Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Fired Pro-Life Pharmacist

[Nohome]

Ok, and that is what I have repeatedly asked for. WHICH LAW was violated. The reason I have kept debating you on this is because you have refused to cite an actual law. All you have done is argued that pharmacy rules are law but have not cited which LAW he broke. I am not aware of an actual law dictating that a pharmacist must dispense birth control pills…if you cite one I will admit that I was wrong, but I have been unable to find an actual law.

I gave that to you back in post #128. Do I need to cite it again?

Yes, I said CIVIL to make the distinction that it was not a criminal matter. I guess I made a poor choice in my use of the word, but it doesn’t change my argument at all.

What is your argument?

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

I am not aware of an actual law dictating that a pharmacist must dispense birth control pills.

Nor am I, but that was never the debate here. You just added that caveat now. Refusing to dispense BC pills is not what got this guy in the ringer. It’s that he held her script hostage, thus denying her access to the contraception given to her by her doctor.

Nohome

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Not at all, I just happen to believe that this particular verdict strikes me as morally just. The women had both the legal right and the personal desire to be on this contraception. For somebody to deliberately take that from her is shameful, cheap and illegal.

I thought you took issue with the part of the ruling that acknowledged the right of the pharmacist to refuse to dispense the BC? It sounds like the verdict was only partially just, from your viewpoint.

Oh yes I can. The founding fathers were deists.

Well, not quite. Some of the founding fathers were deists while others were what we might call liberal Christians and the rest were traditional believers. The religious views of our founding fathers were diverse and can’t be summed up with a simple sentence.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Nor am I, but that was never the debate here. You just added that caveat now. Refusing to dispense BC pills is not what got this guy in the ringer. It’s that he held her script hostage, thus denying her access to the contraception given to her by her doctor.

Nohome

I just added that now? Really? My first post on page one of this thread:

And what federal law is it that requires pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions, I wonder?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I gave that to you back in post #128. Do I need to cite it again?

It said that the Pharmacy Board had jurisdiction over the matter…I was never arguing that it was under their jurisdiction. The decision also said:

Respondent has engaged in practice which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient and has practiced in a manner which substantially departs from the standard of care ordinarily exercised by a pharmacist and which harmed or could have harmed a patient

So we have a totally B.S. ruling. Nothing about birth control pills helps to keep someone healthy and safe and nothing harms them about not taking them. It is actually much more healthy not to put a bunch of artificial hormones into your body. Just like in Roe v. Wade, the court has interpreted the rules to fit with their liberal agenda.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Strummer]

I stepped out of the thread for a while so forgive me if I missed something, but going from just this last post (at the time of this writing)…

decision also said:

Respondent has engaged in practice which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient and has practiced in a manner which substantially departs from the standard of care ordinarily exercised by a pharmacist and which harmed or could have harmed a patient

Does not the legal system recognize a certain level of “sanctity” of the doctor-patient relationship? Our God-given human dignity grants us, if nothing else, dominion over our own bodies. The law recognizes that how we seek to maintain our health (barring the use of illegal methods) is our own personal decision. Should we seek the advice/assistance of a medical professional, the law recognizes such assistance as an extention of our own personal right to maintain our body as we see fit.

Now, some options may seem “optional” to others. One could, after all, obtain the necessary vitamins, minerals, and other supplementals through a change in diet. One need not necessarily take allergy meds. And birth control, from the law’s standpoint, is a personal, health maintenance decision. If one intends to engage in an act which could lead to pregnancy and one does not wish to become pregnant, the law recognizes this as within the realm of controlling one’s own health decisions.

Yes, the woman’s very life is not dependent upon taking BC pills. But neither is my life dependant upon avoiding hours of itchy eyes and sneezing spasms after mowing my lawn. I do NOT mean to say that I equate allergies with the creation of human life, but as far as controlling one’s own body, **the law **does and the pharmacist, while not required to assist the woman, has no legal right to obstruct her.

Therefore, it is not the court that is trying to impose their “liberal agenda” but rather you who is projecting your “agenda” upon their decision.

 

[Nohome]

I just added that now? Really? My first post on page one of this thread:

This pharmacist was punished for preventing a patient from getting their prescription. The fact that it is birth control has nothing to do with this.

You do realize that the are nearly no “federal laws” at all about what goes on at a pharmacy. This is a state issue, which is why each state has rules and their own BOP.

BTW, the Wisconsin legislature tried to make a law allowing pharmacists to step aside (not in the way). It was vetoed. Therefore, since no Wisconsin law expressly grants this right to a pharmacist, it may be implied that it doesn’t exist.

That said, this guy would still be sanctioned. He had ample opportunity to step away from this situation and he didn’t.

Nohome

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

This pharmacist was punished for preventing a patient from getting their prescription. The fact that it is birth control has nothing to do with this.

Of course it has to do with it being birth control, that was the reason that he wouldn’t fill it. He wouldn’t transfer it to another pharmacy…that doesn’t mean that she couldn’t take it to another pharmacy or go back the next day when he wasn’t working as a substitute.

You do realize that the are nearly no “federal laws” at all about what goes on at a pharmacy. This is a state issue, which is why each state has rules and their own BOP.

The “federal law” was a reply to another’s post, not a claim that I made.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I stepped out of the thread for a while so forgive me if I missed something, but going from just this last post (at the time of this writing)…

Does not the legal system recognize a certain level of “sanctity” of the doctor-patient relationship? Our God-given human dignity grants us, if nothing else, dominion over our own bodies. The law recognizes that how we seek to maintain our health (barring the use of illegal methods) is our own personal decision. Should we seek the advice/assistance of a medical professional, the law recognizes such assistance as an extention of our own personal right to maintain our body as we see fit.

Now, some options may seem “optional” to others. One could, after all, obtain the necessary vitamins, minerals, and other supplementals through a change in diet. One need not necessarily take allergy meds. And birth control, from the law’s standpoint, is a personal, health maintenance decision. If one intends to engage in an act which could lead to pregnancy and one does not wish to become pregnant, the law recognizes this as within the realm of controlling one’s own health decisions.

Yes, the woman’s very life is not dependent upon taking BC pills. But neither is my life dependant upon avoiding hours of itchy eyes and sneezing spasms after mowing my lawn. I do NOT mean to say that I equate allergies with the creation of human life, but as far as controlling one’s own body, **the law **does and the pharmacist, while not required to assist the woman, has no legal right to obstruct her.

Therefore, it is not the court that is trying to impose their “liberal agenda” but rather you who is projecting your “agenda” upon their decision.

No, the decision specifically said that he endangered her health and could have harmed her. And there’s never any liberal or secular agenda according to a lot of posters on here now…it’s all just us cranky Catholics and conservatives making things up.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Nohome]

Of course it has to do with it being birth control, that was the reason that he wouldn’t fill it. He wouldn’t transfer it to another pharmacy…that doesn’t mean that she couldn’t take it to another pharmacy or go back the next day when he wasn’t working as a substitute.

She went to him on a Saturday and was denied. She went back on Sunday and was denied again. As directed by her Dr., she was to take the first pill Sunday. He denied her access, so she had to take the pill late (Monday morning) outside of directions.

Had she got pregnant, that would have harmed her as that is the condition she is trying to avoid with this medication. You will note the rule doesn’t say she must be harmed, only that harm could come.

Aside from pharmacy law in Wisconsin, he signed a contract saying he would perform “all services expected from a pharmacist”. He sent an email, one month AFTER signing the contract saying he would not dispense BC pills, but this did not modify his contract because he was required to sign an AGREEMENT to any modifications to his contract.

As it stands, he has now been fired from Walmart, Kmart and Snyder Drug. All firings have been upheld in court. He appealed and lost (in other litigation).

He can appeal this to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but I think he will lose again. I suspect the Federal Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case as it is a state issue. I’m quite confident that we have heard the last of this guy.

Nohome

 

[Mighty_Q]

But should a hospital be allowed to turn a woman away for an abortion? Not if it accepts any kind of government funding, no.

Should a hospital be allowed to turn a woman away for a nose job?

 

[Nohome]

Should a hospital be allowed to turn a woman away for a nose job?

No. Though I doubt anyone would have a moral objection to a nose job.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Back in April I said:

He can appeal this to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but I think he will lose again. I suspect the Federal Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case as it is a state issue. I’m quite confident that we have heard the last of this guy.

As of June 13th, the Wisconsin Supreme Court says:

Madison, WI- The Wisconsin Supreme Court has denied pharmacist Neil Noesen’s petition for review of the 3rd District Court of Appeals decision upholding the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board’s (PEB) reprimand. Noesen, the state-licensed pharmacist who refused to fill or transfer a woman’s birth control prescription in Menomonie in 2002, was disciplined by the PEB in 2005 for his behavior. The Supreme Court’s denial means that the PEB decision that Noesen’s actions violated the standard of care for pharmacists in Wisconsin and put patients and the public at risk of harm will stand as Wisconsin law.

Case closed.

wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=128719

Nohome