In the meantime, though, you can watch your family starve because the new Nuremberg laws passed by the benevolent Party have declared that nobody with pro-life views is fit to be a pharmacist. Nobody with pro-life views is fit to be a judge, either.

Oh, and this isn't about "business freedoms". If it were, the same people backing these laws wouldn't be trying to make Catholic hospitals do abortions and dispense birth control -- which they are. It's not about freedom at all, in fact. "Join the Culture of Death or starve" is not freedom.

Oh, and, BTW, pharmacists are licensed by the government, but they are not government employees and do not take orders from the government. They are professionally obligated in some cases to refuse to sell some drugs to some people, so your thesis is entirely bogus.

32 posted on 04/28/2005 12:02:46 PM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: crail
Ah, so you really are for one-sided freedom. Freedom for those who agree with you. Maybe government should force television networks to air pornography. It's a legal product, and gov't gives licenses to broadcasters. Why should broadcasters make the product more difficult to come by?

Abortion is legal, so should every doctor be forced to provide those services?

There is a big difference between "you are free to do it" and "you must do it."

As far as "proper channels" goes, we've hit that subject too. There are no proper channels when the courts do the legislating. There is just tyranny. Over and over again pro-lifers win issues in the legislatures only to be overruled by the courts. We the people? Ha! They they judges.

33 posted on 04/28/2005 12:09:53 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Campion
...you can watch your family starve because the new Nuremberg laws...

Huh? Get a different job. You don't own your job... if you can't do it, do something else. If I were a fireman and suddenly became pro-my-own-life and refused to risk my life to save others I would be fired. One *could* consider this is an infringement of my freedom because I am forced to choose between living with this risk or lose my job, but one would be wrong to do so. I still have freedom... to quit and do something else.

pharmacists are licensed by the government, but they are not government employees

I didn't say they were government employees. I said quite clearly that the government has a hand in their employment as it determines what they employment entails... what drugs are legal.

They are professionally obligated in some cases to refuse to sell some drugs to some people...

Those cases don't include "I just don't want to."
34 posted on 04/28/2005 12:18:55 PM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Ah, so you really are for one-sided freedom.

I'm for freedom of people to do what they are free to do. If RU-486 is legal, one should be free to buy it at the pharmacy. If one has a problem with selling it, one is free to sell something less controversial, maybe sailboats. The only thing a pharmacist or anyone else isn't free to do is deny someone else's freedoms, especially when one's profession is to facilitate those freedoms. Your freedoms extend to where mine begin. But you remain free to change professions at any time.

Maybe government should force television networks to air pornography. It's a legal product, and gov't gives licenses to broadcasters.

Government sets the parameters under which pharmacists and broadcasters work. When they are given licenses they are expected to work under the parameters of that license. Airing porn is illegal. Selling RU-486 is not.

Over and over again... We the people? Ha! They they judges.

Again, different problem. Introducing new problems into pharmacy won't solve your problems with the courts.
35 posted on 04/28/2005 12:31:26 PM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: crail
But are broadcasters free to set stricter parameters? Should CBN be forced to air things like Desperate Housewives or Queer Eye? They are legal. They just violate the conscience of some broadcasters.

Alcohol is legal so maybe EVERY restaurant and grocerty store should be forced to sell them. Porn is legal, so maybe Bible bookstores should be forced to sell it. And hey, let's flip it around. Bibles are legal, so lets force all businesses that carry books to sell Bibles.

You have completely contradicted your post 21 where you said: Hey I'd be OK with a pharmacist who won't sell the drugs if the employer is free, at any time, to fire him based on that decision, if it makes business sense. If the employer shares his beliefs, maybe you'll have your drug store and I'll have mine. Capitalism will sort out the rest. No force of law here. The pharmacists are *free* to object and be fired, to quit, and to find a new pharmacy where he fits in better with the employer. The employer is free to accept the objection, or fire based upon it. Just business. Pure capitalist freedom. Any other way and one of the two is not free.

36 posted on 04/28/2005 12:46:50 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
You have completely contradicted your post 21

I haven't contradicted myself at all. What I described would work perfectly well. Customers are free to order RU-486 from elsewhere if the local pharmacy wouldn't sell it. I would hope that the local pharmacist could divorce his job from his personal life, but if not, go out of town, or online and order what he won't sell from elsewhere. I have a feeling many wouldn't be happy with that as it wouldn't impede anyone else from getting they personally object to.

However, if the government is licensing these guys, they *do* have a hand in their employment as the body that determines what employment entails. I would hope that the government would license people who perform that job as expected. I do have a problem with the government licensing people who don't perform the job as described. Being licensed is part of the job. The job is selling what the government determines is legal, for legal purposes.

But are broadcasters free to set stricter parameters?

Should cops be free to set stricter parameters delineating under what conditions they do their job catching bad guys?

It seems to me your problem is not with any law deciding who has freedom to sell or not sell RU-486, but with the law that makes RU-486 legal. I completely respect that if that is how you feel. But so long as current law says that it is legal, it shouldn't be unnecessarily difficult to obtain for legal purposes. This is the law as it currently stands, and while not everyone agrees with the law, those licensed and employed to enforce the law and facilitate freedoms should do just that. Their freedom doesn't extend to denying mine.
37 posted on 04/28/2005 1:14:59 PM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: crail
Should cops be free to set stricter parameters delineating under what conditions they do their job catching bad guys? It seems to me your problem is not with any law deciding who has freedom to sell or not sell RU-486, but with the law that makes RU-486 legal.

A cop is a gov't employee. A pharmacist is not. Besides, that's a very poor comparison on many levels. My CBN comparison was more accurate. Just because a product is legal doesn't mean it should be illegal to not provide it. A pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription in no way violates the right of the individual to get the product. It simply forces him to go elsewhere for it. That way, as you said earlier, both persons freedom is respected.

You are playing with the fact that a pharmacist must be licensed to insert the idea that the government is the employer and has total control over everything. That's just false. What a heavy handed government you envision. Under your theory, all obstetric doctors should be forced to perform abortions or quit. Some freedom.

38 posted on 04/28/2005 1:40:57 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Alcohol is legal so maybe EVERY restaurant and grocerty store should be forced to sell them. Porn is legal, so maybe Bible bookstores should be forced to sell it. And hey, let's flip it around. Bibles are legal, so lets force all businesses that carry books to sell Bibles.

Your reasoning is flawed. The analogy you set up changes the parameters - what would be more accurate would be a waiter serving or not serving alcohol or a clerk selling or not selling a book. First of all neither of those workers require a government license and secondly we are not talking about what a Pharmacy must or must not do, we are talking about an employee of that Pharmacy. An employee does not have the freedom to decide which duties of employment will be followed and which will not. The employee does have the freedom to find another job however.

39 posted on 04/28/2005 1:44:09 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Semper
secondly we are not talking about what a Pharmacy must or must not do, we are talking about an employee of that Pharmacy.

That may be what you are talking about, but it is not what this issue is about. This is about pharmacies and pharmacists that do not want to sell these life-ending drugs being forced to do so or having their licenses revoked by the government. This case is not about an employer wanting to fire an employee. It is about a politician wanting to take away licenses from those who refuse to dispense these drugs for reasons of conscience.

40 posted on 04/28/2005 1:55:02 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
A pharmacist is licensed to perform a job. It is government's job to decide what we are free to buy or not buy, not a pharmacist's. The government licenses pharmacists in order to facilitate the distribution of that which they have determined we are free to have. There is an agreement here. If pharmacists refuse to perform that duty, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the government reconsider licensing them.

Anyways, I have to head out. I doubt we'll ever resolve our different viewpoints. Perhaps the answer is to let pharmacists specialize, and put the specialization area on the license. Then every moderate sized city would have pharmacies with pharmacists of various specializations, and pro-lifers not specializing in areas that would require them to distribute RU-486. It would be much as when you find a strict Muslim working in licensed restaurants, but not as a bartender. In any case, it's been an interesting debate... all the best.
41 posted on 04/28/2005 2:00:05 PM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 1FASTGLOCK45
This isn't a perfect metaphore but you get the drift. Don't sell guns if you don't wanna sell me bullets.

It's not a perfect metaphor. A better metaphor would be, "Don't sell first aid materials if you don't wanna sell knives."

Pharmacies are in the business of despensing medicines for the purpose of helping people get well. Abortafacents kill innocent people. You shouldn't have to give up your desire to help people get well just because you refuse to aid in the slaughter of innocents.

Shalom.

42 posted on 04/28/2005 2:03:11 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
This is about pharmacies and pharmacists that do not want to sell these life-ending drugs being forced to do so or having their licenses revoked by the government..

From the first line of the Article which is the subject of this thread:

..the left -- which used to believe in respecting choice and requiring businesses to accommodate workers' personal preferences...

THAT is what this is about, requiring businesses to accommodate workers' personal preferences, and it appears you agree with that leftist principle since it suits your agenda. Do the ends justify the means? Would you tolerate a dictatorship if it eliminated abortion? Give it some serious thought.

43 posted on 04/28/2005 2:26:52 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

And what if a conception and subsequent consequences would seriously endanger the health of a woman? Who makes the decision about that health matter - a pharmacist, a lawyer, you, or the woman directly involved?


44 posted on 04/28/2005 2:34:45 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: crail

As I pointed out, it is not simply a job, but a profession that the state regulates. We do not want a society in which the state bars Christians, observant Jews, and others with stricter moral beliefs than the anything goes as long as the adults consent ethics of secular humanism from holding lucrative state-licensed professions.

Only those willing to perform abortions will get licenses to practice medicine, only those willing to dispense abortifacients get licenses to be pharmacists, only those willing to support judicial activism can be lawyers, only those willing to peddle the party line can be school teachers, any psychologist who treats a dissatisfied homosexual looses his or her license. . .

Exclusion of pious Christians and observant Jews from the professions is a secularist analog of the tactics of Islamic regimes in which perks are available only to Muslims, and should be opposed with the same vigor.

An employer should be able to fire folks who won't perform their jobs. The pious Christian pharmacist can find work from an employer who will either hire another pharmacist on the same shift so the conflice arises, or from a pious Christian pharmacy owner, or can set up his or her own business. The state should not enforce immoral behavior as a condition for professional licensure.


45 posted on 04/28/2005 3:53:34 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will understand. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

"so the conflice arises "

should have been "so the conflict does not arise"


46 posted on 04/28/2005 3:55:17 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will understand. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Semper
And what if a conception and subsequent consequences would seriously endanger the health of a woman? Who makes the decision about that health matter - a pharmacist, a lawyer, you, or the woman directly involved?

What if? Are you saying that you would respect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense such drugs in all other cases? I would support your desire to demand the pharmacist despense the drug if it would save the mother's life, but how would you set that up? Would the physician have to make a note on the perscription? Better yet, make all other abortions (read: child murder) illegal. That would take the guesswork out of it, wouldn't it?

But your argument is bogus anyway and I think you know it. The case of the morning after pill doesn't deal with life threatening issues. RU486 is probably not the most efficient method of killing a baby so it's not likely that the doctor would perscribe that method for a woman whose life is in danger. No, I think you know this is really a valid issue of conscience for people who do not want to be forced to be party to murder, and you don't want to address it on those terms.

Shalom.

47 posted on 04/29/2005 5:35:41 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

"""I will avoid any and all businesses that have anything at all to do with RU-486."""

Ahh ... give it up ... it's no use ... RU is everywhere.


48 posted on 04/29/2005 9:03:14 PM PDT by RedwineisJesus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson