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.
PC mindset? Who is talking about a PC mindset? This is a business and it should act like one.
Or so businesses should act how you say???? So if a business does not want to participate in abortions, they must do so because you say that is how a business should act????? You are demanding that a business submit to the PC abortion lobby.
I don't know how to tell you this, but people in their
professional lives have to make their own decisions about
how they will practice. If they choose one way,they know
consequences will follow.
Some lawyers don't take rapist, or "mob" cases, some doctors
don't do elective "medicare" cases, some newspapers don't
report all the news, some restaurants don't serve Hungarian
goulash...you get my drift.
A pharmacist, doesn't have any obligation to fill any prescription
just cause someone has a physicians note. In fact, it is
the pharmacists obligation to not fill a prescription if in
their professional opinion, that prescription can cause undo harm.
So these pharmacists are acting on their belief that these
prescriptions cause harm, or death and cannot with good
conscience fill them. Yes, many of them will be fired, or
resign, but you cannot make them do what they truly believe
is wrong.
P.S. professional people define their work, and your comment that if
people can't do the job, they ought to not take it is
ludicrous. The people themselves decide what their "work"
is. There is plenty of work that a pharmacist can do without
having to dispense chemicals/biological products whose effect
is something they will not allow.
Well stated.
And utterly irrefutable.
The concentration camp guards who gassed the Jews were just doing their job and Saddam's henchmen who raped the women were just doing their jobs.
Yep, abortion is big business to Planned Parenthood. So just do your job and give the 13 year old the RU-486 and STFU. Right?
The "opponents" to the bill will be the liberal left who want abortion to be legal, easy, and free to anyone at any time. And they are NOT talking about "contraceptives", it is RU-486 that they are afraid the 13 year old will not be able to get.
That's the problem here: this law would not allow employers to fire such pharmacists. They are entitled to their beliefs, but an employer is entitled to an employee who will fulfill 100% of the job description.
Yes, you agree with one person getting a job where he won't perform all of it, and don't agree with another doing the same thing.
Your hysterical posting shows where you're coming from. I haven't said anything about PC or abortions rights. I said businesses should do their job and a pharmacists job is filling doctors perscriptions. If the left-wingers are suddenly against fertility treatments or viagra are you OK with that? When abortion and birth control is against the law then I will support pharmacists refusing perscriptions. Otherwise it is not their job to nanny to their customers.
I disagree with the discipline part. If an employee is unable to fulfill their job requirements for religious or moral reasons, that employee should quit or the employer should have the power to fire them.
There are plenty of FR posters who believe that an employer should not be allowed to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions.
Okay, tell me ONE instance where a pharmacist refused to dispense BCP's or Viagra or any fertility drug. Those drugs are not the issue, it is RU-486.
When a pharmacist can be forced to dispense a drug like RU-486 or face a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, then just how long do you think it will be before a patient can DEMAND that a physician perform an abortion on her or face a lawsuit for some sort of imagined "mental distress" over not being able to get an abortion from her primary care physician?
It's Tennessee. The link takes you to the website for a Knoxville TV station.
Hysterical postings???? What a great response. I responding very rationally. What gives you the right to force Pharmacists to fill perscriptions that will induce an abortion? If a Pharmacists and owner agree that do not wish to participate in abortions, they have that right. This is America is it not? If you don't think this is about abortion rights, you are really missing the boat.
If that is part of your job and your employer does not allow you to opt out of it for religious reasons? Absolutely.
It's no use arguing with zealots, especially ones who claim they are Always Right. There is nothing about "an agreement between the pharmacist and the owner" here. This is about employers having no rights in their own business because employees decided their personal opinions on prescriptions make them the boss. Wrong.
Well at least we see where you stand. Forcing Pharmasists to provide abortion pills to minors. Should the government enforce this?
So, should doctors be forced to perform abortions? Or nurses be forced to assist in them? I'm sure thier are plenty of other examples of things you would not do if your employer demanded.
The pharmacist is not "forced" to do anything in that situation. If he does not like his employer's policy, he is free to quit. He can even open his own pharmacy.
As for government enforcing it, why would government need to enforce anything? Such a situation would be nothing more than the employer exercising his right to fire an employee who won't do their job.
You are the one who seems to be advocating that government get move involved in the employer-employee relationship.
Arguing against someones right to not participate in an abortion is hardly being a zealot. Forcing someone to do it, is a zealot.
There is nothing about "an agreement between the pharmacist and the owner" here.
I am glad you are back tracking a bit here. Before you were making the analogy that no Pharmasist has that right. I agree that if you work for someone who does not share you philosophy on this, work for someone else. If a Pharmasist with the support of his employer agree, then a Pharmasist absolutely has the right to refuse to do so.
This is about employers having no rights in their own business because employees decided their personal opinions on prescriptions make them the boss. Wrong.
Without reading the actual text of the law, this law may be going a shade too far if it takes away the right of the business owner. But in principle, no one should be forced to do anything against their conscience.
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.