Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Beau_Ouiville]

We should always err on the side of life.

That’s my view on environmentalism and the death penalty.

 

[estesbob]

That’s my view on environmentalism and the death penalty.

Me too. Of course, as Catholics, if we are faced with a canidate who is good on these two issues but supports abortion we must respectfully decline to support them.

 

[Santi2]

I have no idea what your issue is, but the law
in this nation does protect the right of conscience.

Perhaps that’s not the case where you live?

It is in the Code of Conduct for pharmacies over here, Catharina.

Pharmacists across the UK have been told they can continue to refuse to prescribe items that might clash with their personal religious beliefs.

A revised code of conduct from the new industry regulator will allow staff to opt out of providing items such as the morning-after pill and contraception.
…
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm

Have you heard how prolife also won right of conscience over abortions at the EU? The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also changed the title of the proposed Bill (which would have established abortion as a universal human right ) from

“Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection”

to…hang on…get ready to jump for joy

“The Right to Conscientious Objection in Lawful Medical Care

,”

Additionally, in affirming the right to refuse, Resolution 1763 further states:

“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.”

40 Days for Life in London is doing well. Prayer vigils 24/7.
40daysforlifelondon.blogspot.com/2011/03/images-from-helpers-40-days-joint-vigil.html

 

[catharina]

I think you need to change the caption on this thread for clarity.

Sorry, Beau, but I copied the headline, as is,
directly from the article in the Chicago Tribune.

 

[catharina]

It is in the Code of Conduct for pharmacies over here, Catharina.

Have you heard how prolife also won right of conscience over abortions at the EU? The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also changed the title of the proposed Bill (which would have established abortion as a universal human right ) from

to…hang on…get ready to jump for joy

,”

Additionally, in affirming the right to refuse, Resolution 1763 further states:

***“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.” ***

40 Days for Life in London is doing well. Prayer vigils 24/7.
40daysforlifelondon.blogspot.com/2011/03/images-from-helpers-40-days-joint-vigil.html

Wonderful -
and thank you.

Added the relevant quote from santi2’s post.

 

[Christopher68]

Yes, how atrocious that pharmacists will no longer be forced to choose between feeding their families and killing babies.

The definition of a baby is a young child between birth and one year of age who has not yet begun to walk or talk. The language you used in your above post is hyperbolic and factually incorrect.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

This is an atrocious decision. Now someone has the legal mandate NOT to do their job???

I agree.

This case was thrown out in circuit and appellate court and never should have made it to the Illinois supreme court. I take heart that its an obvious conservative ruling by a Republican judge that will more than likely be overturned on appeal.

And if these pharmacists haven’t had enough education to know the difference between the “Morning After Pill” and RU486 then perhaps they shouldn’t be dispensing drugs in the first place.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ill-judge-throws-out-rule-on-contraception-20110405,0,7710558.story

"SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – A judge has ruled that Illinois pharmacists can’t be forced to dispense emergency contraception.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz said Tuesday that **requiring pharmacists to sell the so-called “morning-after” pill violates state right-of-conscience law. **

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog and the three drug stores they operate sued over the 2005 rule imposed by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. A circuit court originally dismissed the claim, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that it must be considered.

…"

Woooooooooooooohoooooooooooooo. Now for California

 

[jilly4ski]

The definition of a baby is a young child between birth and one year of age who has not yet begun to walk or talk. The language you used in your above post is hyperbolic and factually incorrect.

And where do you get you “definition?”
You are actually the one who is mistaken.
From Merriam Webster:

Baby
a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

Baby is a generic term, meaning young child, just like “child” is the generic term for toddlers, preschoolers, pre teens, etc., baby is the generic term for infant, toddler, and could also be associated with zygotes, embryos, etc. Therefore baby is factually correct.

 

[Santi2]

And where do you get you “definition?”
You are actually the one who is mistaken.
From Merriam Webster:

Baby is a generic term, meaning young child, just like “child” is the generic term for toddlers, preschoolers, pre teens, etc., baby is the generic term for infant, toddler, and could also be associated with zygotes, embryos, etc. Therefore baby is factually correct.

And, when women have a miscarriage, they mourn the loss of their baby i.e. “I lost the baby” not “I lost the zygote/embryo”.

 

[catharina]

Ditto with pregnancy:

“She’s expecting a baby.”

 

[LemonAndLime]

And where do you get you “definition?”
You are actually the one who is mistaken.
From Merriam Webster:

Baby is a generic term, meaning young child, just like “child” is the generic term for toddlers, preschoolers, pre teens, etc., baby is the generic term for infant, toddler, and could also be associated with zygotes, embryos, etc. Therefore baby is factually correct.

Does the dictionary mention the term zygote or embryo to mean child? No, it doesn’t, therefore that is your own addition and your quote might as well be about giraffes. And even if the dictionary did include the word zygote, it wouldn’t be “factually correct” as each dictionary varies and the word you use to describe something is not a fact as it’s not something that can be scientifically proven. It’s like saying “It’s a fact that people use the word hello as a greeting.” Well, yes they might but I don’t - but it doesn’t mean I am incorrect by saying “greetings” instead.

 

[LemonAndLime]

And, when women have a miscarriage, they mourn the loss of their baby i.e. “I lost the baby” not “I lost the zygote/embryo”.

So now has the conversation changed from “The official term of” to “what women call it”?

 

[catharina]

Does the dictionary mention the term zygote or embryo to mean child? No, it doesn’t, therefore that is your own addition and your quote might as well be about giraffes. And even if the dictionary did include the word zygote, it wouldn’t be “factually correct” as each dictionary varies and the word you use to describe something is not a fact as it’s not something that can be scientifically proven. It’s like saying “It’s a fact that people use the word hello as a greeting.” Well, yes they might but I don’t.

… or maybe:

“She’s expecting a something.”
or “There a little something growing inside her.”
or I wonder “Is she expecting a giraffe?”

 

[catharina]

So now has the conversation changed from “The official term of” to “what women call it”?

Hmmm.

What women, worldwide, always called
abortion was EVIL, an evil, an evil act.

Times change, huh?

 

[LemonAndLime]

… or maybe:

“She’s expecting a something.”
or “There a little something growing inside her.”
or I wonder “Is she expecting a giraffe?”

Did you read the post I am responding to? We are talking about the dictionary definition of a child.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hmmm.

What women, worldwide, always called
abortion was EVIL, an evil, an evil act.

Times change, huh?

I’m having difficulty understanding the relevance of your post in reply to mine. I am talking about the definition of a child, so why are you asking me about why times have changed in relation to abortion being an evil? Are you suggesting I think it isn’t an evil?

 

[catharina]

Did you read the post I am responding to? We are talking about the dictionary definition of a child.

Yes, I did. Of course.

 

[catharina]

I’m having difficulty understanding the relevance of your post in reply to mine. I am talking about the definition of a child, so why are you asking me about why times have changed in relation to abortion being an evil? Are you suggesting I think it isn’t an evil?

There was a time, very recent in my adult life,
when everyone called the “expected” child
a baby. ‘Expecting a baby, hoping to have a baby,
wanting to have a baby, planning names for the baby, etc…’

All such references referred to a baby not yet born.
Only “abortion rights” changed vocabulary as it worked to change thinking.

I’m simply pointing that out.

 

[jilly4ski]

Does the dictionary mention the term zygote or embryo to mean child? No, it doesn’t, therefore that is your own addition and your quote might as well be about giraffes. And even if the dictionary did include the word zygote, it wouldn’t be “factually correct” as each dictionary varies and the word you use to describe something is not a fact as it’s not something that can be scientifically proven. It’s like saying “It’s a fact that people use the word hello as a greeting.” Well, yes they might but I don’t - but it doesn’t mean I am incorrect by saying “greetings” instead.

All human embryos are children/babies, but not all children/babies are embryos. Baby is not a scientific term, it only has meaning in the “street” or in “popular” vocabulary. Embryo, fetus, zygote are scientific terms, which baby can encompass if the embryo/fetus/zygote is of the human species. (Of course the dictionary also mentioned that young animals could also be called baby)

And yes it has been scientifically proven that human embryos/fetuses/zygotes are in fact human, having both a mother (ova donor) and a father (sperm donor), becoming a completely new human who is alive, thus a child and in that stage of life a baby. I don’t know what “facts” you seems to saying that haven’t been proven.