Posted on 04/01/2005 4:38:31 PM PST by traderrob6
So moral people are not allowed to be pharmacists, says this hideous troll tyrant?
They needed an emergency law for this? The woman couldn't just find another pharmacist?
Basically they want us all to follow orders. If oyu have a conscience you need not apply. If a pharmacy wants to have a policy where they don't hire these phamacists it is different from the state mandating this. Should all OB/GYN's be required to perform abortions too?
"No lectures" trampling on the constitution now
There was a recent case in Wisconsin where the pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for birth control and refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.
One of the efforts for many years of the abortion industry is to coerce OB/GYNs to learn and perform abortions, even if against their moral and/or religious beliefs. It is a widespread campaign by the Culture of Death.
what happened?
A pharmacist isn't simply a merchant, but is also a medical professional. His profession is licensed and regulated by the government. Therefore, the government does have certain control over him, as it does over doctors. I think pharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions given by licensed doctors. If they don't want to maybe they shouldn't be in that profession. If you disagree with doctor-prescribed birth control pills than fight for their illegalization.
Sounds like a 1st Amendment violation to me. Wonder where I could find a link to the text of this legislation.
The United Soviet States of America.
And this time it wasn't the scumbag courts - - it was the scumbag legislature and the scumbag governor.
Was that birth control pills, or the morning after abortion pill?
Walter's article seems to fit this case perfectly.
Walter E. Williams
September 4, 2002
Freedom of association
Do Americans really cherish freedom of association? Are there any justifiable restrictions on freedom of association? In my book, any restriction on one's right to associate freely with anyone he pleases, on mutually agreeable terms, is both offensive and a gross violation of human rights. Let's think about it, starting with a couple of examples from the past.
In 1958, two Virginia residents -- Mr. Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman -- traveled to Washington, D.C., to marry. Upon return to Virginia, they were charged with and found guilty of violation of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving vs. Virginia, held that laws banning interracial marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's conviction was reversed. Aside from Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws having violated the Constitution, it also violated the basic human right of freedom of association.
Let's now ask whether Virginia's laws would have been more acceptable if instead of banning interracial marriages, it mandated interracial marriages? I'd find such a law just as offensive, and for the same reason: It would violate freedom of association.
There's another case we might look at. H.L. Mencken, writing in the Nov. 9, 1948, Baltimore Evening Sun, brought to light that the City's Park Board had a regulation forbidding white and black citizens from playing tennis with each other in public parks. Today, most Americans, I suspect would find such a regulation an offensive attack on freedom of association. I imagine that most would find it just as offensive if the regulation had required blacks and whites to play tennis with one another. It would also violate freedom of association.
While Americans would agree there should be freedom of association in the specific cases of marriage and tennis, what about freedom of association as a general principle? Suppose men formed a club, a professional association or any other private association, and women wanted to be members. Is there any case for forcing them to admit women? Or, what if it were white men who formed a private association -- is there any case for forcing them to admit blacks to membership? The same question can be asked in reverse: What if it were women or blacks who formed an association. Should they be forced to admit men or whites? Wouldn't forced membership in any of these cases violate freedom of association?
What if you wanted to deal with me, but I didn't want to deal with you?
You say: "I'm stuck with that one, Williams. What do you mean?"
Suppose I'm looking to hire an employee. You show up for the job, but I don't want to deal with you. My reasons might be that you're white, you're a Catholic, you're ugly, you're a woman or anything else about you that I find objectionable. Should I be forced to hire you?
You say, "Williams, that's illegal employment discrimination." You're right, but it still has to do with freedom of association -- and either you're for or against freedom of association as a general principle.
You might argue that I should hire or deal with the first qualified person who comes along. In terms of freedom of association, that's nonsense. After all, would you say I should marry the first qualified women who comes along or play tennis with the first qualified person, or should I be free to marry or play tennis with people I like?
The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association.
article says "birth control prescriptions" that would lead me to believe it just the run of the mill "pill"
If the pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, more power to him. If he works for someone else and doesn't want to carry out his employer's policies, then it's time to find another job. He shouldn't be able to pick and choose among the meds that suit his moral sensibilities. If you have a problem with it, go work somewhere else.
And not filling a prescription and then NOT transferring it somewhere else is just plain wrong.
And IMHO prolifers targeting contraception is a good way to get the public to turn on their movement. It's a losing fight and one guaranteed to label you as "fringe" in most people's minds.
Well it's "blue" Illinois. I have to live here, but I don't have to like it
As you note, doctors are also licensed professionals. Should they be required to conduct operations they don't want to perform for moral reasons?
The article says the pharmacy or pharmacist must.....
Sorry, but that argument went out with the Nuremberg Code. National Socialist doctors and others were executed for "just following orders."
The problem is that evereyone in the "professions" will just be following orders. In too many cases it seems they already 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.