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

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Judge halts state's morning-after pill rules (drug stores CAN opt out)
The Associated Press (Via The News Tribune of Tacoma WA) ^ | 11/8/07

Posted on 11/08/2007 5:33:25 PM PST by llevrok

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-183 next last
To: Always Right
Great ruling, although there is a legion of Freepers who believe Pharmacists are ethically obligated to assist in murder.

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.

61 posted on 11/09/2007 3:58:58 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Thank you God!


62 posted on 11/09/2007 4:23:23 AM PST by proudofthesouth (Liberals want to turn this country and the world back into a feudal society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
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.

You're confused. States aren't mandating abortions. If or when state *government* starts coercing abortions, then your comment would make some sense.

63 posted on 11/09/2007 4:23:40 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
And if the druggist exercises his right to not want to do business with you, then go find a druggist who DOES want to do business with you. But don't go crying to big government to drop the hammer on the first druggist - - that's what Democrats do.

Bingo. Whether you are for or against abortion shouldn't even matter in this case. It is about individual rights of private ownership being able to sell what they want. If the market demands the product, someone will sell it.
64 posted on 11/09/2007 5:09:02 AM PST by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: djf

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.


65 posted on 11/09/2007 5:12:06 AM PST by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

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.


66 posted on 11/09/2007 5:27:32 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
Isn’t “Plan B” in the criminal world usually the one that says, rather than try to make a clean escape, you kill all the witnesses?
67 posted on 11/09/2007 5:37:33 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
You--- forgive me --- create the impression that you think the pharmacist is an automaton, and the doctor is God.

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.

68 posted on 11/09/2007 5:40:17 AM PST by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: djf
"What if a young pharmacist just out of med school decides he doesn’t want to give life saving drugs to people over 45 because he wants to get his social security?"

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.

69 posted on 11/09/2007 5:58:59 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Geez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Snoopers-868th
"...the pharmacist is an automaton, and the doctor is God"
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.

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".

70 posted on 11/09/2007 6:07:29 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Geez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

It is NOT “tantamount” to abortion....it IS abortion!


71 posted on 11/09/2007 6:10:28 AM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1; Always Right

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)


72 posted on 11/09/2007 6:12:31 AM PST by MortMan (Have a pheasant plucking day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Perhaps the ruling will have some significant effects, as pharmicist with a little moral value step up to the plate.


73 posted on 11/09/2007 7:01:44 AM PST by Marine_Uncle (Duncan Hunter for POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
74 posted on 11/09/2007 7:13:00 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

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.


75 posted on 11/09/2007 7:24:49 AM PST by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendment 13, Section I, Constitution of the United States of America

76 posted on 11/09/2007 7:53:01 AM PST by TNPatriot (No arsenal ... is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow; NYer; Coleus

ping


77 posted on 11/09/2007 7:57:51 AM PST by AliVeritas (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate," says Osteen....

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.

78 posted on 11/09/2007 8:03:25 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Almondjoy
Since when does a state get to violate constitutional rights?

Which provision guarantees a druggist the right to pick and choose which drugs to sell?

79 posted on 11/09/2007 8:09:30 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
States aren't mandating abortions.

I don't see how that's relevent to my application of Thompson's federealism position.

80 posted on 11/09/2007 8:18:50 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-183 next 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