Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The sanctity of life should be applauded by real Republicans whenever someone takes up the cause...THAT is why you are a RINO.
You are presuming that if you can't prevent a murder, then it must be ok to participate in one, since the outcome is the same regardless.
It is not.
You can't remove the murder aspect of this decision and reduce the equation to "would you steal". The question is would you steal to avoid giving a murderer the murder tool they intend to use on an innocent victim.
No, not to me. Only morning after drugs that could intefere with a fertilized egg would be murder to me.
But I do respect that Roman Catholics view birth control as immoral, even though I dissagree with them.
Sorry, excommunications don't work anymore...
No, of course not... This shows that a fetus isn't a human being in the Bible... :-)
Have no fear, what the pharmacist did was illegal in Texas. Other pharmacists have been disciplined for the same thing, and so will this one.
Absolutely, it his his right to refuse her the prescription, but he cannot keep her from going elsewhere.
=0)
In Texas the pharmacist explicity does not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds. Period, end of story.
No, he should've just called Dr. Gary North and His Band of Merry Theonomists. They would've stoned the infidel harlot to death.
While that's an interesting opinion, it runs contrary to Texas law. We went through this when some Denton pharmnacists refused to fill a morning after prescription and were subsequently (and legally) fired, and then disciplined by the state board.
Different pharmacist was no doubt on duty.
Physicians in Texas have much greater latitude than pharmacists because physicians are primary caregivers. Like it or not, a phsycian in Texas is free to not write prescriptions because he or she has a moral objection, but a pharamcist in Texas does not have that autonomy. The structure is in place to ensure the primacy of the physician in the healthcare system.
We're a funny lot in Texas. We expect our citizens, even pharmacists to obey the law.
How did he know? Birth control pills are routinely prescribed to regulate irregular menstral cycles, treat endometriosis, as well as prevent pregnancy. The pharmacist is a tertiary healthcare provider, and as such isn't privy to the diagnosis, medical history, etc.
So, armed with that information, perhaps you'd like to tell us how the pharmacist knew anything of the sort?
Wrong. Pharmacists are tertiary (3rd tier) providers and have no access to patient information. Physicians are primary providers. There is a world of difference. A pharmacist doesn't even have the means to know why a prescription has been prescribed. He/she only know that it has.
What exactly was liberal about Pict's statement?
Now, the woman that missed her pill must of been stupid. One phone call would of got her doctor (during business hours) to fax a prescription to any other pharmacy in a matter of seconds. No need for a piece of paper.
One of us is wrong and unfortunately for you, it is you. The reference was to citizens of this country and Doctors are not more equal pigs than pharmicists.
If pharmacists are so morally opposed to contraceptive drugs, why do they take a job from a company that sells these immoral drugs to women in the first place? Isn't the pharmacist taking a check from evil company? Why is he or she working with in an industry or for a company that sells these evil drugs they are so morally opposed to? Makes their stance look foolish and makes them look like their out for attention because if they were really seriously offended by the abortive drugs, they wouldn't be working there with other pharmacists that hand them out or for a company that hands sells them.
Dear Pitiricus,
"and the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice"
If by "pro-choice," you mean that most folks believe that abortion should be permitted under some conditions, you're correct.
However, polls show that about 65% - 70% of Americans would limit abortions to cases of rape, incest, life of the mother (not health, mind you, but LIFE of the mother), and severe physical deformity. The vast majority of Americans favor laws to make abortion illegal otherwise.
Of course, that would make illegal over 96% of the abortions performed in the United States each year.
Although I favor an absolute ban on abortions, I would accept a "pro-choice" legal regime that banned 96% of the abortions now committed.
sitetest
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.