D
Dale_M
Guest
kansascity.com/2012/05/15/3611028/kansas-gov-brownback-signs-act.html
Seven other states in the US have similar measures. This is the fifth bill restricting abortion which Gov. Brownback has signed into law.
Kansas Gov. Brownback signs act allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense abortion drugs
- Status
Seven other states in the US have similar measures. This is the fifth bill restricting abortion which Gov. Brownback has signed into law.
B
Brendan
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
J
jediliz
Guest
that’s the best news I’ve seen today. Good for Kansas!
J
JimG
Guest
Of course this action is being attacked editorially by the state newspapers.
P
Prague
Guest
Good for Gov. Brownback.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
How quickly can we get Gov. Brownback on a national ballot?
D
Dale_M
Guest
He ran for president four years ago, but his campaign never caught fire. So he dropped out before the first primary.
reuters.com/article/2007/10/19/us-usa-politics-brownback-idUSN1922351520071019
He might make a good VP pick, though, if he were interested. As a former US senator, he might like that. However, he was elected governor two years ago, so is only halfway through his first term as gov.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Gov. Sam takes his role as a Catholic politician seriously. Good for him,
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Being a pharmacist I can tell that there are many jokes out there about how people regard pharmacists as nothing more than some glorified vendors of produce.
People totally don’t get it that the pharmacist is a professional who follows the ethical standards of his profession, and those ethical mandates may sometimes come into conflict with the requests/expectations of the patients and the state (see how Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, and Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington state passed immoral laws forcing pharmacists to carry and dispense contraceptives). But as a pharmacy student, I was not told that I am supposed to mindlessly satisfy every request by the customers or authorities. I was told to practice my profession ethically, and serve my patients ethically. Since I regard contraception and abortion as forms of drug abuse and malpractice, the ethical constraints of my profession force me to eventually say no to requests for contraceptive and abortive drugs.However, let’s use for a second the thinking that the pharmacist is just a glorified vendor or clerk in a drugstore. In this case, may I please expect at least as much freedom as the vendor in my local gas station, who refuses to sell beer in his shop?
This is for real - the guys running that gas station look like Middle Easterner Muslims, and they have no beer in the convenience store. If we can respect their choice not to sell beer, may I be so bold please to expect my customers to respect my choice not to sell contraceptive and abortive drugs? 
Suudy
Active member
I wish you were around during the debate the first time about the HHS mandate, WA pharmacy mandate, and the Makena markup (here, here, and here, respectively). It seems every time I discuss these issues, I responses like pharmacists are to “simply provide [prescriptions] written, and if appropriate/desired verbal warnings, as appropriate” and that “[a]nything else is outside the scope of their practice.” Some have admitted that they don’t think pharmacists are even medical professionals.Being a pharmacist I can tell that there are many jokes out there about how people regard pharmacists as nothing more than some glorified vendors of produce.
If only I had a real pharmacist on those threads, rather than my second-hand knowledge through a good friend of mine.
S
SamH
Guest
When you consider what Kansas had before a few restrictions where needed just to bring it up to some level of social decency. When Brownback became governor essentially “abortion” or “infanticide” was legal as long as the umbilical cord was still attached. Abortion clinics were not subject to the same inspections other surgical clinics were and it was proven that they were covering up cases of statutory rape and sexual abuse.
J
JackVk
Guest
And it turns out that Kansas, named the most conservative state, has more women in its state legislature than the respective state legislatures of New York and California.
So much for the “war on women”
So much for the “war on women”
S
SamH
Guest
It’s also had two of the most liberal democrat Governors the nation has ever seen too. Neither California or New York has even had a women governor.And it turns out that Kansas, named the most conservative state, has more women in its state legislature than the respective state legislatures of New York and California.
So much for the “war on women”
L
L_piperatus
Guest
At the end of the day, all sorts of professions have their own ethical and safety standards. It just hits me as profoundly anti-freedom and profoundly un-American, that some people think they can come pounding the desk of a professional or a business owner, demanding to be provided with a service or product that, according to the professional’s or business owner’s judgment, is unsafe, unethical, or harmful.
If we allow the state to force professionals to provide unsafe, unethical, and harmful services, we will have the state destroying professions and destroying businesses. If pharmacists can be forced by law to provide drugs that sicken people, rendering them infertile, and kill their unborn children, a coercive law that I see NO BASIS FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION, we will allow the state to establish a dire precedent for trampling the constitution, forcing professionals and business owners to provide services against their will, and moreover to provide products and services that they regard as unethical, unsafe, and harmful.
Let’s take this logic to the extreme. Will the state force surgeons to provide “sex-change” surgeries where they mutilate perfectly healthy people? Force doctors and nurses to perform surgical abortions? Why not force sushi chefs to provide meals from fish that they know to be poisonous and harmful to the consumer? Force auto mechanics and manufacturers to provide auto designs that those auto professionals consider as unsafe? Why not, if we allow the state to override a professional’s own professional judgment like it tries to do with pharmacists?
H
Holly3278
Guest
This is good news. All states should enact such conscience protection laws.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Who named it the most conservative state? That comes as a surprise to me.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I think your premise that the government cannot legally regulate what is sold by licensed businesses is flawed. In the case of service station owners, some may feel it’s wrong to add ethanol to gasoline, or that it’s wrong to add anti-gel additives to diesel. Nonetheless, they are required to do so, depending on the jurisdiction.
S
SamH
Guest
But the government does not compel them to sell gas or diesel.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
I will agree that the government can regulate stuff as long as it’s about protecting the safety of others - but that’s it. That’s where the government’s rights stop. The government can ban grocery stores from selling infected poultry meat or chives infected with salmonella, that sort of thing. I don’t know why they add antigel additives to diesel, but if it’s about protecting the consumers or even their engines from damage, I can see the legitimacy of regulations. There’s a parallel here with the pharmaceutical products - the FDA regulates the necessary purity of active ingredients in pharmaceutical preparations, as well as certain other characteristics like the absence of bacteria and pyrogenic (fever-producing) components in injectable preparations and ophthalmic products, etc. This is all about protecting the patients, and I’m not one to question the wisdom and legitimacy of such regulations.
But when it comes to the state trying to force me, the pharmacist, to sell a harmful product that sickens people by rendering perfectly healthy folks infertile, or worse, deliberately kills the unborn human persons in the wombs of their mothers, that’s a whole different issue. That’s an attack on my professional ethical standards, and it also happens to be an attack on my right to choose which products I will stock and sell in my pharmacy.
On the ethical level, I have a devastating case against the immoral murderous tyrants like Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, or Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire, who didn’t stop at merely supporting abortion and contraception, but passed unjust laws that tried to force pharmacists to participate in these crimes by forcing the pharmacists to stock and sell abortive and contraceptive drugs and devices. As a professional I am on the side of protecting my patients and their unborn children. But on which side are Rod Blagojevich, and Christine Gregoire? They are on the side of making healthy people sick and on the side of killing babies - while I am on the side of protecting people. Enough said…
Although in terms of gravity it’s secondary to the evil of harming people with infertility-inducing contraceptives and killing unborn babies with abortive drugs, let’s address the issue of whether the government can force me to sell a product I’m not willing to sell. Can the government force my local gas station to sell beer, just because I the consumer want easy access to beer? As far as I know, the government can’t force the gas station to sell beer. Regarding your example of ethanol-containing gasoline, are you sure the government is forcing anyone to blend ethanol into gasoline? Or is it the gas stations’ own business decision to add ethanol to gasoline, whenever it makes sense from a business standpoint?
Can the government force my local newsstand to carry and sell any newspapers or magazines this business is unwilling to stock and sell? Again, the answer is no. The government can’t force the newstand to sell the Playboy, or even the New York Times, for that matter.
And the situation is similar with pharmacies. The government can’t force pharmacies to sell certain drugs just because the government thinks that they should sell them. Now, there are a handful of life-saving medicines that are an exception and pharmacies are required to stock them, but we are talking about life-saving medicines (e.g. antidotes) needed in emergency situations, and abortive/contraceptive drugs are not life-saving medicines. Anything outside that shortlist of life-saving medicines is up to the pharmacist to decide, and the state has no right to mandate that a pharmacy should stock it.
This has been the status quo for decades all over the USA, until Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and Christine Gregoire in Washington state tried to change the status quo by forcing pharmacies to stock (and forcing pharmacists to dispense) abortive and contraceptive drugs. But both of those laws passed in Illi. and Wash. states have been shot down by judges, and with good reason: the laws are unconstitutional. Nowhere does the constitution say that the government can dictate businesses what kind of products to sell and what kind of services to provide.
- Status