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.
Excatly!
Beautifully said.
So let me get this straight: Because this woman who had a small child and a low-paying job chose to have sex outside marriage and (in a stunning display of stupidity) did so without using birth control, we should have the state force private businesses to carry inventory they don’t want to carry, and force individuals to commit acts they believe are murder. That’s the position you’re taking?
Um...so you think the right to conduct one's business as he wishes (controlling ones own store inventory, making ones own ethical decisions, deciding who ones own customer base will be) isn't an important right? Or is it just not as important as sexual convenience?
That I have no idea about.
What was I thinking, they can barely remember their names, much less the freedoms they used to pledge their lives to.
As I said, some people--even conservatives--will give up their most cherished principles to preserve sexual convenience.
It is amazing to me how many people’s idea of freedom is to have the government oppress others in order to make their personal lives easier.
“Druggists are not the enforcers of your or their views. If they are permitted to override your doctor’s determination of your medical needs you will have more to worry about than you are yammering about now.”
If druggists are not allowed to look at the complete history of a patient, the patient can die from mixing the wrong drugs. Most of the time one drug will be prescribed by one doctor and another drug will be prescribed by a different doctor. The job of the pharmacist is to prevent your death or incapacitation by different doctors that don’t know what each other is doing.
First, I think this policy sucks (this should answer your later questions).
Second, a person like Thompson who values federalism more than an amendment guaranteeing the right to life would, if he's consistent, oppose this federal judge's interference (my original point).
Third, on a purely legalistic, constitutional basis, no, it isn't an overreach in my opinion. It's not different, in principle, from requiring landlords to rent even to certain people of whom they vehemently disapprove on religious grounds. And, so far as I know, that regulation has been upheld.
But we shall see. If the courts overturn the policy I'll be very interested to see their reasoning.
And why in the world would we allow a standard where you can't force a guy to kill the enemy in time of war but you can force a healer to kill a child?
She says she was "just trying to be responsible." This the very picture of shifting her responsibility off onto other people who do not want to be legally forced to cooperate with her madcap, makeshift, miniscule morality ---people do not want to be legally forced to help any paying customer destroy their newly-begotten offspring.
So Suzanne, who had three whole days to get this stupid chemical into her system, turns out not to be pregnant anyway. Lucky girl. What do you think she should do now?
I'm sorry to sound so exasperated about this, but my 8th grader is more responsible than this.
Excellent ruling.
As much as Fred is a federalist, Fred is not overly extreme about it. Drugs are controlled at the federal level by the FDA and unless Fred comes out against the FDA, I think it is rather presumptuous to say that Fred would oppose this ruling. As much as Fred is a federalist, Fred is not real consistent in how he applies it. For some reasons the issue like abortion, gay marriage, and tort reform are three of the issues Fred seems to take his federalist position a bit extreme. I like Fred, but I don't see consistency.
Me too, that is why I posted a rather harsh statement early. I think it actually kept a few of them quiet because this is the tamest defense of such horrendous state policy which liberals are pushing.
It occurs to me that NO ONE should be forced to sell something they don’t want to. If it’s the guys Pharmacy, then he should get to decide what he does and does not sell, given that the Meds are all legal. The state can just go to hell.
Actually, I think you and I are actually in agreement on this--it's just that I think we again need to look at the bigger picture.
What business is it of the government to tell a business what it must carry or dispense? What business is it of the government to make us have to go through a Government-Licensed Pharmacist to get what a doctor has prescribed? Except for public-health concerns like antibiotics, there's no reason I should have to go through the government system any more than I should have to consult a Professional Geologist before picking up stones on the beach.
On the more pragmatic side, abortions will occur regardless (I recall when I was naive enough to think the warnings on the health-food store herbal products "Not for Pregnant Women" was a warning and not a sales pitch!), and it's probably better for all involved that a Plan B prevention of conception is better than an induced miscarriage.
To be fair, though, I am still struggling with the idea of life beginning at conception...I've offered thousands of prayers in hopes of an answer as to why God would find it in His will to create and discard so many babies. So many miscarriages occur without the mother even realizing she's pregnant...for what purpose?
In the same order. First, I would oppose that policy. If it were on an Initiaiative, I would vote against it. I would vote against politicians who vote for it. Can I make it any clearer that I wouldn't "agree" with it? I feel the same way about this drug regulation at hand.
Second, Thompson would (should) oppose a federal judge overruling it on grounds of federalism.
Third, it still wouldn't be an overreach on a purely legalistic, constitutional basis. That is, I don't see the difference, in principle, between regulating doctors this way and the WA regulation of pharmacies.
The problem I see is that Fred has a very "unextreme" pro-life position. I'm not saying the fellow isn't pro-life, but rather that he thinks federalism is more important than the right to life.
You're comparing the education it takes to become a beachcomber to that of a pharmacist?
When was the last time a beachcomber warned you about different types of foods causing an interaction with the handful of sand he just sold you?
A license is the consumer's only assurance that the guy filling the prescription isn't a quack.
Would you rather buy from a pharmacist who has a state embossed license hanging from his wall, or one carved in a piece of driftwood by a broken beer bottle?
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.