Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[catharina]

Geez, can’t there be one thread that doesn’t mention Obama?

Obama and the anti-life movement are forever linked.
Of course he could convert to life. That would be grand.

 

[LemonAndLime]

In Post # 88, I said that such a situation will never
exist that demands deviance from Catholics and
others who know better. The situation can arise but
the Catholic must ALWAYS choose life.

What you present as a dilemma is, for me,
in the final analysis, no dilemma at all.

As Thomas More told Henry VIII:
“I am your faithful servant
but I am GOD’S first.”

The demands of others, even of governments,
can NOT force us to sin. Always, we must choose GOOD.

I’m not talking about it as a diemma for the individual pharmacist/nurse because their choice is clear, I am talking about a dilemma of freedom in the entire situation which includes all involved - employer, customer, pharmacist, government.

No one else is struggling with this concept.

 

[kimmielittle]

My scenario?

People **Choose to work at abortion providers - you are not forced to work there. Since you chose to work for an abortion provider you are expected to abide by your employers terms - unless you ** chose not to - then you quit and find new employment.

Your conscience is ** free ** to examine whether you wish to work with abortion providers -should you not have the same ** choice ** and protections if you ** choose ** not to?

 

[catharina]

I’m not talking about it as a diemma for the individual pharmacist/nurse because their choice is clear, I am talking about a dilemma of freedom in the entire situation which includes all involved - employer, customer, pharmacist, government.

No one else is struggling with this concept.

The freedom to sin is among the freedoms that free will offers to all.

For Catholics and others who are dedicated to serving God,
the answer is clear. We do not choose sin - whether we
are employer, customer, pharmacist or a member of government.

First, last, always, we choose to serve God.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The freedom to sin is among the freedoms that free will offers to all.

For Catholics and others who are dedicated to serving God,
the answer is clear. We do not choose sin - whether we
are employer, customer, pharmacist or a member of government.

First, last, always, we choose to serve God.

What you’re saying is all very true but your posts do tend to be general statements rather than plain-talking conversation, which I suppose makes answering scenarios like mine difficult. Ah well, each to their own.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m not so sure it is. I don’t disagree with you about the idea, just the motives, to be clear. I think it’s more about taking the individual rights of some too far at the expense of those of others, comparable to the old southern defense of slavery; they were, in a sense, defending their freedoms, but some of those freedoms happened to engulf the freedoms of others. Today, it;s more like, anything that comes remotely close to limiting sexual activity, even if the reason has nothing to do with sex (though so many pro-choice people still think Christians are just trying to keep them from “having fun,” rather than about killing the unborn). I think in this case, the argument is that the customer’s sexual rights supercede the right of the pharmacist to act in accord with his conscience, which I of course don’t think is the case.

Raskolnikov, let’s use the slavery analogy. I guess the slave owner’s perceived “right” to own slaves is analogous to the mother’s perceived “right” to kill her own baby.

But Gov. Blagojevich went way beyond that, and his idea was collectivist in this sense: now it’s not enough that the mother can “choose” to have blood on her own hands, because the state will force other people who never “chose” so, to cooperate and have blood on their hands as well. In 2005, he passed a law that forced all pharmacists to dispense this abortive drug Plan B.

What would be the slavery equivalent of this? I know very little about slavery in the USA. I guess the equivalent would be to pass laws where not only the slave owner had “rights” to own a slave, but the slave owners neighbors who disagreed with him would also be forced by law to somehow participate in doing abominable things against those poor slaves. I don’t know if such laws existed in the Confederate South.

The equivalent of the illinois law forcing pharmacists to dispense Plan B would be a law that not only would respect the slave owner’s “right” to own slaves, but would positively trample the rights of the slave-owner’s neighbors not to get involved in that which they find abhorrent, and not to materially aid the slave-owner in his unjust endeavors.

This is the part which still seems collectivist to me. Forcing a certain idea on the whole society. Forcing taxpayers to fund abortions for other people. Forcing pharmacists to dispense Plan B pills. The next step will be forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions.

 

[catharina]

What you’re saying is all very true but your posts do tend to be general statements rather than plain-talking conversation, which I suppose makes answering scenarios like mine difficult. Ah well, each to their own.

Plain talking conversation? Hmmmmmmmm. I’m really pretty attuned to
plain talking conversations. However, I’m also 65 yrs old and I’ve been a
Catholic all of my life. It’s difficult for me to imagine that any Christian can
allow himself/herself to serve perverse “needs” of others rather than the will
of God and the truth. I know plenty of “Christians” are likely to equivocate
these days but being true to one’s faith will never allow it. You’re in Europe
and you must know very well of the inhumane demands brought about by
fascism, communism, etc… One can cave in to government or one can
refuse to do so. Yes, there’s a huge price for resistance often at the cost
of one’s own life, but we who know the truth are expected to live the truth.

Imagining that a customer or government INSISTS that I serve immorality
means a certainty that in such a situation I must be ready to die for my faith.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

People **Choose to work at abortion providers - you are not forced to work there. Since you chose to work for an abortion provider you are expected to abide by your employers terms - unless you ** chose not to - then you quit and find new employment.

Your conscience is ** free ** to examine whether you wish to work with abortion providers -should you not have the same ** choice ** and protections if you ** choose ** not to?

The freedom to sin is among the freedoms that free will offers to all.

For Catholics and others who are dedicated to serving God,
the answer is clear. We do not choose sin - whether we
are employer, customer, pharmacist or a member of government.

First, last, always, we choose to serve God.

Incredibly, for “pro-choice” people like Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the right to choose does not extend to pharmacists who do not wish to participate in his agenda.

Choice for me, but not for thee.

 

[mark_a]

If Hippokrates was alive today, what would Mr/Ms Abortoholic Customer do? Ask the state to forbid him from practicing medicine?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m not so sure it is. I don’t disagree with you about the idea, just the motives, to be clear. I think it’s more about taking the individual rights of some too far at the expense of those of others, comparable to the old southern defense of slavery; they were, in a sense, defending their freedoms, but some of those freedoms happened to engulf the freedoms of others. Today, it;s more like, anything that comes remotely close to limiting sexual activity, even if the reason has nothing to do with sex (though so many pro-choice people still think Christians are just trying to keep them from “having fun,” rather than about killing the unborn). I think in this case, the argument is that the customer’s sexual rights supercede the right of the pharmacist to act in accord with his conscience, which I of course don’t think is the case.

Raskolnikov, what do you think about this idea: on the Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some animals such as Rod Blagojevich, are more equal than others?

So, that’s why he can force his laws on the pharmacists in Illinois.

The idea that some animals are more equal than others also goes hand in hand with collectivism/socialism/communism. Every single socialist/communist country in the 20th-21th century has operated as a dictatorship, with a ruling class forcing others to do what they wanted them to do.

This is how I see Rod Blagojevich. On the Animal Farm of Illinois, he is just more equal than the rest of us lowly pharmacists.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m not saying that the patient’s right to receive the drug should trump the right of the pharmacist to refuse it. I’m saying that the patient does have a right to receive it, and saying that the pharmacist’s right to choose the right thing morally is greater than a patient’s right of choice (to take this pill) is going down a dangerous path. How do you decide who has the greatest right? Why is it ok for a pharmacist to knowingly enter a profession knowing that they cannot do the full extension of the job they have agreed to do? It’s like a Catholic doctor agreeing to work at an abortion clinic and then (obviously) refusing to carry out abortions. If you know your beliefs are going to stop you doing your job you shouldn’t sign up to it, because then you’re in a position where you can argue your rights trump the patient’s and you start refusing treatment/to do your job.

Regarding the parts I highlighted in red in LemonAndLime’s post, I would also like to point out this: Ms. I-Want-My-Plan-B is not a patient, and she is not seeking a treatment. Just like Mr. I-Want-My-Cocaine is not a patient, either, and the “drug” he is seeking, is not a treatment. Therefore, both Ms. I-Want-My-Plan-B and Mr. I-Want-My-Cocaine have no rights whatsoever to demand from me as a pharmacist.

They don’t have any more rights to demand Plan B or cocaine from a pharmacist, than Mr. Horny Patron has rights to demand a lap dance from the waitress at Outback Steakhouse.

And as far as Gov. Rod Blagojevich is concerned, what’s next? Will he pass a law forcing all restaurants and bars in Illinois to offer lap dances to patrons who happened to visit a strip-tease bar previously and now they mistakenly imagine that they have a “right” to lap dance at any other bar or dining facility they visit?

 

[kimmielittle]

Incredibly, for “pro-choice” people like Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the right to choose does not extend to pharmacists who do not wish to participate in his agenda.

Choice for me, but not for thee.

Yeppers!!!

 

[catharina]

Regarding the parts I highlighted in red in LemonAndLime’s post, I would also like to point out this: Ms. I-Want-My-Plan-B is not a patient, and she is not seeking a treatment. Just like Mr. I-Want-My-Cocaine is not a patient, either, and the “drug” he is seeking, is not a treatment. Therefore, both Ms. I-Want-My-Plan-B and Mr. I-Want-My-Cocaine have no rights whatsoever to demand from me as a pharmacist.

They don’t have any more rights to demand Plan B or cocaine from a pharmacist, than Mr. Horny Patron has rights to demand a lap dance from the waitress at Outback Steakhouse.

And as far as Gov. Rod Blagojevich is concerned, what’s next? Will he pass a law forcing all restaurants and bars in Illinois to offer lap dances to patrons who happened to visit a strip-tease bar previously and now they mistakenly imagine that they have a “right” to lap dance at any other bar or dining facility they visit?

re Blagovich, what’s next?

First of all, he is now Former Gov. Blagovich.
He lost his office when he was arrested for corruption.

IOW, he was impeached, then went to trial.

His first trial ended w/ a conviction on one count:

"After 14 days of deliberations, the six-man, six-woman jury convicted Blagojevich on just one of the 24 felony counts he faced -- **a charge that he had lied to FBI agents about his intense involvement in campaign fundraising**."

"... U.S. District Judge James Zagel declared a mistrial on the 23 disputed counts, including sweeping racketeering and conspiracy counts that accused him of running the state as a criminal enterprise. ..."

[articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-08-17/news/ct-ex-governor-rod-blagojevich-verdict_1_blagojevich-attorney-sam-adam-count](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-08-17/news/ct-ex-governor-rod-blagojevich-verdict_1_blagojevich-attorney-sam-adam-count)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He will be re-tried on the other **23** counts where the jury had deadlocked.
The trial is expected to begin this month.

He's been mentioned so  often in this thread, I decided to add some facts.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Thanks, Catharina.

My conclusion from this discussion is the following: if I ever open a pharmacy or a restaurant of my own, I will make sure to keep a shotgun, or a rifle with rubber bullet like the ones used to scare away bears that break into homes for food.

Then, if a delusional liberal like Rod Blagojevich and his ilk enters my pharmacy, thinking that he’s “entitled” that I serve him cocaine or Plan B, or if he enters my restaurant thinking that he’s entitled to get a lap dance from the waitress, I shall deal with him/her like I would with that bear. I will tell him first that we don’t serve cocaine, Plan B, or lap dances, however if he insists on his lunacy of his “right”, I will let the rubber bullet talk.

There may be liberals who are a bit slow to understand that killing babies is NOT “treatment”, that a baby killer is not my patient, and that she doesn’t have a right to force me to assist her in killing her baby, but C’mon, this is getting ridiculous.

I think I will just return to the good old Wild West and let my shotgun do the explaining. I think it will really speed up the learning curve of liberals, and it will help them grasp the concept REAL QUICK, that this is MY PHARMACY, I’m not going to help you kill your baby, and you baby killer GET OUT NOW, OR ELSE!!!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Thinking about how in times past your country could call on you to defend it… But many young men who fought in WW-II didn’t wait for the draft, they flocked to the recruitment centers the day after Pearl Harbor… And how things changed during the Vietnam War… And the country came to a new understanding that nobody should be drafted against their will… And now we have an all-volunteer fighting force in the USA, today… And nobody is drafted today against their will… Not even in the wake of 9/11/2001…

And yet, the governors of Illinois and Washington states both passed laws DRAFTING PHARMACISTS, against their will, to participate in their WAR ON THE UNBORN…

We already discussed the actions of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And here’s what Washington Governor Christine Gregoire did:

ncregister.com/daily-news/conscience-tug-of-war-in-washington/

nationalcenter.org/P21NVMiltonConscience90906.html

lifenews.com/2010/09/07/state-5429/

So, here’s my question: **Is the WAR ON FETUSES today’s supreme form of PATRIOTISM, for those who impose these laws on us, COERCING PHARMACISTS TO DISPENSE ABORTIVE DRUGS SUCH AS PLAN B? **

Is this the Holy Grail of Freedom, the one that should be defended at any cost, even at the cost of curtailing the rights of pharmacists to practice their profession in accord with their ethical standards? We are talking about a set of standards that goes back all the way to Galenus and Hippokrates, and which constantly forbade, ever since the antiquity, those who practiced medicine from giving contraceptive and abortive drugs to women.

Are these standards, encompassing more than 2000 years, to be set aside now? Are pharmacists to be expected now to respond to the DRAFT, to go into war, waging war on human embryos, fetuses, and on women’s healthy reproductive systems? Are we pharmacists expected to set aside our moral laws for the sake of a “higher good”? For the sake of some “sacred freedom”, the moral imperative of which trumps any other moral considerations?

And just what is this HIGHER GOOD, what is this SACRED FREEDOM that we pharmacists have been called to serve, and **DODGING THE DRAFT IS NOT AN OPTION? **

Is it **THE HIGHER GOOD OF COLLEGE KIDS BEING ABLE TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES? THE SACRED FREEDOM OF ONE-NIGHT STANDS, WITH NO BABIES ATTACHED? **

I think these are the unalienable rights, the higher good, and sacred freedoms we are talking about. I remember how, when one of the recent appropriations bills was passed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill contained provisions for college kids’ free condoms and birth control pills, to be paid by taxpayer dollars, and to be distributed through the Student Health Centers on the campuses. So, these free condoms and birth control pills must be extremely important for our nation, I wager they are right up there with the concerns for new Bradley armored vehicles and ceramic breast plates, to keep our troops safe from IEDs.

I imagine these are the things that keep our congressmen awake, during the night. Condoms, birth control pills and abortions - even more so than the latest casualty numbers from Afghanistan, or how to better protect our troops.

After all, we are still fighting our wars on a volunteer basis, and nobody has been drafted and sent to Afghanistan unless (s)he voluntarily signed up to serve our country in the armed forces. But the war on the unborn human embryos and fetuses, that’s different. We pharmacists have been drafted, in Illinois and in Washington, and we are expected to serve in this war, whether we like it or not. We are ALL expected to dispense the abortive drug Plan B.

I suppose this is a true national emergency, and we must be ready to pitch in, all of us, in this war on the unborn. Our college kids’ freedoms are under attack. They will no longer be able to fornicate, shack up, have their one-night stands, and not worry about being punished with babies, unless we pharmacists do our part, sacrifice, and valiantly fight to contracept and abort their babies with the drugs at our disposal. And we shouldn’t expect to stop here, none of us. Today, our country called on the pharmacists, to do their part in the war on the unborn. Tomorrow, it might be the medical doctors and nurses, who will be called to sacrifice and do their part, by performing surgical abortions.

So, if today your country calls upon you, ask not what your country can do for you… Do your part, and don’t dodge the draft… If you are a pharmacist, dispense those pills of Plan B, Mifeprest, and Methotrexate… If you are a medical doctor or nurse, volunteer to perform abortions in rural areas for under-priviledged women who need to murder (err, terminate) their babies… Even if you are just an ordinary citizen, with no special training in healthcare as applied to killing babies (Hey! Killing babies is called healthcare!), you can still do your part… Vote on Barack Obama, he will never let Planned Parenthood go unfunded!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And, since we are in a war, the WAR ON THE UNBORN AND THE UNWANTED, I suggest we should award the Medal of (Dis)Honor, to those who fought valiantly, and went beyond the call of duty!

President Barack Obama: Citation for conspicuous gallantry, protecting women who chose to kill their babies in late-term abortions, and the abortionists who performed live-birth abortions, from facing the burden of having to protect and give medical care to babies who were accidentally born alive during a botched abortion. In the Illinois Senate, Ill. State Senator Barack Obama, single-handedly thwarted all efforts to pass Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act, from 2001 to 2005. Waaaaaay beyond the call of duty, even as far as NARAL was concerned. Nobody, not even NARAL, advocated that these babies should be killed, because living them alive would burden the MOTHER’S and the ABORTIONIST’S original decision to KILL them. Only one man dared to do that. Senator Barack Obama.

BARACK OBAMA qualifies for the MEDAL OF (DIS)HONOR.

 

[Holly3278]

Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ, King of endless glory! :extrahappy:

I tell you, if I lived in a state and had a license to be a pharmacist in that state and they suddenly passed a law saying that I must fill prescriptions for contraception, I would likely move to another state and get my license in the other state which doesn’t force me to fill prescriptions I am morally opposed to. That said, I am not opposed to pharmacists always filling prescriptions for contraception since contraceptive pills can have therapeutic uses. However, I would never want to fill a prescription for emergency contraception or distribute it since emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy 99% of the time.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

That said, I am not opposed to pharmacists always filling prescriptions for contraception since contraceptive pills can have therapeutic uses. However, I would never want to fill a prescription for emergency contraception or distribute it since emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy 99% of the time.

You are absolutely correct, Holly. The ordinary contraceptive pills (as opposed to the morning after pill) are often prescribed for legitimate therapeutic indications, e.g. to control heavy periods, in polycystic ovary syndrome, etc. As a side note, I wish some drug company saw what a demand is out there to treat such medical conditions, and developed drugs specifically geared and optimized towards the hormonal treatment of those conditions.

 

[Rence]

I’m actually not sure how I feel about this. Since when was it okay for the morality of a professional health practioner important when it comes to the “treatment” of the patient? “I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

Where is this going to go? A doctor refusing to care for a pagan because they are a Catholic? A Catholic nurse refusing to give advice on recognising sexual diseases to a patient having pre-marital sex?

While I appreciate it’s important that you should never be forced to do something you think is immoral, there’s a fine line between ensuring an equality of sorts and making one person’s rights more important than the next person’s.

In the case of rape, emergency rooms (the ones that surround me at least - thankfully) all have plan B accessible. So the patient won’t be at the mercy of a pharmacist and his or her whims. They’ll get it when they need it. If it wasn’t a rape, it’s not an emergency, and the patient can just go to another pharmacy to get it. You can get a listing of pharmacies that sell plan b online. You can even get plan B online. I’m really not opposed to people refusing to act against their religious beliefs in non-emergency senarios. If it’s not an emergency, patients have time to go elsewhere for what they need. They can probably go to their doctor, or their clinic, to get it as well.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I tell you, if I lived in a state and had a license to be a pharmacist in that state and they suddenly passed a law saying that I must fill prescriptions for contraception, I would likely move to another state and get my license in the other state which doesn’t force me to fill prescriptions I am morally opposed to.

You know, I find it totally bizarre, the mindset of these liberals who pass these laws - I’m pretty sure they would all scream bloody hell if we passed a law to bring back the draft, and send their own children to kill enemy combatants and terrorists in Afghanistan. Yet, they have no problem thinking that they have a right to force us pharmacists to go to war against innocent unborn babies and kill them with abortive drugs.

Washington and Oregon states also made legal euthanasia and assisted suicide, and right now there’s no law to protect the pharmacists there who refuse to participate in that kind of murder. In practice, this is how the system works there: grandma is old and sick, and some family member who’s the legal caregiver asks the doctor to kill grandma. If grandma is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, or she had a stroke and can’t talk, they won’t ask grandma whether she wants to die. A family member, who’s legally entitled to make healthcare decisions for grandma, will make the decision that it’s time for grandma to go. The doctor kills grandma, the family inherits her house and farm, and everybody is “happy”.

:banghead:

How much lower can we stoop?