Posted on 04/04/2005 7:52:34 AM PDT by SmithL
If such procedures are part of their job and they refuse to perform them, the employer should have every right to fire them.
Actually many to most birth control pills are abortion pills. They do NOT prevent conception but prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus thus causing the fertilized egg to die. That is abortion and that is the one major reason why the Catholic church is opposed to the use of BC pills.
In any event ALL morning after pills are abortion pills. Women can get all of their contraception and abortion needs met at Planned Parenthood and PP is always happy to have the business. There is no moral reason to expect life loving people to help women (and indirectly men) in their quest to have a responsibility free sex life.
What moral objections could anyone possibly have to Viagra?
How about these pharmacists opening up a 'life enhancing pharmacy' or a 'pro-life' pharmacy that does not sell abortifacients, birth control, condoms, viagra,etc.etc.etc. That way someone knows what they're getting into when they walk into the pro-life pharmacy?
This law does more than one thing. First it provides protection against lawsuits, which I fully agree with. Lawsuits can be a tool the courts use monetary means to force Pharmasists to submit to the PC will of some judge. That is absolutely wrong. Depending on the text of the law, if it does not give the employer the right to fire an employee, it may go too far there. But that was not your initial arguement.
Huh? That was exactly my initial argument.
Now the country's two largest Drug Stores (Walgreens and CVS) both have policies allowing for pharmacists to opt out of dispensing a drug that violates their conscience. Now is it OK under those circumstances? Or do wish to defend your orignial statement that "A pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill orders any more than a soldier should be allowed to refuse to go to war."?
This is how:
A pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill orders any more than a soldier should be allowed to refuse to go to war. They both knew what they were siging up for. This is ridiculous. And we often hear that businesses are not nonprofits, they are for making money, not doing good or following an agenda. Birth control is not abortion. And BC pills are often used for other medical conditions, not just to control reproduction. The pharmacists need to do their job or find a new line of work.
You were not talking about employer's rights on your initial post. You initial arguement was that all pharmasists and business must dispense all orders, period. Now you are taking a much different position about employer's rights, which I agree with.
That was my original post, but that's OK because you're obviously confused about a lot of things. Oh, and I do stand by it.
That wasn't my post.
Sorry, you came in in the middle of a disagreement and I confused you with a different poster.
So in your humble opinion a pro-life Pharmasist or Doctor should seek a new profession if the don't want to do abortions. Sounds right out of the USSR handbook. Sorry, but you are in the wrong country. CVS and Walgreens are wrong and should be put out of business because they allow their pharmasists discretion on what they dispense?
I was hoping any such leftist goofballs would 'out' themselves right here and now.
"Just doing their job" didn't work for Nazi concentration camp jobs or for Saddam's professional rapists and it won't work here.
Most of them object based on religious grounds. They consider it religious discrimination if an employer is able to fire someone in such a situation.
Hyperbolic nonsense. No pharmacist is required to fill prescriptions for anything they find morally objectionable. They can simply quit their job if they find the job offensive.
Should a Muslim or Jew be allowed to refuse to fulfill certain requirements of a job at a pig slaughterhouse?
So, I'm still wondering. You seem to be pro-business but, are you saying an independent pharmacist who owns the pharmacy should be required (by law) to fill any and all prescriptions presented to him/her?
You didn't think that the lawyers would stop at suing the pharmacist when they can go after Eckerd's or RiteAid or CVS or Walgreen's deep pockets, did you?
No really, they are opposed to barrier methods, too.
The issue is NOT Viagra. The AP no doubtedly threw that in there to muddy the water. The issue is RU-486.
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.