'Choice' means no choice

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?

...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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

...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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.