Posted on 07/11/2009 7:35:55 PM PDT by WhiteCastle
The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the Supreme Court to consider — and likely soon. The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills, which causes the abortion of an embryo in the early days of a pregnancy. The pharmacy owners had objected, claiming that the law violated their religious practice:
This is further than any state provision has gone. States have allowed pharmacy owners to skirt the issue by not carrying the drug at all.
any OTHER state provision I mean.
What is it that makes Washington state so kooky.
If this precedent is allowed to stand, in the future pharmacies in Oregon will be forced to fill prescriptions for physician assisted suicides.
Imported Californians.
Murdering socialist bookmark.
The 9th. Circus strikes again. That court would be a joke if its consequences weren’t so serious.
The drugs ~ they’re at the end of the supply line so they get all the contaminated stuff.
**What is it that makes Washington state so kooky.**
they’re Downwind of San FranSicko???
I would bet that the supreme court will never look at the case. What is the constitutional question????
Forcinbg a business to sell a product? Why not force fast food outlets to sell it too?
Exactly. Under which constitutional authority does Kali or anyone have the right to demand anyone sell anything?
Geez just like the Mafia...Do like we say or will Bust up the place...I’m sure some of Barry’s ACORN thugs will be glad to do the grunt work........
To operate a pharmacy in Washington (or any state) you have to be licensed under state law. States can set conditions to obtaining those licenses — question here was, ‘was this a valid condition’. Very much like the implied consent all of us give to have our blood alcohol tested when we become licensed drivers — if we don’t want to agree to the terms of the license (pharmacy or vehicle operator), sell aspirin or take the bus.
You are correct, somo people like to fight the same fight over and over again.http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=139338
” States can set conditions to obtaining those licenses “
Yes, but regulation for the purpose of public safety is not the same as running a business to include all aspects of product offerings.
P.S. Your logic is flawed in that you assume the government can dictate anything. They have limited powers.
Before you crow victory too loudly for your death partners, keep in mind that most cases appealed from the 9th to the US Supreme Court are overturned. No other circuit has such an enviable record.
Of course, government can dictate all kinds of things — try carrying your 9mm into a federal courthouse or selling antibiotics out of the trunk of your car. I did not, however, say or imply that government can dictate everything. Of course it can’t. But the issue on the morning after pill is the tension between the government’s established authority to set terms and conditions for sale of pharmaceutical drugs through a licensed network of dealers (which is usually justified on grounds of public safety, incidentally) and the individual constitutional rights of the pharmacists. I don’t pretend to know what the Supreme Court will decide if it gets this case but it’s not simply a matter of pharmacists being able to tell the state ‘you’re not the boss of me’.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Totally bizarre. You cannot force a physician to learn how
to or do an operation (especially if they disagree with the idea of
it)....sex “change” is a good example. You cannot force
a patient to take treatment, even if the treatment will
help them. How is it you can force someone to dispense a
“poison” just cause someone wants it?
If they want the “poison” that bad, let them go get it where
they can.
If someone comes to your store and says they want to commit suicide, are
you required to sell them the legally traded poisons so they can
swallow it?
One thing this law will do if it continues, it will allow those
who don’t mind reproducing to take over.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that legal pros
shouldn’t tell heath professionals what is healthy to a fetus.
When are they going to pass a law that makes someone
able to sue these lawmakers when THEY write a law
that causes harm? I mean sue them personally. Especially
if you can prove they made the law based on a bribe or
quid pro quo type of thing. I am sure
they would be more circumspect about the laws they write.
The state has the right to insist on making "controversial" drugs available as part of the pharmacy license.
And this is a perfectly reasonable approach. Think about what happens in rural areas where there might be only one pharmacy in a town. The concept of "go someplace else" is just plain not viable there. Or if there are two and they both decide not to carry any particular drug.
Just to make it a little less emotional, what happens if your pharmacist decides that Viagra is "not Christian" for some reason? God has told you to slow down, but you want to ignore Him.
Instead of telling the customer to "go somewhere else", tell the pharmacist to switch to running a 7-11 instead of a drug store if he wants to control the morality of his customers.
“government’s established authority to set terms and conditions for sale of pharmaceutical drugs through a licensed network of dealers “
Actually, the government has no constitutional authority to regulate in-State commerce and they have abused their constitutional interstate commerce authority, which was not to regulate products but to regulate State actions and primarily taxation.
Second, we are talking about what companies do not want to sell not what they do want to sell. By no means does the government have the authority to mandate someone sell anything. What are they going to do, grab people in the middle of the night and say, “You’re coming with us, you’ve got some selling to do!”?
“The state has the right to insist on making “controversial” drugs available as part of the pharmacy license. “
“The concept of “go someplace else” is just plain not viable there.”
They do? Under what authority? Please state the Constitutional phrase that gives them that authority.
Your logic would then dictate the government can tell a Ford dealer they must carry Chevy trucks because it would be unfair to be the only car dealer in town or that one bank must honor the accounts of another bank in a town 20 miles away or that one airline must honor the ticket of another airline that doesn’t fly to that town.
The government has no right to dictate commerical business practices outside of public safety, criminal law, and taxation. Anything else is just government owned business and that is Marxism.
Sorry, out of stock. Check with me next week.
Washington is a great state.
Many of the elected officials, however, are not great.
Let the customers go shop around to different pharmacies.
They do not have any right to force any given pharmacy owner to stock and dispense drugs that kill babies.
“Plan B”: Price, $3000 per pill.
All profits donated to pro-life groups.
Wonder how that fits their fascist little law?
They probably have that covered too with a mandate
that includes price controls.
“You are ordered to sell *** for $*.**.”
People who claim to be against slavery have legislated it.
You did crow through your assertions.
Wrong!!!!!
That’s what you are.
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.