Posted on 11/08/2007 5:33:25 PM PST by llevrok
ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 8th, 2007 01:07 PM
A federal judge has suspended Washington’s requirement that pharmacists sell “morning-after” birth control pills. The injunction says pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill, referring a customer instead to a nearby source.
It’s part of a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a drugstore owner, who claim in a lawsuit that the state’s birth-control sales rules violated their civil rights.
The morning-after pill, sold as “Plan B,” can dramatically lower the risk of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Some critics consider the pill tantamount to abortion, although it has no effect on women who are pregnant.
It is disconcerting to believe that pharmacists don’t know that the mechanism of action is primarily prevention of ovulation or the production of an ovum which is more resistant to fertilization. Perhaps there is another reason?
“Published evidence clearly indicates that Plan B can interfere with sperm migration by altering the cervical and uterine environment, and that preovulatory use of Plan B usually suppresses the LH surge either completely or partially, which in turn either prevents ovulation or leads to the release of ova that are resistant to fertilization. Epidemiological evidence rules strongly against interruption of fallopian tube function by Plan B. Evidence that would support direct involvement of endometrial damage or luteal dysfunction in Plan B’s contraceptive mechanism is either weak or lacking altogether. Both epidemiologic and clinical studies of Plan B’s efficacy in relation to the timing of ovulation are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Plan B acts to prevent implantation.”
JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/14/1775
Slippery slope, what’s next? Bring your wife and your marriage license to the pharmacy to fill your viagra prescription?
“A potentially problematic issue is pharmacies that prohibit the sale of emergency contraception, even when they sell ordinary birth control pills,” says Cynthia Dailard, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. “There is no rational reason to single out emergency contraception for less favorable treatment than other contraceptive pills. Both types of pills work in the same way to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, and how they work depends more on when in a woman’s menstrual cycle the pills are taken than on when the woman last had sexual intercourse.”
See this one?
“By the time Suzanne Richards, 21, finally got another pharmacy to fill her morning-after pill prescription — after being rejected by a drive-through Brooks Pharmacy in Laconia, N.H., one late Saturday night in September — the 72 hours had long passed.”
“When he told me he wouldn’t fill it, I just pulled over in the parking lot and started crying,” said Richards, a single mother of a 3-year-old who runs her own cleaning service. “I just couldn’t believe it. I was just trying to be responsible.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27_2.html
My advice for lunkheads like you would be to go find another pharmacist willing to aid and abet your miserable excuse for a lifestyle.
Well then, he wouldn't have to worry about social security after a short while, since he won't get an SS if he never pays in, due to not being able to stay in business because he refuses to sell to the age group who makes up the largest share of pharmaceutical customers.
I believe that would be one of those unenumerated rights reserved to the people.
“I expect Senator Thompson won’t like this ruling.”
Your an idiot, but then, you must have already known...
” Once the regulatory law says they all must carry and sell all legal drugs, the issue becomes moot.”
A pharmacy would go out of business if they had to carry ALL legal drugs. They couldn’t afford it...
So far as I know, states have plenary authority to regulate economic activity except where it would contravene some specific prohibition. Can you point to even a single example of the Court rejecting a state regulation based on the 9th or 10th Amendment?
Learn to spell, idiot.
Now, to just do away with the state and feds being involved in the pharmacy system altogether, except for public health reasons such as overuse of antibiotics... It's a much deeper question.
I shouldn't have to rely on a physician or pharmacist who might or might not decide to allow me treatment.
Slippery slope, what’s next? Bring your wife and your marriage license to the pharmacy to fill your viagra prescription?
I think we need Licensed Sporting Goods Dispensers who can refuse to sell ammo.
Bit-by-Bit, the heat is turned up, the frog is cooking, and the sheeple don't recall the days back when they had rights.
So the states should force physicians and pharmacists to assist in procedures they consider murder?
Depending on how you wish to broadly you wish to interpret the phrase "state regulation", Griswold v. Connecticut comes to mind, insofar as Goldberg, with Brennan and Warren concurring, appealed to the 9th amendment to argue that the law against using contraceptives was an unconstitutional invasion of the unenumerated right to privacy within the marriage relationship. This argument, was extended to the PRESCRIPTION of contraceptives by the Court through appeal to the juxtaposition of Sect. 54-196 with Sect. 53-32, whereby the state of Connecticut had applied 54-196....
"Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
....to fine the physician (Buxton) who had advised contraception to several married couples. Hence, state regulations overturned by the SCOTUS on appeal to the 9th amendment (in part).
the [unenumerated] number of rights to free activity, including economic activity, which comprise the concept of "liberty." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments cover it:And that is a very strong claim. MDO is saying that "free economic activity" is a right protected by the 9th and 10th. Obviously this could only be a restriction on the states since the Constitution gives the feds explicit regulatory authority on interstate and foreign trade. So, have there been cases where federal courts have invalidated state regulations because they interfere with the unenumerated right to free economic activity? For example, I know porn shops have contested restrictions on free speech grounds (and lost), but have they ever prevailed on the basis of free economic activity?
So, the state can tell a person, "You have a choice between giving up your livelihood or doing something that your faith teaches is child murder," and you don't think that's an overreach for the state?
but rather that pharmacies must carry certain drugs to be licensed
The state should be able to dictate the specific inventory of a private business?
and if you can't accept the licensing restrictions, find some other line of work.
So the state does all this in order to accomplish what? To ensure no woman experiences the horror of having to go to more than one pharmacy to find a particular medication?
If Washington State decides that doctors should have to offer abortions at their office site in order to be licensed, is that OK with you?
My, it seems you have quite a high opinion of yourself, believing that your ability to choose a particular product obligates someone else to sell you that product even if they'd prefer not to. Are you the king of the world?
Do you run a business? If so, how would you feel if I walked into your business, demanded a product you've chosen not to seel, and then berated you for not selling it to me, saying I care nothing for your opinions because you're a glorified [fill in product class here] vending machine? For example, if you ran an antique bookstore, should I be able to bitch and moan and get the state to force you to sell me the latest Harry Potter book? After all, aren't you merely a book-dispensing machine, given that Amazon does the same job without even talking to me?
Did you know that in a purely economic sense, fascism is a system where you own your stuff but the state reserves the right to tell you waht to do with it? That's what the system was in Mussolini's Italy, a lot of factory owners unable to do anything but fill government orders.
Hmmmm...
So, you can only go to one pharmacist? Also, let's say a doctor prescribes oxycontin for a patient and the pharmacist suspects the patient is addicted. He can't refuse to fill the script in your world, right?
Well said!
Hooooooo-boy!
First, any pharmacist who did that would be in violation of his oath.
Second, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, who gives a rat's patoot if he does do that? Do you think the 46 year old is just going to go home and die, or do you think he's going to go get his meds somewhere else? And how many customers do you think the pharmacist will have when word gets around that he's refusing to help customers live to see the age of 46? How many elderly people are going to go buy their non life-saving drugs from him when they find out he wishes them dead? Would you buy your viagra or arthritis meds from a guy who hopes you die so his retirement goes better? Who will trust his work? How many people under the age of 45 would boycott his stupid ass? I sure would.
It looks like you're posting from an alternate universe where there's only one pharmacist in existence and all pharmacy customers act like poorly programmed robots. If that's the case, please let me know so I can call in some physicists to study this interdimensional phenomenon.
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.