Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Fired Pro-Life Pharmacist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dale_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is when you and I part ways, then. I am completely unwilling to allow my grocers religious beliefs to affect my life and I’d be completely unwilling to allow my pharmacists, either.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think religious freedom is much more important than not suffering the occasional minor inconvenience.
Why would you work at a pharmacy that dispenses birth control if you don’t believe in dispensing birth control?

Isn’t that like a catholic working as a prostitute but refusing to commit fornication? Why would a catholic work as a prostitute in the first place?
No, that isn’t accurate. That would only be accurate if the person’s religious beliefs prohibited the use of modern medicine or if the Catholic pharmacist wanted to work for a pharmacy that only dispensed birth control.
 
Actually, it is a slam dunk and you can’t handle being wrong.
Nice try. It’s irrelevant because I was saying that contraceptives can cause death. Your response was basically, well yeah so can other drugs. Nothing I said was wrong. I said that contraceptives can cause death…which is true, so that does not make me wrong. Nice try, though.
Actually, I’m defending the Constitution and United States Law, you are the one that made this a discussion about contraception.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The thread is about a pharmacist and contraception, so the subject of the thread made it a discussion about contraception, not me. First Tom says that “United States law” was violated by this pharmacist, and not you’re talking about the Constitution…which part of the Constitution requires someone to fill a contraception prescription, I wonder?

In Christ,
Rand
 
I cannot believe the extents to which people will go to defend contraception…it is amazing.In ChristRand
Since you posted this after quoting Nohome’s illustration of a point I made, I have to assume you are directing your statement at me. I don’t believe I defended contraception. Rather, I highlighted a flaw in your logic. Assuming the rest of your logic is sound, your argument will be the stronger without the flawed point.
 
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think religious freedom is much more important than not suffering the occasional minor inconvenience.
Then where, may I ask, is the line?

If you tell the Jewish grocer that, OK, he doesn’t have to sell you ham then what place do you have telling the Muslim father that he can’t have his daughter veiled all the time, and he can’t kill her if she fornicates?
It’s irrelevant because I was saying that contraceptives can cause death. Your response was basically, well yeah so can other drugs. Nothing I said was wrong. I said that contraceptives can cause death…which is true, so that does not make me wrong.
As I said, the risk is negligible. You could point to examples of toasters killing people, it would still be intentionally misleading to say ‘toasters kill people’.
First Tom says that “United States law” was violated by this pharmacist
No. Tom doesn’t just say that, that is the reality of the situation. The law was broken here, there is no debate on that.
 
No. Tom doesn’t just say that, that is the reality of the situation. The law was broken here, there is no debate on that.
Yes, you did say that and I already quoted you earlier in the thread. I have asked several times, which law was broken and you have still neglected to point me to one.
 
I cannot believe the extents to which people will go to defend contraception…it is amazing.In ChristRand
Since you posted this after quoting Nohome’s illustration of a point I made, I have to assume you are directing your statement at me. I don’t believe I defended contraception. Rather, I highlighted a flaw in your logic. Assuming the rest of your logic is sound, your argument will be the stronger without the flawed point.
 
Yes, you did say that and I already quoted you earlier in the thread. I have asked several times, which law was broken and you have still neglected to point me to one.
Forgive me for not having the exact document in front of me, but no doubt it is not legal for a pharmacist to take your prescription from you and not only refuse to fill it, but refuse to let you even have it.

He barred a woman from access to her prescribed contraception. A shameful act of unwarranted interference to another individual that the state Pharmacy Examining Board took him to court. They won.
 
Then where, may I ask, is the line?

If you tell the Jewish grocer that, OK, he doesn’t have to sell you ham then what place do you have telling the Muslim father that he can’t have his daughter veiled all the time, and he can’t kill her if she fornicates?
In the case of birth control and pharmacists, I’d draw the line where the courts did. A person can refuse to do something but can’t otherwise prevent you, as the pharmacist in question did. As for the example of a Muslim dictating a dress code for his daughter, so what? If she is a minor, I imagine parents get to decide how their kids dress. If she is an adult, he’s free to disagree or disown or whatever. As for murder, come on, are you actually serious? The difference between minor inconvenience as I have been using it and murder should be quite obvious.
 
Forgive me for not having the exact document in front of me, but no doubt it is not legal for a pharmacist to take your prescription from you and not only refuse to fill it, but refuse to let you even have it.

He barred a woman from access to her prescribed contraception. A shameful act of unwarranted interference to another individual that the state Pharmacy Examining Board took him to court. They won.
They took him to civil court, not criminal court. There is quite a difference between a judge upholding an association’s sanction and determining that someone violated a “United States law”. Did you even read the article where it said that he violated no law in Wisconsin?

And the pharmacist never took the prescription from the woman…she never had it to begin with, so how could he take it from her?

In Christ,
Rand
 
Yes, it has. Birth control is accepted in societies at the forefront of civilization, namely countries in the west.

Condoms and pills that prevent pregnancy are not murder weapons. That attitude is what helps AIDS ravage Africa.
Tom,

It is admirable that you take such a strong and seemingly well thought out stand in protecting personal liberties, primarily based on the law of the land and in protecting society from having religious morals imposed on them. But protecting personal liberties over the morality for the common good is a slippery slope in itself. It must hold true under your position that anything made into law would be okay because that is the law- whether it is in contradiction to the overall good for mankind or not.

Through your stance that the woman has a law-based secular “right” to have her prescription filled, that people have the “right” to take birth control because it is legal, and your belief that- just because it is legal trumps all else, you yourself espouse unto others the religion of “man made law” over the natural laws of our Creator.

What you don’t want others to do, you precisely want to do- impose a secular brand of “religion” on those who believe otherwise, just because it is popularly mandated for a period of time. Laws change and many court decisions are based defiantly in opposition to the constitution and for reasons of personal greed.

And telling others “if they don’t like it, they can live somewhere else” is also in direct oposition to your stance. If the laws were reversed and not fitting to your belief system, would you still support them or would you go live somewhere else or would you voice your concern over them?

One cannot honestly deny that this country was founded in principle to and in accordance with God’s natural laws, primarily by Christians and for God-fearing peoples. As such, I don’t think you could possibly agree that the founding fathers had birth control and abortion in mind as constitutionally protected “freedoms” as they wrote the declaration.

The question I ask you is this: Where do your beliefs stop? If life terminating pills and abortions are okay and if birth control over abstinence is okay because all are “legal”, will legalized euthanasia be okay, would legalized infanticide be okay, would human cloning be okay? How about legalized prostituation and marijuana? Once these are legal, is there any point where a law might seem to be morally objectionable and offensive to you, or would all laws be good because the populous voted them as such?

If the government of these United States of America passed any law, would you still support it, no matter how grossly that law might disregard human life or the dignity of many?

I have to assume that there might be some possibility that you would object to and therefore, your stance is flawed. I can’t believe that anyone could hold true that man made laws should always trump God’s laws no matter what.

The reason that this country is in decline is because the populous will not take a stand for what is righteous and good and pleasing to God as He demands. This is the tyranny of relativism. It’s too difficult, it goes against the grain of doing whatever it is that brings one personal pleasure, convenience, lack of accountability and self-perceived happiness.

A common moral stance must be taken for the people’s own good as a whole. That stance always must be in conformity with God’s natural law. There is only one truth.

That is just the way it is and until this country realizes it and holds that truth to be self evident; we are headed towards further separation, calamity and despair and the eventual breakdown of “civilized” sociaety.
 
I will add the following link for consideration of those who think this country was not founded by people who believed in God…

americanvision.org/articlearchive/04-29-05.asp

from the article…

"To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable.

It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists of one form or another.

This is the reason the framers did not create a “secular” state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of “secularism” as it is used today didn’t even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth-century concept.

Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a “secular” state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes necessary. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure, but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.

At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy.

This is not to say, however, that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies.

George Washington’s first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy.

A week and a day later the President’s opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor … . "

The words “to obey His will” are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in “secularism.” In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people."

Confirmed in history through George Washington’s written documentation…
 
I have a question: is it against the law to break a contract you signed with an employer? If it is, then I’m afraid the court is right. If it’s not, then this is bogus. He can be fired, but not prosecuted.

Positive law aside, the pharmacist did the right thing. What a world we would live in if all Catholics had such faith and courage.
 
I have a question: is it against the law to break a contract you signed with an employer? If it is, then I’m afraid the court is right. If it’s not, then this is bogus. He can be fired, but not prosecuted.

Positive law aside, the pharmacist did the right thing. What a world we would live in if all Catholics had such faith and courage.
Your question raises so many issues… Was there a contract? Was the language in the contract legal or ambiguous? Did the contract provide for arbitration from a neutral party? Even then, would the employer or employee bother to take the necessary legal action to enforce it? Such is the fodder and livelihood of attorneys. Many times, the issue never sees court room due to financial concerns. Even when it does, the judiciary is known to occasionally make politically motivated and otherwise biased rulings- they are mortal sinners too, after all.

The case of the pharmacist is a hot button issue during an election cycle which, is why it is receiving such press.
 
First Tom says that “United States law” was violated by this pharmacist, and not you’re talking about the Constitution…which part of the Constitution requires someone to fill a contraception prescription, I wonder?
The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen did not violate his state constitutional rights, specifically his “right of conscience” to religiously oppose birth control.
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfTutviC-Xi4W2bfFH6PHMCW2SyQD8VKMCQO0

And I firmly believe this would be upheld at the Federal level too.

Nohome
 
They took him to civil court, not criminal court.
No, he took the board to court to challenge the ruling the board had imposed on him.
There is quite a difference between a judge upholding an association’s sanction and determining that someone violated a “United States law”.
The Wisconsin Board of Pharmacy is a bona fide political subdivision of the State of Wisconsin. To break their rules is to break the law.
Did you even read the article where it said that he violated no law in Wisconsin?"
You need to read more carefully. The article quoted the OPINION of a representative of Pharmacists for Life. Clearly the three judges in this case concluded that the pharmacist did violate the code of conduct.
Phar 10.03 Unprofessional conduct. The following,
without limitation because of enumeration, are violations of standards of professional conduct and constitute unprofessional conduct in addition to those grounds specified under s. 450.10 (1),
Stats.:
(9) Refusing to render professional services to a person
because of race, color, sex, religion, or age;
legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/phar/phar010.pdf

Nohome
 
This shouldn’t even be debatable.

If you are unwilling or unable to do the job required of you (example: if you’re a pharmacist you have to fill all the prescriptions, you don’t get to pick and choose) then don’t work there.
Using your logic: if you won’t do abortions, you shouldn’t be a doctor. Flawed logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top