Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Rence]

Plan B does not treat rape.

No, Plan B prevents forced pregnancies.

As you said, one person’s rights end when another’s begins. The woman’s right to prevent a pregnancy due to rape ends when it puts another in danger. If conception occurs, or is unknown if it occurred, then that woman’s right ends when it threatens the life of an innocent human being. Namely the conceived child.

At this time, and yes I agree with it (before you ask), the woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. In a rape situation, the woman’s rights are paramount.

I wasn’t aware that the Pope issued any statement on Plan B. Indeed, it appears that the Pope wants pharmacists to refuse to fill Plan B:

Actually, you made a mistake. The quote you took is from The Pope commenting on the The Abortion Pill, which is not the same as Plan B. You didn’t finish reading it. Here’s the rest of it:

the Holy Father insisted that health professionals must be allowed the right to exercise conscientious objection when it comes to dispensing drugs that cause abortion or euthanasia— words that are sure to impact the debate about the abortion pill

Benedict did not say that pharmacists “should”, he said “could always choose not to prescribe”, and that’s what he says. Thankfully, the law says otherwise. So unless we’re now expected to be civilly disobedient and break the law, it’s still up to the woman.

Finally, the USCCB seems to disagree with your point:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

Note that there is no “out” for when ovulation is unknown. Your are treating Fr William’s article as if the Bishops teach it.

That does not prove that there is no “out” because if they were opposed to this “out” as you call it, they surely would have said so. It doesn’t say to not give plan B if the test is unavailable, that would be penalizing the woman (yet again, of course) for it’s unavailability. Father said to favor the woman, and he’s correct.

I never said the USCCB, Bishops or even the Vatican supports my diea that caregivers should be compelled by law to administer Plan B in the cases of rape. You asked me what I thought, and I told you what I thought.

It is the pharmacists who fills, not the doctor. Look at the context of my statement about knowing pharmacists. You are suggesting that a pharmacist fill all scrips. You said:
A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered.
And I’m telling you this is wrong. Pharmacists are expected (and usually required) to refuse to fill prescriptions that are dangerous to the patient or others.

A pharmacist cannot refuse to fill an order for Plan B on the grounds that is it dangerous to the patient or others because the woman is the one with the right to consent. Therefore, it is not dangerous to anyone, and can only serve to help the woman in an effort to protect herself from a forced pregnancy.

Also, the OP is about pharmacists, not doctors. It has been extended to doctors and nurses in this discussion only to demonstrate the problem with legally compelling people to act contrary to their professional judgment and conscience.

That is because caregivers, whether they are pharmacists, doctors or nurses, are overreaching their bounds by trying to enforce their values on those who do not share them.

I also note you suggested that even in the case where ovulation is known, you would require the provider to administer Plan B. Remember, this discussion is about what should be not what is. Should the law compel people to administer Plan B even if they know conception has occurred?

If so, then you are advocating a reckless position.

What **is **happens to be what I agree with as what **should **be. Plan B should be, and is, available for all rape victims who require it. Pharmacists and nurses should have no right, and they have no right, to circumvent a rape victim from trying to prevent these forced pregnancies if that is what they intend to do. The longer one waits to fill the prescription, the less likely the intended effect of the drug (which is to prevent conception). So if the pharmacists really cared about the rape victim, they would administer that plan B without delay. Perhaps more energy should be spent on trying to prevent rapes from happening in the first place, not by continuing to hold women down even after they have been assaulted and raped, forcing them to be pregnant against their will and against their own actions.

 

[Rence]

One further point.

I’m not suggesting that an ovulation test should be required. I’m only saying that individual caregivers should be able to exercise their professional, prudential judgment on whether Plan B poses a potential risk to an unborn child. Nowhere in Fr Williams’ article does he suggest that caregivers should be compelled by law to administer Plan B even if there is reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred. His point is only that is is permissible, not that it is required. You are extending this permission to administer to a right to receive. That isn’t the case.

I didn’t say a thing about Fr. Williams’ suggesting that caregivers be compelled by law to administer Plan B to rape victims. I said that I agee with the law. I have no unearthly clue why you keep saying that I said that the Pope, the Bishops, Fr. Williams or anyone else compelled anyone to give Plan B. I said that I agree with the law in this matter. My position is one of advocacy for the rape victim. Period.

 

[Suudy]

No, Plan B prevents forced pregnancies.

Only if conception has not occurred. If the state of ovulation is unknown, then the state of conception is also unknown. When taking an action that may lead to the death of an innocent human being, one should know with near certainty that there is no risk.

At this time, and yes I agree with it (before you ask), the woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. In a rape situation, the woman’s rights are paramount.

More paramount than another’s right to life? If conception has occurred, the woman’s rights end when the life of the unborn child is threatened.

I think you don’t understand the recklessness or negligence involved in the use of Plan B when ovulation is unknown. That’s why I brought up the quadrilemma. Intentional, reckless or negligent action that potentially threatens another human being is a crime in every area except with regard to the unborn. Why in the case of rape should the woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy trump the standards by which be evaluate all other behavior?

My entire point here is that if the state of ovulation is unknown, it is reckless or negligent to administer Plan B. Those that have the moral knowledge and conviction to recognize these situations should be permitted to exercise their right to refuse to cooperate in a potentially dangerous act. Nobody should be forced by law to act recklessly or negligently. Indeed, the law should protect people who do exercise their judgment to avoid those situations.

That does not prove that there is no “out” because if they were opposed to this “out” as you call it, they surely would have said so.

Lack of evidence is not proof. By this logic, if Jesus was really opposed to abortion, he surely would have said so. The USCCB’s silence on the point of compelling people by law to administer Plan B is not proof that they do not oppose it. Besides, I gave you an article citing the Pope’s objection to such laws. Who do you think the Bishops are more likely to agree with? An anonymous poster on CAF, or the Pope?

It doesn’t say to not give plan B if the test is unavailable, that would be penalizing the woman (yet again, of course) for it’s unavailability. Father said to favor the woman, and he’s correct.

Only if there is reasonable doubt that ovulation has not occurred. That has been my point all along. If there is uncertainty (hence my use of “and you don’t know it” in my quadrilemma), Fr William’s article doesn’t say that Plan B is permissible. Indeed, it would seem that the professional judgment of the caregiver is the standard of reasonableness.

Look, I’m only talking about the situation of uncertainty. If a nurse is ordered to give Plan B by a doctor, and the nurse initially objects by citing ethical concerns over the potential death of a fetus, there should be no legal penalty for refusing to participate. If the doctor tells the nurse “I’ve done testing and I’m reasonably certain that ovulation has not occurred,” that should be enough to convince the nurse. Or if the nurse, during triage notes that the victims menstrual history indicates that ovulation is very unlikely, then there should be no objection to Plan B. The entire point of this conversation is when it is unsure. Such as when no ovulation tests are available, and based upon the menstrual history ovulation can’t be reasonable determined. Fr Williams’ article makes no mention of this situation. Indeed, from his article:
Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. However, if there is certainty that ovulation has occurred and conception may have taken place, then the child has the right to life and the mother must not risk an abortion from the antifertility drugs.
Fr Williams never discusses the gray area.

I never said the USCCB, Bishops or even the Vatican supports my diea that caregivers should be compelled by law to administer Plan B in the cases of rape. You asked me what I thought, and I told you what I thought.

Then why cite Fr Williams? Or that the bishops say to err on the side of women? You mention these in support of your argument for a legal requirement to dispense Plan B.

A pharmacist cannot refuse to fill an order for Plan B on the grounds that is it dangerous to the patient or others because the woman is the one with the right to consent. Therefore, it is not dangerous to anyone, and can only serve to help the woman in an effort to protect herself from a forced pregnancy.

Of course it may be dangerous to another. Unless you are denying that unborn children are not people. And sure, it can protect the woman from an unintended pregnancy. But the ends do not justify the means. One cannot destroy or threaten to destroy innocent human life to achieve that end.

That is because caregivers, whether they are pharmacists, doctors or nurses, are overreaching their bounds by trying to enforce their values on those who do not share them.

Protection of innocent human life is a universal value. And it is something the police do every day. Unless, of course, you think that the police are “trying to enforce their values on those who do not share them.” It is a factual premise that the unborn are human beings. It is either true or not true. Either the unborn are human beings or they are not. It isn’t a value judgment.

 

[Suudy]

Pharmacists and nurses should have no right, and they have no right, to circumvent a rape victim from trying to prevent these forced pregnancies if that is what they intend to do.

They don’t intend to force a pregnancy. They intend to save the life of an innocent human being. If anything, this is a perfect application of DDE.

The longer one waits to fill the prescription, the less likely the intended effect of the drug (which is to prevent conception).

But if ovulation has already occurred, this intended effect may not be the actual effect. Which is why the knowledge of the state of ovulation is so important.

So if the pharmacists really cared about the rape victim, they would administer that plan B without delay.

There is more at stake than just the rape victim. There is also the potential destruction of an innocent human being. We should always err on the side of life first. Of course the pharmacist should care about the rape victim. But he should not be compelled to ignore the possible death of an innocent human being.

Perhaps more energy should be spent on trying to prevent rapes from happening in the first place, not by continuing to hold women down even after they have been assaulted and raped, forcing them to be pregnant against their will and against their own actions.

The only person that forced and potential pregnancy is the rapist. Don’t blame the caregivers. The doctors, nurses, and pharmacists have to consider everyone involved, including an unborn child.

I didn’t say a thing about Fr. Williams’ suggesting that caregivers be compelled by law to administer Plan B to rape victims. I said that I agee with the law. I have no unearthly clue why you keep saying that I said that the Pope, the Bishops, Fr. Williams or anyone else compelled anyone to give Plan B. I said that I agree with the law in this matter. My position is one of advocacy for the rape victim. Period.

You cited them in support of your position. I’m arguing against that position using the same sources you cite in support. I think your advocacy for the rape victim is laudable and well intentioned. But I also think your advocacy has gone too far. It has gone to the point of recklessness and negligence. You are advocating a position that potentially threatens the lives of innocent human beings. I don’t know how you can reconcile that position with the moral standards of the nation, the world, or the Church.

 

[RobbyS]

Well…you can work whereever you want. No matter where you work, you still have to perform the jobs as listed in the job description, and as discussed in the interview. No matter where you work, doing your job will still be expected of you.

No,you can’t work anywhere you want.

 

[RobbyS]

Because it is a medication prescribed by a physician, and and such, when it is prescribed by a physician for a patient, and the patient wishes to fill the prescription, it is to be filled as ordered.

Because one’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. You cannot come between a patient and doctor without sufficient reason. That relationship is not only personal, but professional. Citing Catholic canon is not a suffcient reason to not fill a prescription for a Jew, a Protestant, an Atheist or anyone else who is not compelled to follow the rules of one’s religion. A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient. You can’t force someone to follow one’s religion.

Yes it does. It enables the victim to fight back by preventing a forced pregnancy. It’s therapeutic indication is to prevent pregnancy. This is what it is used for. Your opinion that it doesn’t serve any therapeutic purpose is based on Catholic theology, not medical reasoning. You cannot force another individual to follow your religion.

I hate to repeat myself, because it may seem rude. But I’m not being rude. I just have the same answer to that question: Because one’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. You cannot come between a patient and doctor without sufficient reason. That relationship is not only personal, but professional. Citing Catholic canon is not a suffcient reason to not fill a prescription for a Jew, a Protestant, an Atheist or anyone else who is not compelled to follow the rules of one’s religion. A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient. You can’t force someone to follow one’s religion.

No, I don’t agree with that. Sorry. See above. If it’s a medication prescribed by a physician and the patient needs it filled, and the pharmacy carries it, then it should be filled for the patient. By denying a rape victim plan B, the patient is losing precious time that would be best spent preventing that forced conception from happening in the first place, because it’s all a rush against time to prevent conception.

Well, you’re asking me, and I am grateful for the law on behalf of rape victims. It should be dispensed as ordered.

If ovulation is unknown, the woman should not be further victimized if she wants plan B to prevent a pregnancy. The sooner she takes it, the sooner a prevention is achieved.

It is therapeutic, it enables a victim to fight back by preventing a physically forced pregnancy.

It’s indication is to prevent pregnancy. The indication is appropriate.

If plan b is used as directed, and administered as soon as possible, no one will be in danger and the woman will have been enabled to prevent a forced pregnancy.

The most pernicious effect of Roe v. Wade was to sever the nexus between mother and child. Texas could not find any cases in which the unborn child was treated as an entity apart from the pregant woman. That was because the woman
was regarded as the protector of the child, even before it was born.

 

[latin_rite]

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.

:
:

Why compare a beautiful and noble beast like the bear to someone like him?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

It seems that some people are forgetting something. Catholics are not the only people who are bound by moral law. If other people were NOT bound by moral law then I’d be jumping ship to avoid responsibility before God! I mean, why be a Catholic and be bound by morals (and held accountable) when you don’t have to be one and then you’re not! Um… right. There’s something wrong with that logic. The simple fact is whether you’re atheist, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or whatever, you’re still bound by moral laws and those trump anything else all the time. Sure, due to a state of ignorance some may not be held accountable as much as others, but nobody needs to be a Catholic to know that killing an innocent person is wrong.

So, simply put, that woman has no right to request something that will kill her child, regardless of her religion. That doctor has no right to prescribe treatment that will kill a woman’s child. No pharmacist has a right to dispense a drug to kill another person. So if a woman requests a drug to kill her child from the pharmacist, that pharmacist is not morally bound to give her the “treatment” because she has no right to request it in the first place. Legally bound? Perhaps, depending on laws, but those can never overrule moral law.

Let’s put it another way. If killing a person (the unborn child) is permissible to save trauma or something of the mother, then that means, by the same logic, that I could shoot the person who is going to give the “treatment” that kills the child to save the child. Yet, I somehow doubt that the very same people who are advocating the reckless destruction of life would agree here. Rather, I’d be some murderer who needs to be put in jail. Funny thing is though, in this hypothetical case, I’d at least be saving a life (the child’s) by preventing an action taken against him, whereas the Plan B isn’t saving a life at all – just preventing a pregnancy (or killing an innocent life).

 

[catharina]

It seems that some people are forgetting something. Catholics are not the only people who are bound by moral law. If other people were NOT bound by moral law then I’d be jumping ship to avoid responsibility before God! I mean, why be a Catholic and be bound by morals (and held accountable) when you don’t have to be one and then you’re not! Um… right. There’s something wrong with that logic. The simple fact is whether you’re atheist, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or whatever, you’re still bound by moral laws and those trump anything else all the time. Sure, due to a state of ignorance some may not be held accountable as much as others, but nobody needs to be a Catholic to know that killing an innocent person is wrong.

So, simply put, that woman has no right to request something that will kill her child, regardless of her religion. That doctor has no right to prescribe treatment that will kill a woman’s child. No pharmacist has a right to dispense a drug to kill another person. So if a woman requests a drug to kill her child from the pharmacist, that pharmacist is not morally bound to give her the “treatment” because she has no right to request it in the first place. Legally bound? Perhaps, depending on laws, but those can never overrule moral law.

Let’s put it another way. If killing a person (the unborn child) is permissible to save trauma or something of the mother, then that means, by the same logic, that I could shoot the person who is going to give the “treatment” that kills the child to save the child. Yet, I somehow doubt that the very same people who are advocating the reckless destruction of life would agree here. Rather, I’d be some murderer who needs to be put in jail. Funny thing is though, in this hypothetical case, I’d at least be saving a life (the child’s) by preventing an action taken against him, whereas the Plan B isn’t saving a life at all – just preventing a pregnancy (or killing an innocent life).

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I don’t think so. I’ve posted on other threads about my college buddy. He earned his PharmD in 1998 from my alma mater, and he too received similar training as yourself. It wasn’t explicit, but he has pointed out to me that he was not taught that a legal prescription was necessarily a licit prescription. I remember one example–which I’ve pointed out to others on the thread related to Makena–that if the pharmacist has reason to believe, in his professional opinion, that the prescription either 1) doesn’t provide the therapeutic benefit for which it is prescribed or 2) is contraindicated, he is not to fill it. Even if after confirming with the doctor, if the pharmacist does not think the prescription is appropriate, he has the right to refuse to fill it. Yet ruling by the Board of Pharmacy runs directly contrary to the education he was given. This is essentially telling the pharmacist to ignore his professional judgment with regard to Plan B, and do whatever the state tells you to do.

Also, my wife returned to school and completed her BSN in 2006. Even there she was told to use her professional judgment on any treatment. I remember her medical ethics classes because I helped her write her papers. And nowhere was there mention of Catholic ethics, but it was emphasized that individuals should never act contrary to their conscience and always with the good of the patient in mind. The ethics scenarios (not surprisingly) never included abortion or euthanasia, but rather about refusing orders from doctors that are questionable, working without complete knowledge about the patients condition or treatment, and how to deal with abusive/combative/impaired patients.

There was a case in New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina, where Memorial Hospital’s management decided to kill some patients. Nine patients were killed by injecting them with a mixture of morphine and midazolam. The killings were carried out by a certain Dr. Anna Pou and two nurses. From a nurse’s standpoint, I think it was a textbook case of the nurse’s own ethical standards clashing with the orders of the physician. First of all, this particular doctor (Dr. Pou) was not the doctor assigned to the ward that housed the 9 patients. Second, 2 patients had a prescription for morphine, 7 did not have a prescription for morphine. Third, none of the patients had a prescription for midazolam. Fourth, after all nine patients were injected with this mixture of morphine and midazolam, they failed to record in the files of the patients that they have been injected with this stuff. I think the thought that a nurse, a pharmacist, or a doctor should be a mindless automaton is a scary thought. If those nurses were not total beginners in their profession, they probably realized what was going on, and in an ideal world they should have refused to assist Dr. Pou to kill the 9 patients.

This case in New Orleans has been usually called “euthanasia” in the media, and nobody was convicted, even though the Attorney General of Louisiana pushed for criminal convictions. In earlier times, this would have been simply called “murder”, or “multiple murder”.

 

[estesbob]

CAF is rife with threads that show the danger of letting one’s politics trump their faith. What we have seen in this thread is the danger of letting one’s profession trump their faith.

I strongly oppose the idea that certain professions are off-limits to Catholics that refuse to compromise their faith to their profession.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

CAF is rife with threads that show the danger of letting one’s politics trump their faith. What we have seen in this thread is the danger of letting one’s profession trump their faith.

I strongly oppose the idea that certain professions are off-limits to Catholics that refuse to compromise their faith to their profession.

If we don’t stand up for the conscience rights of healthcare professionals, first we will see Catholic and other pro-life professionals chased out of the healthcare industry.

In the next step, all Americans will be left with morally-ethically weak and confused, or even worse, anti-life healthcare professionals to care for them.

At that point, there will be open season on the very young and very old, on “defective people” and sick people whom, in some anti-life professional’s or finance manager’s opinion, are not worth the effort and the money to care for them and keep them alive.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Why compare a beautiful and noble beast like the bear to someone like him?

My apologies to the bears!

 

[estesbob]

If we don’t stand up for the conscience rights of healthcare professionals, first we will see Catholic and other pro-life professionals chased out of the healthcare industry.

.

You may recall that during John Roberts confirmation hearings several Democrat senators questioned whether he could be an impartial jurist given his adherence to the Catholic faith. If we start conceding that there are professions that Catholics cannot serve in it will be one more step down the road to totally surrendering to the culture of death.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

You may recall that during John Roberts confirmation hearings several Democrat senators questioned whether he could be an impartial jurist given his adherence to the Catholic faith. If we start conceding that there are professions that Catholics cannot serve in it will be one more step down the road to totally surrendering to the culture of death.

Wow, so I guess in their opinion, if you adhere to the atheist faith, or to the philosophy of relativism and agnosticism, you will be considered fine and “impartial”, but not so if you are Catholic?

That sounds like a nasty attack on Catholics!

 

[estesbob]

Wow, so I guess in their opinion, if you adhere to the atheist faith, or to the philosophy of relativism and agnosticism, you will be considered fine and “impartial”, but not so if you are Catholic?

That sounds like a nasty attack on Catholics!

It comes very close to having a religious test to serve on the bench.

 

[Rence]

More paramount than another’s right to life?

Yes, the rights of the woman are paramount.

Why in the case of rape should the woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy trump the standards by which be evaluate all other behavior?

You’re talking about " the standards by which we evaluate all other behavior" in accordance to the teachings of the Church. This is not a universal teaching, otherwise, all religions and all cultures would agree with the Church. And of course in the case of rape, a woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy is distinctly different. If it wasn’t, even the Bishops wouldn’t have made it distinct, but they did. They acknowledge that a rape victim has the right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy. There is no “unitive” property to protect in the case of rape.

My entire point here is that if the state of ovulation is unknown, it is reckless or negligent to administer Plan B. Those that have the moral knowledge and conviction to recognize these situations should be permitted to exercise their right to refuse to cooperate in a potentially dangerous act. Nobody should be forced by law to act recklessly or negligently. Indeed, the law should protect people who do exercise their judgment to avoid those situations.

If the state of ovulation is unknown, there are no parties that “have the moral knowledge and conviction”. They are just guessing, at the expense of a rape victim. Laws need to protect the patient as well.

Lack of evidence is not proof. By this logic, if Jesus was really opposed to abortion, he surely would have said so. The USCCB’s silence on the point of compelling people by law to administer Plan B is not proof that they do not oppose it. Besides, I gave you an article citing the Pope’s objection to such laws. Who do you think the Bishops are more likely to agree with? An anonymous poster on CAF, or the Pope?

The Bishops can agree with whomever they like, because they only control those people who give the Bishops authority over them. Thankfully, the Bishops don’t make the laws. They only “govern” Catholics.

Only if there is reasonable doubt that ovulation has not occurred. That has been my point all along. If there is uncertainty (hence my use of “and you don’t know it” in my quadrilemma), Fr William’s article doesn’t say that Plan B is permissible. Indeed, it would seem that the professional judgment of the caregiver is the standard of reasonableness."

Actually, no, Father Williams did say that Plan B is permissible if there is uncertainty – at all. He said just the opposite here: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. However, if there is certainty

In real life, that nurse should have no trouble finding someone to administer the medication for her. However, if there is a rare chance that she can’t find someone else, then she has to do it, or she risks her job, and I agree with that. Someone has to administer the medication as ordered, and it’s her job to do it if someone else can’t do her job for her. But again, she should be able to find someone to do it.

The entire point of this conversation is when it is unsure. Such as when no ovulation tests are available, and based upon the menstrual history ovulation can’t be reasonable determined. Fr Williams’ article makes no mention of this situation. Indeed, from his article:
Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place

, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. However, if there is certainty that ovulation has occurred and conception may have taken place, then the child has the right to life and the mother must not risk an abortion from the antifertility drugs.
Fr Williams never discusses the gray area.

“reasonable doubt” that ovulation has taken place is an uncertainty, that means, when it is unsure.

Then why cite Fr Williams? Or that the bishops say to err on the side of women? You mention these in support of your argument for a legal requirement to dispense Plan B.

Only because this is a Catholic forum. No other reason. In the real world, it really doesn’t matter what the Bishops say, unless, as I mentioned above, the Bishops are saying it to Catholics who give the Bishops authority over them.

 

[Dawnia]

Sorry, I haven’t read all of the comments on this thread, so if I missed something that was said regarding this earlier I apologize.

There is a huge difference between an employer canning you because of insubordination due to an ethical dispute and the government pulling your license for this reason. An employer and employee have a mutually agreed upon contract that says the employer will pay the employee for doing their job. A licensor/licensee relationship when it deals with the government is inherently unequal. The government has much greater power than the licensee. If you don’t like your job you don’t have to take it or you can quit after the fact, but you don’t have any options when it comes to being licensed. The licensor can make up whatever rules it so chooses at any time and the licensee doesn’t have any negotiating power. There have to be safeguards in place to protect the licensee from being forced by the government into doing things against their will and beliefs under threat of having their livelyhood taken away without just cause or compensation.

Also there is no “right” to pharmaceuticals. Any number of people (doctors, pharmacists, DEA, FDA, drug manufacturers, insurance companies, etc) can deny your access to drugs and you have no recourse in most cases. The government in the case of drugs has total control over the manufacture and distribution of drugs in the US as well as police power to decide who gets to use the drugs and who does not. A right protects people from government intrusion, it doesn’t give the government total control.

I could probably go on ad nauseum but I will stop at those two points.

Happy Easter er Happy Day After Easter :doh2:

 

[DawnInTexas]

…
Happy Easter er Happy Day After Easter :doh2:

'Tis Easter Monday today.

So, “Happy Easter!”

(Nice name-by the way. Welcome to CAF!)

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Sorry, I haven’t read all of the comments on this thread, so if I missed something that was said regarding this earlier I apologize.

There is a huge difference between an employer canning you because of insubordination due to an ethical dispute and the government pulling your license for this reason. An employer and employee have a mutually agreed upon contract that says the employer will pay the employee for doing their job. A licensor/licensee relationship when it deals with the government is inherently unequal. The government has much greater power than the licensee. If you don’t like your job you don’t have to take it or you can quit after the fact, but you don’t have any options when it comes to being licensed. The licensor can make up whatever rules it so chooses at any time and the licensee doesn’t have any negotiating power. There have to be safeguards in place to protect the licensee from being forced by the government into doing things against their will and beliefs under threat of having their livelyhood taken away without just cause or compensation.

Also there is no “right” to pharmaceuticals. Any number of people (doctors, pharmacists, DEA, FDA, drug manufacturers, insurance companies, etc) can deny your access to drugs and you have no recourse in most cases. The government in the case of drugs has total control over the manufacture and distribution of drugs in the US as well as police power to decide who gets to use the drugs and who does not. A right protects people from government intrusion, it doesn’t give the government total control.

I could probably go on ad nauseum but I will stop at those two points.

Happy Easter er Happy Day After Easter :doh2:

Dawnia, good points. This is not about an employer having a disagreement with an actual or potential employee, but rather the state going after pharmacists and pushing them out of business, just because they refuse to stock and dispense the drug named Plan B. And indeed, to make us appreciate how intrusive the government has become in the case of Plan B, we should recall that there’s no “right” to pharmaceuticals. There are just a handful of antidote type life-saving medicines that the government mandates that pharmacies and hospitals should carry, but now, states like Illinois and Washington tried to add Plan B, the drug that saves no lives, to that shortlist of life-saving drugs that are mandatory to carry.

It’s similar to the government suddenly making a rule that everybody has a right to BudLight beer and Jack-O-Link’s beef jerky, and mandating all gas stations to carry BudLight beer and Jack-O-Link’s beef jerky, or else go out of business. Well, what if the owner of the gas station doesn’t want to sell beer, perhaps because he is an observant Muslim?

It’s time for us citizens to reign in our out-of-control governments (both state and federal) and fire the bureaucrats who come up with these idiotic ideas.

Nevertheless, Happy Easter!

We The People will prevail, over Big Bureaucrats, and over Big Government!