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.
But that is never the situation that brings up the discussion. These discussion are always started when a state steps in and tries to force it down the throats of businesses and pharmacists.
Because the states are infringing on individual rights.
You mean like the right to life which the HLA would ensure but Thompson opposes on a federalism basis? Are you seriously suggesting that Thompson thinks being able to pick and choose which drugs you sell is a more important right than not being snuffed out in your mother's womb because you're considered inconvenient? And not only that, but also it's so much more important that it overrides a preference for federalism? Well, maybe, but I hope he doesn't have such inverted values.
I’d have to read the briefs, but I believe the complaint alleges violations of civil rights laws.
Do you expect any candidate for POTUS this year to run opposing civil rights laws?
Well, Thompson is opposed to a prospective civil rights law, name the HLA. And his opposition is not based on some flaw in the HLA itself. One of the reasons he's advanced is that, on federalism grounds, the decision about how to regulate abortion should be left to the states. It seems improbable to me that Thompson would consider picking and choosing what drugs you sell is a more important right than not being killed for the supposed lifestyle convenience of your mother. If federalism precludes the latter from being consideration as a national matter, certainly it does the former.
Ping.
Not the same, for too many reasons to count. But here's the head of National Right to Life:
“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Osteen. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitutional], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”
No, he was saying that the right of the business owner to decide what to sell was a greater right than any obligation to sell legal medication.
I agree. I don’t oppose plan B (I don’t support it either), but since there’s an argument over it I support individual choice in whether to provide it as a product.
If a woman feels it necessary, she can buy a supply to keep on hand, or find a pharmacy that doesn’t object.
Good for Washington...but I was so hoping this was happening in Illinois. We need somebody to override outr governor’s fascism on this issue.
Since when does a state get to violate constitutional rights?
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Because it violates the US Constitution.
Any more questions?
Yes it is!
But I suspect that the State will rewrite it's laws regarding what pharmacies are required by law to do, and this issue will return. Once the regulatory law says they all must carry and sell all legal drugs, the issue becomes moot.
They beat this one because the law did not say that.
So this is not yet over...The fight is only delayed.
No, they're out there and if they're trolls, they're deep cover trolls. There are Freepers who believe that a pharmacist has a duty to fill a script that overrides his conscientious objection and his right to control inventory.
Never underestimate the compromises people--even conservatives--will make in their principles in order to preserve sexual convenience.
Then you need to get your monitor fixed. I've had several freepers tell me that pharamcists should fill the script, period, and they weren't talking about employees, they were talking about all pharmacists, including owners. They even kept it up after I posted the pharmacists's oath, IIRC.
I expect that you will be referred to as an ignoramus.
The injunction says pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill, referring a customer instead to a nearby source.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
It’s a double edged sword though.
What if a lady who has four children already goes to the pharmacy to get a prescription for a fertility enhancing drug and the pharmacist thinks the world is already overpopulated and won’t give it to her?
There’s a gazillion reasons and personal beliefs that might make somebody refuse to give a prescription.
WOW. I’ve lived in WA since 1985, and have never once witnessed a (publicized) victory for the life side. Will it stand?
Exactly. I’d be grossly surprised that we have many here on FR who would advocate forcing a private business to sell something they don’t want to.
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.