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 Washingtons 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.
Its part of a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a drugstore owner, who claim in a lawsuit that the states 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.
No really, I think a pharmacy should be free to decided what to sell and what not. But I also believe that if a pharmacy owner decides to sell the pill then any pharmacist working for him should either sell it or find another job.
Thank you God!
You're confused. States aren't mandating abortions. If or when state *government* starts coercing abortions, then your comment would make some sense.
You are mixing 2 entirely different things. In the first case the pharmacist does not want to sell the product to anyone.
Your example is that they should be able to sell something but not to certain people. These are not the same issues.
Right - there’s a difference. The owner should be allowed to determine what he legally sells in his business. And that goes both ways - no one should be able to force him to sell something he finds morally unconscionable, and no one should be able to force him to hire employees who WON’T sell his stuff.
This concept might not be a bad thing. Let the doctor dispense reproductive drugs if they want to prescribe them. Same for fertility drugs. The doctors can then suffer or not via his business/ethical decisions.
1) The example is ludicrous, and shows a lack of good arguments
2) If it were so, the customer should go to Pharmacy B, and never go to Pharmacy A again.
3) And for good measure, boycott Pharmacy A into bankruptcy.
It's a free country.
See mine at #69. Everybody is entitled to make ethical decisions according to the ethics of their own profession. The doctor can refuse to participate in abortion. Ditto the pharmacist. The customer can select professionals that have no ethics other than self-advantage (matching her own.) There. Everybody's happy.
BTW, the ethics of government--- according to America's founding document, anmyway ---- involves the protection of the self-evident and inalienable right to life. "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Thus a return to ethical behavior should eliminate the option of killing our --- to use a Constitutional word ---- "posterity".
It is NOT “tantamount” to abortion....it IS abortion!
I believe the actual sentiment being remarked upon is when an employee of a pharmacy refuses to provide prescriptions that the business owner (whether local joe or conglomerate mel) has declared will be vended. The employee sued, and lost. The owner was the defendant, not the plaintiff, IIRC.
In cases where the business owner was the plaintiff, I don’t believe I have seen such sentiment expressed here. (And if I did, I may have simply chosen to repress the memory ;-P)
Perhaps the ruling will have some significant effects, as pharmicist with a little moral value step up to the plate.
We should try to keep politics out of our dialog here on the facts of the matter.
You are correct and most people who understand law also understand that the whole practical point of doing away with the poor Roe vs. Wade decision as a legal matter is to put it back in the jurisdiction of the 50 states.
Thompson’s position is the only teneable one. There will not be a federal law to ban abortion. We can work toward something along those lines but that’s not the tactical reality.
Amendment 13, Section I, Constitution of the United States of America
ping
That is a reasonable position, one I agree with even, and, if that'd been the reason Thompson gave, I wouldn't have blinked an eye. But it's not and it's his logic I was talking about. He gave two reasons, one of them being that he thinks federalism is more important than the right to life.
Which provision guarantees a druggist the right to pick and choose which drugs to sell?
I don't see how that's relevent to my application of Thompson's federealism position.
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.