Posted on 04/13/2005 2:55:38 PM PDT by hsmomx3
PHOENIX (AP) -- Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday vetoed a bill to let pharmacists refuse to provide abortion-related medications if doing so conflicts with the pharmacists' moral or religious beliefs.
Napolitano, an abortion rights supporter, did not immediately release her veto letter but said previously she saw the idea as a way to deny legal drugs to consumers.
"You can safely say I view a refusal-to-sell bill with great skepticism," Napolitano said last week.
Supporters expressed disappointment with the veto of what one called civil rights legislation for health care professionals and institutions, which could be forced to contribute "to the taking of an innocent life."
"It is indeed troubling that religious discrimination is becoming an acceptable practice," said Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference. "This bill would have helped."
State law already allows health care workers who invoke such beliefs to refuse to take part in abortions, but the provision doesn't explicitly apply to pharmacists.
Supporters of the proposed change (HB2541) said the same right ought to be extended to pharmacists, who may be asked to dispense emergency contraception. They also said health care workers are under pressure to dismiss their conscience on the issue of abortion.
Opponents say pharmacies already have such policies and predicted the bill would be found unconstitutional if it became law.
The Senate passed the bill April 6 on a 17-11 vote. The bill cleared the House on a 35-24 vote in late February.
Associated Press Writer Jacques Billeaud contributed to this story.
On the Net:
Arizona Legislature: http://www.azleg.state.az.us
thank god.
that's a slippery slope.
think of what moslems in these positions and others in society would not do.
Yeah! Who are those stupid pharmacists who have a problem with helping a woman kill her unborn child by administering an abortificant! What idiots! They're probably Christian males, all of them - the devils. Go Nappy!
So - you want the abortion pill. Your doctor doesn't have a problem with murder, so he gives you a prescription for the abortion drug. You go to the pharmacy and the pharmacist will not fill the prescription. You go up the road to the next pharmacy.
I don't see any difference between this and a Catholic business owner refusing to stock/sell condoms.
Since when does the government have the right to tell a business owner what products to carry?
If a liquor store chose to not carry wine coolers, would someone sue them or get the legislature to pass a law making it require for liquor stores to carry wine coolers?
Ugh.
The Courts will uphold the rights of Moslems regardless of legislation. They will spit on the rights of Christians with or without legislation.
I await the applause when some governor makes it the rule of law that a pharmacist must also talk about the facts of abortion before dispensing these materials. Oh, wait, that would be forcing them to do something, so we can't have that, right?
"Good for her."
????? - Forcing a pharmacist to fill a prescription for the abortion pill is the equivalent of requiring assisted murder from a pharmacist. How can this be good in any way? Next, when the government decides that we need to start emptying the nursing homes, will we require the pharmacists to fill prescriptions for "medications" which will kill the patients? This is the same. These pills result in the death of a baby. That human life was created at conception. These pills kill that life. To force a pharmacist to fill these prescriptions is the equivalent of forcing them to participate in murder.
How is that good for her?!?!
Well, then go to a different pharmacy. I am quite sure one would be around to help. It's called a free market.
Why should anyone be forced to (in their eyes) help commit murder?
Anyway, the solution for an independant pharm (an employee pharm at Wal-Mart or Eckerds would do as told, I'm sure) is to not stock the drug.
Someone comes in for RU486 --- "Sorry, I'm out. I can order you some. It'll be here in 3-6 days." (which is too late to do any good).
Why is it always considered a religious "discrimination" by these liberals?? Is the concept of MURDER lost on anyone who isn't a Christian?
So you are opposed to "choice"?
Good point and great analogy. If you want liquor/condoms/abortion pill and they don't stock it GO TO ANOTHER STORE. It's not hard.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
you'd better think this one through.
if every member of this society discrimated against others by means of their personal beliefs, this country would be in deep do-do!
granted your right to discriminate, then others such as moslems, satanists, leftists, socialists, anarchists, fat women, ad infinitum would be discriminating daily.
it would be anarchy.
The Catholic hospitals/providers have been able to maintain their exemptions for many years, though we are seeing state-by-state attempts to eliminate their exemptions or force them into supplying abortifacients to rape victims who come into their ERs. I don't know how much longer "conscientious objectors" will be allowed in this country, when it is scriptures that inform their conscience. The discrimination against people of faith is marching ever onward......
There may not be another pharmacy accessible to the woman -- some small rural towns have only one, and transportation can be an obstacle in any area. And I don't think this legislation covers businesses' decisions about what to sell. It covers pharmacists' individual decisions to refuse to dispense medication that is right there behind the counter, having been put in stock by the store owner. At least that's what all the publicized cases have been about.
Giving pharmacists a blanket right to refuse to dispense legal medication that they happen not to like, could make it difficult for businesses to hire pharmacists who will reliably dispense the products that the business owner has chosen to make available for sale. As I understand this bill, it would put the burden on the pharmacist to find employment at a pharmacy which does not sell these products, rather than take a job anywhere and then refuse to do the job s/he was hired for, on the grounds that s/he has a legal right to refuse.
Did this bill pertain to establishments (i.e. owners) or to individual pharmacists employed by the establishment?
If the latter, I could see how the bill might be problematic. Many drugstores only have one pharmacist on duty at a time, and if that person wouldn't fill certain prescriptions, it could mean a loss of business to the owner, and may well be contrary to the owner's wishes.
This could actually lead to religious discrimination in the hiring of pharmacists by management - Christians need not apply, since they might not fill our scripts.
On the other hand, I believe the owner of any private establishment should have the choice of what products to offer or not to offer. I don't think employees should have that right, though.
"it would be anarchy."
No, it would be a free market.
If, for example, one did not hire perfectly able Christians, no matter how qualified. Well, a business next door would hire them and run you out of business.
Exactly -- just wait til you land in an emergency room bleeding severely, and are told you can't have a transfusion because the only doctors on duty at the moment are Jehovah's Witnesses and think transfusions are sinful. If you're still alive at shift change, maybe one of the other doctors will give you a transfusion then.
The same people who oppose this legislation, favor the right of volunteer military personnel to claim "conscientious objector" status when they are asked to fulfill their obligations to this country during a war.
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.