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

Skip to comments.

Poll: Should pharmacists have the right to not give the morning after pill if they morally object?
The State Journal Register ^ | October 15, 2007 | Dean Olsen

Posted on 10/15/2007 7:41:49 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded

The story is on top and the poll is on the bottom


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: challenge; conscienceclause; moralabsolutes; objections; pharmacist; pharmacy; planb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last
To: SpaceBar

That article was about the state forcing businesses and their pharmacists to sell abortifacients(morning after pill). It wasn’t about a corporation forcing a pharmacist to do so on its own. I read that WallyMart has opposed being forced to sell these drugs through its drug stores only to have several states vote to force them to do it. Not all Wal marts in all states sell the drugs for example.

This is about unbridled state power trying to coerce the will and co-opt the consciences of its care givers and pharmacists!


101 posted on 10/16/2007 4:02:58 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Witter
Making a pharmacist who does not want to prescribe this is against his moral or religious freedom.

You do not have "religious freedom" in the sense that you mean it.

Jesus Christ promised us persecution and hatred.

He did not promise us a job as a pharmacist.

102 posted on 10/16/2007 4:16:34 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of troubles, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Certainly we are all obligated to follow our own fully-informed consciences, and certainly above any merely-human law. But we are also obligated to accept the societal consequences for acting on our consciences.

Funny that many who claim to be motivated by their conscience are not any modern-day Henry David Thoreau's. The primed-for-a-fight-to-the-death tax-evaders from New Hampshire readily come to mind.

103 posted on 10/16/2007 7:31:43 AM PDT by Hornitos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Gee, why not accord the same right to conscience to pharmacy workers as you do to consumers? Why get your panties in a bunch over one group and not the other?
104 posted on 10/16/2007 7:31:51 AM PDT by Hornitos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hornitos
"Gee, why not accord the same right to conscience to pharmacy workers as you do to consumers?"

No one forced the pharmacists to accept employment that they find offensive. The customer shouldn't have to ask the religion of his pharmacist before deciding which pharmacist to use. We don't allow churches to distribute prescription drugs in this country.

105 posted on 10/16/2007 7:56:28 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

A pharmacist job has a lot more to do than just working retail. Doctors call them to ask about drugs.

I think you can argue a point without insulting so many.


106 posted on 10/16/2007 8:23:48 AM PDT by Witter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

In the case here in WA State....the PHARMACIST OWNS THE BUSINESS!!!!


107 posted on 10/16/2007 8:57:03 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5

What if the Pharmacist OWNS THE STORE?????


108 posted on 10/16/2007 8:58:34 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

It’s not up to the pharmacists, but it should be up to the owners of the pharmacy.


109 posted on 10/16/2007 8:59:00 AM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Should Muslim cabdrivers be able to refuse passengers transporting alcohol?


110 posted on 10/16/2007 9:02:48 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

If a pharmacist cannot, in good conscience, do that part of his job, he should be required to refer the customer to someone who can and will. It is not the pharmacist’s job to determine what medicines are necessary or legitimate.


111 posted on 10/16/2007 9:03:35 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Change the question to “Should sporting goods store owners have the right to not sell guns if they morally object?” or “Should bookstore owners have the right to not sell the Bible if they morally object?” and see how many liberals suddenly discover individual rights. :)

And the answer to all three questions is “yes.” Your store. Your property. Your rules.


112 posted on 10/16/2007 9:05:52 AM PDT by VirginiaConstitutionalist (Socialized medicine kills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
"In the case here in WA State....the PHARMACIST OWNS THE BUSINESS!!!!"

Then he can do whatever he wants.

113 posted on 10/16/2007 9:48:51 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

Yeah...well...here in commie land these pharmacist/business owners are now FORCED by the gov’t to sell the morning after pill.....


114 posted on 10/16/2007 10:39:47 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
1) The distasteful fact that the drug is legal does not give you or anyone else the right to buy it at a particular store.

2) Your arguement is flimsy and I already answered it at post #70.

115 posted on 10/16/2007 3:52:59 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
IF A PRODUCT IS LEGALY SOLD IN A STORE I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEGALY BUY IT. (period)

I’m not saying stores should be forced to stock it, but many pro-choice persons would make that argument. My argument is about the right to purchase an item from a store. If an employee of that store has an issue with selling the product, they need to be fired.

If this was about guns, ammo, liquor, or even a Bible, you would be outraged if a clerk refused to sell you the item you intended to buy.

116 posted on 10/16/2007 4:03:19 PM PDT by chaos_5 (Fred & Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: COgamer; Getready
Rather than grabbing one line out of context in an effort to argue against a point I never made may I recommend: 1)read what was actually written, and 2) jump on the band wagon against Rush for his “phony soldiers” comment. Given what you did with what I wrote it seems reasonable that you agree with the media on that one.

As to the second part of your comment, it has already been addressed by me in post 70 and more specifically and eloquently by Getready in post 77.

117 posted on 10/16/2007 4:20:23 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
IF A PRODUCT IS LEGALY SOLD IN A STORE I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEGALY BUY IT. (period)

I’m not saying stores should be forced to stock it, but many pro-choice persons would make that argument. My argument is about the right to purchase an item from a store. If an employee of that store has an issue with selling the product, they need to be fired.

If this was about guns, ammo, liquor, or even a Bible, you would be outraged if a clerk refused to sell you the item you intended to buy.

If you would like, I can direct you to a site where they teach you how to set font size. Shouting even "louder" will add to the quality of your argument.

You really need to slow down and read not only what others have written, but what you have written. You said that if a drug is legal you should have the RIGHT to buy it (I used caps because italics don't seem to register with you). You don't. You then said you should be able to buy a legal product. I agree; never said you couldn't. But even so it is not a RIGHT. Words have meaning, that is why that Webster guy keeps making that fat book of yours, the one w/ the thick dusty layer.

And now you have said a person "should be fired if they have an issue with selling a the product"? Ladies and gentlemen - it is precisely because of people like chaos_5 here that we need legal protection for pharmacists who object to selling abortafacient drugs. We have "progressed" to the point where not liking the practice should get one fired.

Lastly, just to fill you in on facts that you seem not to have: there are bookstores that do not sell bibles. If a gun store owner has reason to believe a gun or ammunition will be used to kill someone they have a moral and legal obligation not to sell them . If a bartender sells to a person who is drunk they can be held legally accountable if that person gets behind the wheel and does damage, injures or kills.

Lastly, please do not tell me what you have decided "I would be" based on your poor conclusions and warped thinking. It only adds to the list of things where you don't know what you are talking about.

118 posted on 10/16/2007 4:55:03 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
You are being a pompous ass.

But, there is no need to digress to name calling. I'll take your point about "a right to buy", but you seem to be intentionally missing my point.

An employee does not have a right to be employed. If they are refusing to sell the wears of a store, for moral objections, then they ought to find a different store to work at.

Inject all the moral observations and values judgments you like for justifying why you feel it is wrong to buy or sell the "morning after" pill, if doses not change the underlying argument about weather or not an employee at a store can refuse to sell a product.

When you get right down to it, yes, they have a right to do so. But, exercising that right should lead to termination of employment.

Yes, there are stores that do not sell Bibles, and they have a right not to sell them. But, if I was trying to buy a Bible at the book store and some atheist, with a face full of metal, was refusing to ring me up, I dam guarantee you I would raise hell for it.

119 posted on 10/16/2007 5:21:22 PM PDT by chaos_5 (Fred & Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
I have a question that I think has some parallel relevance :

Should the government compel businesses to allow employees to have a particular portion of the week off of work based on their sincerely held religious beliefs?

Well, you can still answer the question, but the government has already addressed this issue.

Or how about another situation; anyone ever hear of contentious objectors? A soldiers’ function is to kill people and break things. But the military will allow someone to opt out under certain circumstances.

Yes, yes – I know. There are loopholes aplenty. Size restrictions w/ the first one based on undue burden. With the second example there is the draft vs volunteer issue. And I am sure there are others I haven’t thought of. That doesn’t change the fact that there is precedent aplenty that provides latitude for the free exercise of religion superceding the interest of the “employing” organization.

120 posted on 10/16/2007 5:22:31 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Should Muslim cabdrivers be able to refuse passengers transporting alcohol?

Here's my quick thought on it. If they own their own private cab, I think they should have a right to refuse. However, if it's a company cab, then no, they shouldn't. Also, if they have contractual agreements to service an area, say an airport, then no they should not be able to deny service for "moral" reasons.

In my opinion, private business owners should have the right to discriminate. I still maintain my argument that individual employees to not have that right, with out consequence [being fired].

121 posted on 10/16/2007 5:37:32 PM PDT by chaos_5 (Fred & Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
But I'm the pharmacist so I'm going to apply it another way: ... I'm not dispensing it, it's just that simple. You can shut up and go to some other damn pharmacy but you will not get it by my hand.

Can you honestly say that telling a customer to "shut up and go away" is appropriate? That's not very professional, and I'm sure management would not appreciate it's employees behaving like that.

122 posted on 10/16/2007 5:42:55 PM PDT by chaos_5 (Fred & Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
LOL - at least my title has the qualifier of pompous.

I already asked you to read what has been written. You didn't, did you. You were in such a rush to say that I am intentionally missing the point that you don’t know you are off target by 180 degrees. I have addressed this issue, and at least one other person has addressed it better. Now blow the dust off in case you hit any big words like "right" and go read. And BTW, saying over and over again that refusing to sell a drug should lead to termination does not make it "right". (it's a synonym, look it up).

Once again, for the 3rd or 4th time, perhaps more; it is asinine to equate an atheist not selling bibles (regardless of how much facial hardware person has - and what has that got to do with it anyway?!?), or a Muslim not scanning pork, with this situation. You and others insist on banging the crap out of this one like it is a big logical drum. It's a pie plate, And it has a hole torn in it to boot!

123 posted on 10/16/2007 5:46:00 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5

Go look up “rhetorical”. It’s under R.


124 posted on 10/16/2007 5:48:46 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
Go look up “rhetorical”. It’s under R.

rhe·tor·i·cal
–adjective
1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.

125 posted on 10/16/2007 5:54:35 PM PDT by chaos_5 (Fred & Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
Ahh, I think I see the problem... in your special dictionary if I look up pompous ass will it say: "anyone smarter than a box of rocks"? Buh Bye now!
126 posted on 10/16/2007 6:00:36 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republic's warped and obscure humor needs since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last

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