Posted on 04/04/2005 7:52:34 AM PDT by SmithL
A bill making its way through the Legislature would protect state pharmacists for refusing to fill certain prescriptions.
The Pharmacists Freedom of Conscience Act would free from liability or disciplinary measures any pharmacist who cites moral or religious objections to dispensing things like birth control pills or Viagra.
Republican House sponsor Glen Casada of College Grove says pharmacists need such a law, since doctors and nurses are protected in a similar fashion.
However, opponents of the legislation believe it's a disguised effort to limit access to contraceptives.
So should a HMO be able to dictate what type of procedure that a physician MUST perform? Should a patient be able to sue if their primary care physician will not perfor an abortion or prescribe them RU-486?
Exactly, there are no documented cases of pharmasists not selling birth control or Viagra. The AP is spinning like mad to protect abortions.
Sure, if the doctor wants to be part of their network.
Should a patient be able to sue if their primary care physician will not perfor an abortion or prescribe them RU-486?
No.
It is not hyperbole. The Nazi guard always had the option of sneaking away and going AWOL. Their life wasn't necessarily on the line. Everyone MUST be free to decide what their morals are and act accordingly or we are not free at all.
And what is to prevent Planned Parenthood and the ACLU for suing the pharmacist AND their employer for refusing to carry and dispense RU-486?
Then why should a patient (pronounced ACLU/Planned Parenthood) be able to sue a pharmacist and the store owner who refuses to carry and/or sell RU-486 or ANY drug?
So an atheist or Muslim store employee should be able to refuse to sell Christian literature.
I don't think they should be, anymore than I should be allowed to sue the corner store for not stocking my beer of choice.
Oh, I'm aware of their faulty reasoning. In my opinion, anyone whose religious duty interferes with his job duties ought to choose which duties are more important and live with his choice. Christians and Jews should be especially mindful of the need to make "hard" choices like that, if they read their bibles. Given that I should be willing to die rather than compromise, it doesn't seem like it's asking too much of me to look for another job.
And that is part of what the bill does.
The Nazi guard analogy is interesting because the guards volunteered for special SS units and were free to request a transfer to a combat unit. If they really found their work objectionable, they could have easily found a way out. Similarly, a pharmacist who finds certain drugs objectionable is free to seek employment elsewhere.
I don't have a problem with that part.
I agree with you. It isnt only birth control pills that are being held under scrutiny, it is also viagra, cialis, levitra, etc. There is a chain store in the DFW area that has been in and out of the MSM lately due to these issues.
When did I say that? I have said you should work for someone who shares your philosophy. So if you really don't want to sell Christian literature but you want to sell books, find an employer who shares that. Should I be able to sue a bookstore because they don't carry Christian books? That is the real question here.
"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."
Many christian women in America purposefully ignore this fact, so they can live the secular, responsibility free sex life of their godless sisters.
So the government should be able to force drug stores to sell certain products? That doesn't exactly fit with our free enterprise system. But really, the main issue at hand is RU-486, that is what is driving this legislation. Birth control and viagra are not the issue, at least in the mind of the man who is sponsoring the bill.
Actually, most pharmacists at the time of their hire, will
now reduce to writing what things they will not do, especially
in the aforementioned areas. It is up to the employer to
decide if they want to hire the pharmacist. Most employers
are smart enough to know that if the pharmacist is "up to
snuff" they can live with the pharmacists beliefs and
practices. They can always get a different pharmacist (just about)
to fill such a prescription.
But employees cannot dictate what a pharmacist can do.
Many employers may ask their pharmacists to falsify records,
use outdated drugs, do false billing, etc. but the pharmacist
has to do the right thing. Like I said, some will get fired,
and some will resign....and there is nothing that says there isn't
someone else to fill the prescription...
Also, lots of pharmacies don't carry "narcotics" cuz they were
robbed or beaten, some of the pharmacists were killed because
some "druggie" needed the narcs....If an employer told me
that I had to sell narcs in a dangerous manner like that, I
would not work for that person..."tough luck for me", tough
luck for the employer...Make him sell it...see how long that
lasts..actually many of them use bulletresistant enclosures,
and lock ups whenin those types of environments...
Thanks. This is a bad precedent, allowing people to plead religious excuses not to do their job. Can I sue my employer when he asks me to work on the sabbath? It should be pretty clear that noone is being forced to sell prescriptions here. They can move to a different job or business but the money is too important to them. I guess if the pharmacist is a small place where the owner is making the decision I don't care, but that's not the case, usually. As for the other posts that seem to indicate it's a pharmacist's job to determine what the sexual lives of his clients are like and how he can regulate them, LOL! Noone is going to admit they are using viagra to try and artificially create babies for gay folk, if this ever happened at all. And it is sexually responsible to not have more children than you can pay for. That is part of responsibility. I am against abortion but the academic argument about when an egg implants is going too far. Are people going to start jailing women for having periods because it COULD HAVE BEEN A BABY? Ha.
You seem to don't understand this is standard practice. 37 states already have laws protecting Pharmasist against such lawsuits and most large chains have corporate policy allowing Pharmasists discretion over prescriptions they fill. You are taking the extreme position that an employee and business can not take a moral stand and must do what the ACLU sues them into doing.
An employee can take a moral stand and quit his/her job. If the money is more important then he/she has made that decision.
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.