D
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It seems logical then that if the state can not force pharmacists to sell contraception, the federal government can not force employers to pay for contraception, sterilization or abortificants through insurance.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Interesting logic. It sounds like Washington could force pharmacies to dispense Plan B, if it eliminates the options for refusal on secular grounds.
I do find it odd that religious objections are given equal weight to secular ones. I would have thought that religious objections would either be given an almost absolute weight - far greater than any secular objection - or a lesser weight, if the policy prioritized objections that were relevant to the health of the patient/customer.
S
seekerz
Guest
Good. This is just as it should be. Individual pharmacists picking and choosing what drugs on their shelves they dispense to whom, I oppose. But a pharmacy choosing not to stock a drug is well within their rights I would say.
M
manualman
Guest
Huh? So if I’m a catholic pharmacist and can’t find a pharmacy that will hire me that doesn’t stock the abortion pill, then I should starve or give up my profession?
How about we work for allowing people to reserve the right to refuse to abet murder without being forced to sacrifice their livelihoods??
S
seekerz
Guest
Isn’t being paid from profits that include abortion pill sales somewhat contrary to that stand? Isn’t contributing directly to the profitability of such an establishment also a contradiction to that stand? It’s like saying, “what if the only ultrasound tech job I can get is at a practice that does abortions, should I starve? Why can’t I take the job and just refuse to scan those who present for abortion?”
To me, conscience questions should relate to those who directly will and intend to perform an abortion: not to those who are indirectly or incidentally related to it. There are very few drugs - none which I can find actually - which have only a single use, therefore selling mifepristone is not directly assisting abortion.
J
JimG
Guest
This is something HHS needs to learn.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Kind of like the HHS “compromise” on contraception, huh?
S
seekerz
Guest
Exactly, like the original mandate.Kind of like the HHS “compromise” on contraception, huh?
J
JimG
Guest
This ruling has determined that the state cannot compel pharmacies to provide the morning after pill–an abortion inducing drug–if that violates the religious beliefs of the pharmacist.
The irony is that under the HHS mandate, that same pharmacist with a religous objection to providing such drugs, will be required to provide them in his health insurance policy! It’s a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion.
The irony is that under the HHS mandate, that same pharmacist with a religous objection to providing such drugs, will be required to provide them in his health insurance policy! It’s a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion.
M
manualman
Guest
That’s your argument?
There is a plain and clear difference between handing someone the RU-486 drug that has one clear and unambiguous purpose and working for a corporation that does so with other workers. Each employee is presumably productive enough to earn his own salary working on what HE works on. His salary is not derived from the efforts of those working in immoral purposes.
It’s the difference between working at a Sporting good store that happens to sell guns and parking your van on a street corner and selling handguns to gang bangers.
If you can’t see any difference there, we just aren’t going to be able to communicate at all.
S
seekerz
Guest
Research the uses of RU-486 - abortion is the common, but not only use. Many other drugs with abortifacient purposes are much more diverse in their uses, but I cannot see conscience exemptions being restricted to a single drugs. That would mean giving pharmacists the right to arbitrarily approve or disapprove a doctor’s treatment decision based on their personal beliefs and not on a complete understanding of the patient’s medical information to which they are not privy.That’s your argument?
There is a plain and clear difference between handing someone the RU-486 drug that has one clear and unambiguous purpose and working for a corporation that does so with other workers. Each employee is presumably productive enough to earn his own salary working on what HE works on. His salary is not derived from the efforts of those working in immoral purposes.
It’s the difference between working at a Sporting good store that happens to sell guns and parking your van on a street corner and selling handguns to gang bangers.
If you can’t see any difference there, we just aren’t going to be able to communicate at all.
My argument is not to say that the pharmacist should not work where these drugs are sold, but to show how impractical these concessions are if carried to their full extent.
D
Dan_McVay
Guest
Funny that it is always women’s healthcare that is against these people’s conscience. I am sure that doesn’t mean anything.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Funny how “woman’s healthcare” kills babies. I am sure that doesn’t mean anything.
S
seekerz
Guest
Don’t say…don’t say it…it’s a distraction invented by liberals. Besides, I’m pretty sure that conscientious objectors treat the question of moral use of a woman’s prescribed drugs with the same scrutiny that they treat the moral use of a man’s prescription: Are you pregnant, married, trying to take advantage of your date etc etc.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What are you trying to say here?
S
seekerz
Guest
I’m saying I would expect all customers, regardless of gender to be questioned by conscientious objectors (if at all they are required to give a basis for refusing to dispense a drug) for possible immoral purposes for the medications they request.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I don’t think anyone is being questioned about the use of their prescription. The issue at hand is whether pharmacies must carry an abortificacient. There is no need to question someone about a drug you aren’t going to sell.
Are you just trying to imply that pro-lifers are chauvinistic?
S
seekerz
Guest
You are correct, pharmacies are not required to carry them. We had digressed into discussing the dilemma of individual pharmacists at an establishment which sells all drugs. As I was observing, there are few, if any drugs, which are used for a single purpose. So to be a conscientious objector, such a pharmacist would either have to ignore these multiple uses or question people on what they’re going to do with the drugs prescribed.I don’t think anyone is being questioned about the use of their prescription. The issue at hand is whether pharmacies must carry an abortificacient. There is no need to question someone about a drug you aren’t going to sell.
Are you just trying to imply that pro-lifers are chauvinistic?
Not sure how you get to implications of chauvinism among pro-lifers. I simply think that partial information is a dangerous thing and for the most part, that is what (short of presenting themselves in a doctor’s office and interpreting patient data in a knowledgeable way) pharmacists have access to.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I have mixed feelings here. I’m one of those who feel we all should be able to buy prescription drugs from overseas if they are cheaper. (And many times they are LOTS cheaper.) On the other hand our government is supposed to protect life. The HHS did well with the Salk vacine, but it’s gone downhill from there.
- Status