Redstate

There was a debate on this very issue in Arizona not too long ago, with a flurry of editorials flying and, if I recall correctly, a promise by the governor to propose legislation forcing pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill whether they wanted to or not.  Unfortunately, as the law stands now, there is nothing really out-of-bounds about such legislation.  Access to abortion at any time has been held as a fundamental constitutional right by every court in the land, and the pharmacists' concerns for the unborn child, whether we sympathize or not, have no medical basis under current law.  Such are the unintended consequences of Roe v. Wade.  

It truly is a peculiar element of the liberal worldview that all rights are absolute and that they can be enforced practically without contradiction.  Yet, strangely, reality intervenes.  Every time a new right is created or an existing one expanded, someone else's rights inevitably contract or suffer.  The violation of the fetus's right to life is the obvious one in this situation, but the violation of a pharmacist's right of free expression is another.    When confronted by this reality, the hypocrisy of the left is staggering - physicians suddenly have a right of conscience when they are engaging in activities approved by liberals, but the moment they act contrary to the left's wishes, the hammer comes down.  They can't have it both ways, but to admit that rights cannot be absolutely protected for all citizens everywhere and anytime by the government would undermine their entire worldview, so the cognitive dissonance plays itself out over and over again.  It's now the pharmacists' turn to pay for it.

California is not that simple. It was a set up deal from the beginning. We had a delay while the medical personel underwent special training for this specific purpose. They didn't have a problem with the conscience until after the training and it was time to act. They had already swung the agreement to go forward with the execution. This is pure and simple ANARCHY. The judge should be impeached and thrown off the bench for mocking the constitution and the medical persons responsible should be required to reimburse the state for the expense they conned them out of and charged with a criminal offense.

Physicians are also allowed a conscience objection for performing abortions. This is something Planned Parenthood and NARAL don't kick up any fuss about, because the support of the AMA is a very important part of their social legitimacy, and they know that if they start pushing that button, the AMA is gonna shoot back in a serious way.

On the other hand, the APA is apparently not an entity to be concerned about, in their eyes.

Congress passed the Weldon Amendment to protect pro-life healthcare workers' rights of conscience.  It merely says that if a state wants certain federal money, including healthcare funds, it can't discriminate against pro-life healthcare workers who refuse to provide abortions.  Simple enough, right?  Who can object to that?

Well, in California v. U.S., Atty Gen. Bill Lockyer of California, with the urging of Planned Parenthood, is trying to get the law declared unconstitutional because it will force the state to choose between those federal $ and applying a state law that makes it a misdemeanor for a doctor not to perform an abortion in a "medical emergency."  A "medical emergency," however, is interpreted in California law to virtually all the time (whenever another doctor will say her mental health was threatened).  

And in another case now in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales), that organization is arguing that it violates a pro-choice doctor's right of free speech to not be permitted by the Weldon Amendment to force their nurses to provide abortion referrals.  Yes, you read that correctly.  They claim a doctor has a First Amendment right to force others to speak on his behalf.  Arrogance maybe?  Thankfully, they lost in the District Court (a Clinton appointee ruled against them) in September, 2005.  

So, no.  Planned Parenthood is NOT above forcing doctors and nurses to assist in abortions against their consciences.

It's not just about pharmacists being fired for not filling prescriptions.  In Illinois, pharmacies are not PERMITTED to accommodate their pharmacists who object.  (and of course, Wal-Mart is being sued because it as a corporation didn't stock the medication).  Some pharmacies in Illinois actually did accommodate before the Emergency Rule with no apparent problems.  For instance, some permitted objecting pharmacists who received the prescription when they were the only on duty pharmacists at the time to send the prescription over to another nearby pharmacy.  The Illinois law prohibits those pharmacies from doing that.  

This despite the fact that Illinois even has the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act that unequivocally protects the right of all PERSONS not to provide or be subject to any health care procedure to which they have a conscientious objection.  Gov. Blagojevich claims that the law doesn't apply to pharmacists.  Evidently, they aren't "persons" under that law.

This arguably appears to be a case of workplace discrimination or harassment, state-sponsored in this case. Also, wouldn't the EEOC be interested in the lack of "reasonable accomodation" - especially with respect to accomodating religious practice?

This won't be what you are thinking. I'll address the government issue first.

1) Why does any government (local, state, or federal) believe that it can tell a company: "you must sell this product?" Who owns the company? The owner or the government?

Let's say I run a small grocery store. I have everything you'd expect - with the exeption of P--si brand soft-drinks. I don't like P--si so I don't stock it. One day the State legislature passes a law stating that all grocery stores MUST stock all soft drinks normally purchased by consumers. (There are laws relating to pharmacies which say exactly the same thing.)

Now, why exactly did the government need to do that? My competitor down the road sells P--si. Customers who can't live without P--si are free to shop there instead, aren't they? Furthermore - who owns this business anyway? I can understand the government telling me that I can't sell certain things (like marijuana or shoulder-fired missiles), but not that I MUST sell certain things.

To conclude the 1st point: there are about 100 pharmacies in my home town and I guarantee one of them will sell what I need.

2) The conscientious objector. My next point is this: who owns the job - the employer or the employee? If you answered "the employer" then give yourself 10 points and a pat on the back.

At my grocery store I hired a new butcher and a new register clerk. After only one day I saw there was a problem. When I went to the meat department I saw plenty of steaks and chicken, but I couldn't find any fresh-cut bacon or ham. I went to speak to my butcher and he told me that - in his religion - the pig is a filthy animal and he would be unable to touch any pig products. I was in the process of telling him to clock-out and clear out his locker when I heard the PA system: "ViperTrunk please come to register 3. ViperTrunk to register 3..."

What now, I thought? I found, much to my chagrin, that my new register clerk was refusing to ring up my customer's order. "What seems to be the problem here?" I asked. Solemnly the clerk pointed to a 12 pack of soft-drinks and a 6-pack of beer sitting on the conveyor belt. "In my religion," she said "caffeine and alcohol are forbidden. We do not pollute our bodies with these substances." I was in shock and turned to apologize to my customer, but unfortunately he was walking out the front door.

Now, I am a generous and accomodating person - so rather than firing both of my new employees I transferred them to areas of the store that didn't conflict with their religious beliefs. However, their jobs do belong to me and if they fail to do their jobs - I should be able to fire them. I don't care whether they can't perform because they are incompetant, lazy, or because their religious beliefs prevent them from doing so. I hired them to do a job and they can either do that job or find employment elsewhere.

Now, these last comments are not meant to disparage pharmacists. However, I believe it is possible to have a moral objection to a variety of medicines - and if you are someone who might have those objections, pharmacy might not be for you. If I had a pharmacy in my grocery store, I might be willing to accomodate some objections in order to keep the services of my pharmacist (they are more difficult to come by than checkout clerks). However, I might NOT choose to be accomodating and I would be entirely within my rights as an employer to do so.

I am not arguing - for or against - the "morning after" pill. I'm simply saying that the government should not be forcing businesses to sell things they don't want to sell. I'm also saying that jobs are owned by the employer and not the employee. If someone's personal beliefs prevent them from doing their job - that is their problem, not mine. I also believe that it would be wrong for the government to force me to accomodate the religious and moral beliefs of my employees.

My 2 cents...

hasn't gone anywhere.

I remember back when my brother in law was in medical school and later his residency in the early 90's there was a move to require medical residents in their OB rotations to perform abortions.  There was a huge outcry and the push pretty much faltered and died, when several students and residents stated they wouldn't do OB at all, if abortions were a required part of the residency.

But I do think there is an overall hypocrisy in this whole debate that those on the left pretty much argue a pharmacist should either have to dispense medications contrary to their conscience or lose their proffession.

In the first I absolutely believe that the state has no right to interfere with what products a company chooses to stock or not stock for whatever reasons (the local pharmacy I use doesn't carry some of the big pain medications like oxycontin, because of the risk of theft-I haven't seen the governor trying to write a law requiring them to carry the drug so the poor pain sufferer who wants the scrip doesn't have to go across the street to the store that does).

I do think a company has some right to require those they hire to dispense certain medications, although I think companies should do more to accomodate these pharmacists rather than fire them.  Also, at least when it comes to morning after pills and RU (whatever the numbers are) I think more accomodation is in order-mostly because the moral objection involves a pharmacist who doesn't not want to be involved in killing what they view as a life, and this is different from accomodating a religious belief that isn't connected to the loss of life.  

Back to the execution thing-prisons only use volunteers on the execution teams-prison employees who are morally opposed to the death penalty are not forced to participate in the execution of inmates.  

I think the reality is that companies should work to accomodate at least some of the objections of their pharmacists to the best of their ability.

I think the state and federal governments should have no ability to interfere in determining what products a company must carry or requiring that pharmacists who refuse to dispense must lose their jobs.

All of these decisions should be left up to the company.

If a pharmacist chooses not to dispense any medication that a pharmacy decides to stock, then that pharmacist should be fired (if the company so chooses).  Government should not force any private business to retain the employment of an individual who refuses to sell a product the company desires to sell (expressing its desire through availability).  This is no different than a car dealership wanting to fire an environmental nut that won't sell SUV's or as viper says a butcher who won't cut yummy bacon.  If you trained to be a pharmacist, then you knew going in that you may have to dispense drugs you do not believe in or that you can look for an employer who also shares your views, but your views should not force a company to accomodate you.  We are the business party.

An excellent article.  The pretzel-like contortions that the modern liberal has to tie themselves up in for their moral justification reminds me of the old saw about telling the truth and lying.  Telling the truth about a situation is always easier than lying, as you don't have to try to remember what you said last time when you tell the truth.

But if you can't determine the difference between a cashier and a Doctor/Pharmacist - in terms of training, specialization, replacability, fungibility, professional ethical standards, etc. then I can't help you. Just keep right on pressing this totally inapplicable metaphor.

for the same reasons that the ACLU doesn't get involved in 2nd Amendment cases.

is still, should not the employer determine who he/she decides to hire and retain based on his business model.  Pharmacies want to sell products, the corporation determines what products they want to sell, if the  employees refuse to sell said products, the employer should absolutely have the right to terminate said employee.

(1) Prior to Illinois' meddling, there were pharmacies in Illinois (and Wal-Mart) who WERE accommodating pharmacists' rights of conscience.  They had obviously come to the business conclusion that they could hire better employees, etc. if they accommodated their consciences -- and the American Pharmacists Association recognizes a right of conscience for pharmacists.  ILLINOIS prohibited those COMPANIES from accommodating.  

(2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has, for over 30 years, required businesses to make an effort to accommodate their employees' religious practices.  This doesn't mean it must ALWAYS be done.  In fact, if it would place more than a de minimis burden on the employer Title VII doesn't require an accommodation.  All it requires is that an employer provide an accommodation if it can do so with little burden on it -- i.e. allowing employees to flip work schedules or in the case of morning after pill prescriptions allowing them to tell a customer that they will need to have that prescription filled at the other company store a mile down the road.  Title VII places a rather small burden on the employer, it just basically requires them to make an effort.    

WITHOUT an accommodation requirement, we force sincere people of faith out of certain professions.  Do we really want a medical profession completely devoid of sincere people of faith?      

So, by this logic, a cashier also has the right to ask every single woman "Is there a slight chance you might be pregnant?" if she is purchasing alcohol, tobacco, etc. Correct?

But really, this repeated analogy is ridiculous.

First, see this.

Second, a cashier is not a doctor, or a pharmacist. Doctors and pharmacists, being people who are supposed to have a decade or so of specialized training, are required to ask if women are pregnant before dispensing various substances to them. Not so much with cashiers.

Wonder if that has to do with the various positions they occupy, level of training they have had, or the substances they are generally asked to dispense - or perhaps a combination of all three.

I'm getting a blank page.

It points to comment number 15 in this thread.

the intended purpose of alcohol and tobacco isn't to harm a baby, but the intended purpose of the morning after pill or abortion pill certainly does have the intended purpose, and not only is the pharmacist expected to dispense it, but the pharmacist is also expected to tell the person with the scrip how to use the drug.

There is a difference here.  

[Must be a problem with Akregator since it opens fine in Firefox. Sorry about that.]

Back to my previous comment. So is your actual concern with the unborn fetus or the employee?

I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm simply trying to understand a perspective other than my own.

Although the one at issue in this post is the one for the employee.

..but for all scientific purposes, a fertilized egg less than 72 hours old is not a baby.

a 5 year old an adolescent - are we going somewhere with this?

A more relevant analogy might be that you are opening a small grocery store and your personal religious beliefs dictate that you cannot eat pork.  In this case the Illinois bill would force you to stock and sell pork because you are a grocer.

Also say at that same grocer you hired a Hindu who could not prepare beef products.  As the owner you decided to have him prepare chicken, fish and the like but accomidated his wishes not to prepare any beef.  The Illinois law would force you as the employer to either make him prepare beef, or force you to fire him for sticking to his beliefs.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should push for a bill that would force an employer to keep a pharmacist who does not wish to sell morning after pills.  And to my understanding repealing the Illinois law would not bring about that effect.

to the argument that the employee should not be able to dictate the terms of their employment to an employer.  An advanced degree does not give you carte blanche to decide how you are going to work or what you choose to sell, your employer does.  If someone does not want to dispense certain drugs then they a) should not have become a pharmacist, or b) find an employer who agrees with their views.

You're wrong on this one.

If I hire you to work in an aortion clinic and suddenly you decide not to perform the abortions you were hired for.  I'm not going to keep you.  Period.  I don't care about your specialty or training or whatever.  That's just what it took you to Get the job.

If I hired a master electrician to make bombs and he refuses, he's fired.

If I hired a pharmacist to dispense medications my pharmacy stocked and he refuses, on ANY grounds, Goodbye.  Have a nice day.

Granted, all of the above are affected by replaceability of the employee and my personal preference for keeping him in a different capacity, but it Is the employer's decision to hire.  And it is the Employer's decision to fire.

This is also where I stand on Affirmative Action in the workplace.  If I'm not a government employer or contractor, I'll hire only Asians and fire all those I find out are straight if I want to...

Hypothetical situation:

An obviously pregnant mother walks into a liquor store and wants to purchase a pack of smokes and a bottle of Jameson. It is known and proven to most people, even with a basic education, that alcohol and tobacco will more than likely cause harm to an unborn child. Is it within that cashier's rights to refuse to sell these to the pregnant mother?

...isn't one for legal purposes either.  That does not change the fact that several religions and a large portion of the US population views it as such.  

That's not the issue here. The issue is this.

But even so, I brought this up to show that cashiers and pharmacists are not in any way analogous. There are reasons that certain professions have codes of professional responsibility, and while employers should be free to fire whoever they want, employers who want to actually hire qualified doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers, will sure as heck respect those codes, for the sake of having the employees they desire.

What the Illinois law does, in effect, is say that an employer cannot, by law, respect the conscience of their pharmacists - not even if they want to. How comfortable are you with that?

And it's within the store owner's rights to fire that employee. However, if the store owner says, "You know what, Cashier X made the right call, and I've decided not to fire them," the effect of the Illinois law would be to MANDATE that the store owner fire them anyway.

Most people reading my previous post would realize that I was talking about the timeframe prior to the actual birth of the child.

He specifically mentioned that if the employer wanted to accomodate the employee, that was the Employer's choice.  After all, he even did it in his own situation.

As to your 2nd point, he wasn't arguing how the law IS, he was arguing How It Needs to Be.

While we're discussing this, as a matter of pure hypocrisy, how does it come to be that the left applauds the doctors in California for disobeying a court order, but chides employers for voluntarily respecting the conscience of their employees?

business open on Sunday, even though you believe Sunday should be a day of rest.  The state says you have to keep your business open, because some people who want to shop on Sunday may be inconvienienced by having to drive to a different store.

Also, I remember the restaurant I worked at through high school and college didn't require people to work on Saturday whose religious beliefs required them to rest (I worked with two seventh day adventists, and they observed sabbath on Saturday, and neither was required to work on that day).  

not sure if the cashier should be able to keep her job, but then the cashier isn't required to advice the purchaser on how and when to use the alcohol and cigs, and a cashiers training doesn't require college and pharmacy school along with a state board exam either.

I would much rather have law and decisions based on actual science instead of religion.

Science says that a 5 year old is not an adolescent, or a septuagenarian.

Is that relevant, w/r/t whether the law should protect the life of a 5 year old?

life?  After all, if left do develop on its own, in about 40 weeks it will be a human baby.

Not to mention I don't recall at any point in my four pregnancies ever calling the life inside me "the fetus" or "the mass of cells" or "the potential life."

Pretty much from the moment I knew there was a life inside, I called it a baby.

This is a law that explicitly forces businesses to fire employees who follow their conscience and refuse to dispense medications that they believe bring about the destruction of a human life.

And the point at which a fertilized egg or fetus or 5-year old is considered to be fully human and deserves protection isn't a scientific issue, it is a moral one.

or human?

See the problem for your POV is that you have to deny what is actually there, because you see at some point every human alive today was at one point a very small teeny tiny cell-none of us skipped that stage and went right to adulthood or infancy.

So how exactly is it less human than you or I?

Not because I think I'm incorrect, but because once religion gets thrown into the mix it becomes a completely illogical and never-ending argument.

And I'm sure you'd be completely fine with a Muslim cashier refusing to sell you pork and alcohol.

into the debate?

I think you listen too much to the NARAL side of things, they would like you to think the debate is about religion, but it isn't.

So is it your argument that religious beliefs shouldn't be tolerated or accomodated in the work place?  And even more, that the state should mandate companies can't do so, if they choose?

The left is always wrong and full of hypocrisy.  And I agree that the Illinois Law is bad, as businesses alone should be able to determine who they choose to hire and fire, which also goes for the proposed Missouri law that would prevent employers from firing or even not initially hiring pharmacists who would not dispense legal and prescribed drugs.  Government is best when it leaves business alone.

between abortion and contraception. There is a tendency to conflate the two issues where the dispensing of medication is concerned. It's disingenuous.

Plan B is a contraceptive and works in exactly the same way that birth control pills do (a double or triple dose of conventional pills will have the same effect). RU486 is indeed an abortifacient.

This is a larger issue, though, although many who enter the debate like to pretend it is not. When you start to give a pharmacist, for example, the right to choose what medications he will dispense for concientious reasons where do you draw the line? Dispensing an abortifacient or not is a fairly simple and obvious choice. But... and here's the big but - what other conciensce issues are you prepared to accomodate?

And will you draw the line at religiously originating moral decisions - or is a general moral objection valid? There are some who object to giving children medication for ADD/ADHD. Are you prepared to support a pharmacist who doesn't believe in that?

How far is an employer required to go to accomodate that conscience before the person is really not doing the job they were hired to do?

Yes, it is an interesting problem, and one which can only be corrected by using the exact right word for what you are talking about.

There can be no absolute rights, only fundamental rights. Any absolute right automatically trumps all other rights regardless of the situation. Fundamental rights can be in conflict, and people can weigh where the balance between the two ought to be. As the situation shifts, so can the balance point.

But I suppose that's also what good judgement is about, as opposed to rote law.

...the woman is buying them for herself and not her husband, her mother, or a friend?

Perscriptions by definition are for a particular person, even if someone else picks them up for that person.

if an employee (pharmacist) tells a customer to get their prescription filled down the street the employer loses income.

Fair or appropriate? You tell me.

Why does a doctor/pharmacist have more right to excercise a conscientious objection than a cashier?

up to the employer, not the state to determine, and some accomodation is reasonable, others not so reasonable.

The point is not whether or not the morning after pill causes an "abortion."  It's whether or not the pharmacist dispensing the medication has a sincere conscientious objection to filling that prescription.  

The AMA defines a pregnancy as beginning AFTER implantation of the fertilized egg.  Thus, the AMA defines an abortion as occurring after implantation.  With that background: (1) the morning after pill, in many cases, acts AFTER implantation -- thus it CAUSES an abortion.  It just does so at a much earlier stage than RU-486, and (2) That is irrelevant as to whether a person can object to participating in the destruction of the pre-implanted human embryo -- or in the case of Illinois whether government can prohibit employers from accommodating those beliefs. Whether you call it an "abortion," or a destruction of a pre-implanted fertilized human egg (which already has every piece of DNA it will ever have to grow into the person it will be) that doesn't advance the argument at all.  

Please note: no religion in this post.  All science.          

 Is there anyone reading RedState that would actually disagree with the general principles that:

 1. Government has no right to dictate whether a private business can or cannot sell a legal product - neither can they require the sale of said product against the business's wishes.

 2. Government has no right to dictate whether a private business may or may not fire an employee who refuses to perform the job duties required by their position.

 So I completely agree with what appears to be the point of your article, or rather the position (I think) you take and that most here appear to echo.

 On the other hand...

The end result will be that 1) fewer Pharmacists will enter the profession, 2) more currently in it will leave or relocate, and the final result is going to be that average customers in need of life saving medicine in localities that are hostile to Pharmacist conscience are going to suffer as a result.

<...>

The result? NO pharmacist for everyone in that rural South Dakota town -- including the woman who wants her morning after pill as well as the grandmother who wants her heart medications.

 I don't think these are the most likely outcomes. It is at least as likely if not more that with a marginal number of pharamcists opting out of the career, the resulting shortage will drive up the income scales for pharmacists, resulting in increased interest in the career by younger persons and increased willingness by existing pharamcists to relocate to areas with increased demand for their expertise. The effect on local areas would be the same - the hypothetical outlet in South Dakota is going to put out the call nationwide for the opening that was created, perhaps at a premium - and a pharmacist working elsewhere in the same chain or a newbie is going to answer it. Anytime there's a gap in provision of service or product where demand exists, businesses are going to exploit that gap and fill it.

 This all assumes the business in question doesn't decide to work out some plan to keep the current pharmacist. Perhaps in rural S.D. the business may only be able to employ one pharmacist at a time but certainly most pharmacies have multiple staff and when one refuses, the other could fill it. Then again, since some number of objecting pharmacists also refuse to refer customers to a competing business, I'm not sure they'd find it any more palatable to stand alongside a co-worker who they must direct the customer to, either, would they?

 One could even see this movement altering the way pharmacy chains operate. Mail order with overnight delivery? Could we imagine a system by which a central hub pharmacy staffed with non-objecting pharmacists prepare and review "pre-packaged" prescription bundles that a regular cashier is authorized to hand over? I'm aware that might be impossible but in my ignorance, I've always assumed birth control pill prescriptions are fairly standard and maybe only come in 2 or 3 "varieties" at most, so such a central pre-packaging system might be possible.

 What about automating some portion of the pharmacy's operation - almost a vending machine style dispensery for certain common and basic prescriptions based on reading a barcode? Perhaps there are government regulations that would prohibit such a scenario, at this time, but in the future? As we shrink the size and scope of government interference? We can hope...

 The bottomline is, demand will always find a supply given the nature of business - one group of pharmacists deciding to leave the business is not going to create a long term problem. I suspect it wouldn't even create a very big short term problem.

The pharmacist sells only what he wants to sell. If he has a religious objection to antibiotics, so be it. Of course he's probably not going to get a lot of business as people go elsewhere to get their prescriptions filled. What right do you have to force someone else to carry something in their store?

Wouldn't you just go elsewhere? Or would you yell and scream and stomp your feet then get out the cell phone to call the ACLU (which you have, of course, on speed dial)? Somebody not wanting to sell me pork or alcohol isn't violating my rights.

or folly of this particular law. I was commenting on the issues behind it.

Actually, if left to develop on its own the fetus/zygote would die almost immediately.  Left to develop inside the mother's womb, THEN it will mature into a baby.

In other words, the woman is more important than the fetus from a biological survival perspective.  The woman can survive without the fetus.  The fetus cannot survive without the woman.

I'm not getting into a debate here about the zygote being a human life or not (it undoubtedly IS from the genetic standpoint).  I'm just clarifying that the fetus isn't an independent human who would do just fine on its own.  It REQUIRES the womb of the mother to survive.

The abortion issue is simply one side saying that the woman has the right to decide whether her womb continues to act as a life support unit, and the other side saying she doesn't, that she committed herself to providing that womb-support for 9 months when she made the decision to have sex.

Not trying to derail the thread.  So to contribute a new point I haven't seen yet, the woman goes to the DOCTOR for medical advice and treatment, not the pharmacist.  The pharmacist is nothing more than a gumball machine to the patient.  She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.  If her DOCTOR prescribes a medication for her (as long as its legal, and it is in this case) then the pharmacist has a moral, ethical, and should also have a LEGAL obligation to provide the medication (or equivalent substitute) for what the doctor has ordered for the patient.    

At the same time, I don't think state law should require the BUSINESS to either fire or force the pharmacist to do anything.   Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.  Public safety is the reason for it.  What if a pharmacist had some sort of ethical problem dispensing antibiotics, and everyone got hepatitis because of it?  IMO, this is a public safety issue, and not a pro or anti abortion issue.

What if a Fireman had an ethical problem fighting fires in churches?  Should the state say "gee that's ok, we should accomodate you?".  No, they should jail him for public endangerment at the first event where he opted not to fight the fire because of his religious/moral/ethical views.

From the website of the FDA:

3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

So... no, Plan B does not cause an abortion. It is not an abortifacient. And unless your pharmacist has an objection to contraception in general he should have no moral qualms about dispensing Plan B.

The difference between abortion and "preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg" is not significant, for the objections raised.

It's not like it's the process of detaching the child, pardon, egg, from the uterine wall that upsets so many. It's the logical consequence of so doing.

And unless your pharmacist has an objection to contraception in general he should have no moral qualms about dispensing Plan B.

Who are you to determine what qualms the pharmacist should or should not have? Do we need some kind of government body to determine whether his beliefs are consistent and within guidelines established by the state?

So to contribute a new point I haven't seen yet, the woman goes to the DOCTOR for medical advice and treatment, not the pharmacist.

There's a reason you haven't seen this point made yet. It's not very bright, as discussed infra.

The pharmacist is nothing more than a gumball machine to the patient.

This shows that you have no actual recognition of what a pharmacist does, or how a pharmacy works. I would wager to say that less than 1% of all prescriptions are actually "filled" by a Pharmacist. They have people who work in pharmacies called "Pharmacy Techs" who actually perform the "gumball machine" function.

The reason the Pharmacist is there, and the reason he goes through years and years of training, including more biochemistry than I can even fathom, is to perform a lot of vital functions. They often act as the final measure of defense against adverse (and potentially fatal) reactions caused when multiple doctors unknowingly prescribe the same patient medication. They are also there to counsel patients upon the proper usage of their drugs, and the potential side effects, and what over-the-counter medications should be avoided while taking their prescriptions. I could go on and on and on, but if there's one thing the pharmacists generally don't do, it's act like a gumball machine.

She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.

Which is why, if she doesn't like them, she can go elsewhere. I go to the BP down the road for gasoline, not for the travel plans of the gas clerk. I always get them anyway. One day, if I get annoyed enough, I'll start crossing the street to the Shell station.

If her DOCTOR prescribes a medication for her (as long as its legal, and it is in this case) then the pharmacist has a moral, ethical, and should also have a LEGAL obligation to provide the medication (or equivalent substitute) for what the doctor has ordered for the patient.

This betrays yet further ignorance of anything connected with this issue. Did you know that pharmacists are subject to liability if they fail to notice doctor-shopping? Did you know that they are supposed to report doctors who are suspected of irresonsibly dispensing pain medications (and it would shock you to learn the frequency of this)?

As the husband of a woman who worked as a pharmacy tech for a good long while, I can tell you that there are lots, and lots, and lots of situations when a Pharmacist not only does not fill a prescription which a doctor sends over (for various reasons) but has liability reasons for not filling. Which is what makes this:

Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.

The most ridiculous proposition in this thread.

Given some of the other ones I've seen, that is a truly noteworthy achievement.

I based my reply on the previous poster's definition of pregnancy by the AMA - and the incorrect factual information about how Plan B works.

So the real objection is to contraception in general then, since your pharmacist certainly has no way of knowing if or when there may be a fertilized egg in play.

It has been decided that we need a diary promoting the benefits of corporate welfare as a means of subsidizing certain goods and services that society deems necessary.

It's your turn. How soon will you have it up?

the mother wants the pharmicist to dispense a medication to kill it, my statement pretty much stands, that if left to develop, it will be a baby, and that a pharmacist that doesn't want to be a party to the death, shouldn't be required to do so by the state.

I think a business has the right to determine whether they want to hire somebody with this type of moral opposition, although I think in the end a business would do well to do what they can to accomodate the objections.

Also, your comparison to a fireman isn't so good-considering the pharmacist is objecting to involvement in what they view as the taking of another life, which is what those of you who think pharmacists should be required to dispense medications seem to be ignoring.

And while a pharmacist isn't part of the decision to prescribe the medication, they certainly are expected to advise people on how to take the medication, and if something goes wrong, they get their names added to the lawsuit, just like a doctor does.  

Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.

That's a great idea. What about things they don't stock because they aren't commonly prescribed? Is that a criminal offence also? What if they run out of something they normally stock? Jail time again?

Public safety is the reason for it.  What if a pharmacist had some sort of ethical problem dispensing antibiotics, and everyone got hepatitis because of it?

How does one pharmacy deciding not to sell antibiotics mean that "everyone gets Hepatitis." You are free to get your prescription filled elsewhere. The clinics even have their own pharmacies. Using the same "logic," I guess if one gas station doesn't stock condoms, that means everybody will get AIDS.

I don't mean to suggest that pharmacists don't have a difficult job requiring tons of training.  They do.  But to THE PATIENT, the pharmacist is nothing more than the dispenser of medication (ala a gumball machine).

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.  

If the patient is getting more than a realistic dose of pain medication because she is jumping back and forth between 20 doctors, then the PATIENT should be subject to jail time.  However, in all of those cases, the pharmacist should STILL have to dispense the medication.

The counter-actions of various medications is one of the key reasons why pharmacists need to be so educated.  They usually have a whole family of 'substitute' medications they can prescribe to do the same thing but without bad interactions.  I alluded to that in my post.  

Everyone posting under this topic has suggested that the woman can just go to another pharmacy.  Has anyone here actually lived in a small town?  In small towns there IS only one pharmacy.  What do you suggest a patient do in the case where there's only one pharmacy in town?

I'd be personally indebted if you could name one, just one mind you, pharmacist who would not dispense antibiotics for ethical reasons, or one fireman, just one mind you, who would not fight a church fire.

Just one, any one will do.

When that one pharmacy goes out of business? Should the state step in and keep it open with a public subsidy? Most small towns have no pharmacies at all. Once you get to any kind of reasonably sized town you get lots of choices, though... since all the discounters and grocery stores are in the business, as well as the clinics themselves.

Pharmacies obviously cannot issue medicine they do not have.  In the vast majority of cases there is a substitute medication that does the same thing.  Pharmacists still have to make the call as to what is an appropriate way to implement the doctor's prescription.  But they DON'T have the medical perogative to COUNTER the direction that the doctor is indicating he wants the patient to be treated.

A pharmacist failing to fill a prescription because of lack of stock supply obviously doesn't fall under this argument.  He hasn't CHOSEN to countermand a doctor's orders, he merely cannot implement it for lack of available drugs.  Therefore he would not be criminally (or ethically) liable, unless he INTENTIONALLY wasn't stocking legal medications that are standard medications that could reasonably be expected to be prescribed merely because of his 'ethical' objections.

I don't mean to suggest that pharmacists don't have a difficult job requiring tons of training.  They do.  But to THE PATIENT, the pharmacist is nothing more than the dispenser of medication (ala a gumball machine).

So the law should be based upon a patient's gross misrepresentation of what Pharmacists do? Seriously, you should stop.

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.

I'm guessing that the tort law of all 50 states disagrees with you. Regardless, you should really think about whether that principle should apply to everything, not just pet causes of yours.

The counter-actions of various medications is one of the key reasons why pharmacists need to be so educated.  They usually have a whole family of 'substitute' medications they can prescribe to do the same thing but without bad interactions.  I alluded to that in my post.

So your basic contention is that there are circumstances where Pharmacists should refuse to fill the prescriptions the doctors send them (a la a gumball machine), and should in fact fill a different prescription without consulting the doctor? I'd say you've surrendered your argument en toto.

Everyone posting under this topic has suggested that the woman can just go to another pharmacy.  Has anyone here actually lived in a small town?  In small towns there IS only one pharmacy.  What do you suggest a patient do in the case where there's only one pharmacy in town?

Actually, I did mention this in the original post. The pharmacists in these suits will not fill these prescriptions - the end result is not that the State will force the pharmacist's hand, it is that the rural town will have no pharmacist - for abortifacients or heart medications.

I have posted my vehement distaste for corporate welfare in other posts.  This post has nothing to do with that topic.

I might write a diary on how insane most corporate welfare actually is.  Or I might not get around to it.  Its my choice.

So who is to determine if he is intentionally not  stocking "standard medications" (whatever those are)? Who is to determine if he is intentionally charging too much for a medication so he doesn't have to fill it? Or maybe he is creating a hostile environment by making people wait an extremely long time to get a certain script filled or giving them a stern look when they come up to the counter?

Sounds like we could use a whole new government body to enforce this. Wouldn't it just be simpler to put them all out of business and open state run pharmacies? These decisions are far too important to be left to anyone but the state.

Substitute medication isn't going against the doctor's direction.  It implements the SPIRIT of what the doctor intended, after taking into account all of the medical knowledge available.

That is what I should clarify:

The pharmacist should be bound by law to follow through with the SPIRIT of the doctor's orders.   Going completely counter to the doctor's orders as in the case of the morning after pill is NOT keeping in line with the spirit of what the doctor's orders suggested.

Now I'll await everyone critiquing the logic of how the pharmacist is supposed to know what the doctor is thinking.   Well, that's their job even under current law.  That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Now we really are going far afield. So is this "implementing the spirit of the doctor's orders" applicable in all situations, or only in morning-after pill situations?

I just want to be clear on exactly how broad the reforms you are proposing are. You've already basically reformed the entire prescription medication system, and tort law system, so don't feel gunshy at this point.

That would be a difficult situation to prove.

Just like it would be almost impossible to prove that a woman intended to abort her fetus by drinking pennyroyal tea, yet the majority of posters on this site want to make abortion illegal.  

Does the lack of enforcability thus mean that a law shouldn't be passed?

No, it's not your choice. We voted that we need a diary promoting corporate welfare. Are you a RedState poster or not? If you are, you have to write it. Just because you have a vehement distaste for corporate welfare, that doesn't mean you can get out of promoting it.

I must, as an initial matter, commend you on learning the value of argument.

I must weep, however, for your inability to discern the difference between the willful failure of an agent of the sovereign to discharge his duties, and the willful decision by a private actor not to undertake an act.

Thus, this:

What if a Fireman had an ethical problem fighting fires in churches?  Should the state say "gee that's ok, we should accomodate you?".  No, they should jail him for public endangerment at the first event where he opted not to fight the fire because of his religious/moral/ethical views.

Is stupid.

Oh, I know, it's due to licensure. That bridges the gap.

Lawyers refuse clients and causes all the time. Doctors refuse patients and procedures. Both are licensed. Neither set of actions carries a legal penalty.

We've already had this argument at length around here, so let me short-circuit the second-stupidest part of your comment:

She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.

You're right. Which is why, if she doesn't like those views, she can go elsewhere, to, oh, I dunno, the competition.

And to jump your shark before you do, having actually lived in rural America, I'd ask that you kindly refrain that There Is Only One Pharmacist For Thousands of Miles, or that this should make a difference.

Thanks.

I'm not sure who certifies pharmacists, is it the state medical board?

What if the board made it grounds for license revocation if a pharmacist failed to act in a manner consistent with the spirit of a doctor's orders?

Remember state medical boards are regulated by government (i.e. they ARE the government).  In other words, we're already living under a nanny state which says which people can practice medicine and how they can do it.   And that's seemingly ok with everyone, nobody wants unlicensed hacks doing surgeries on people.

lol at your comment :)

Well now I would just opt to stop posting at redstate if that was a requirement and I would face jailtime if I didn't follow through.

Your analogy is weak though.  If redstate issued a writers license to me for the purpose of writing articles in the best interests of redstate, then they would have the right to revoke my license if I chose not to write something that was required by me and my writers license.

Pharmacists are part of a government regulated profession.  Therefore it is reasonable that the government be able to define their responsibility to ALL citizens of the state, not just those with whom their views agree.

That either you are completely unaware of how the Doctor/Pharmacist chain works, or tort liability, or you are aware, and think the whole system as it currently works should be scrapped. And that, ironically, your system would give pharmacists leeway to make decisions they're not qualified by training to make.

Which is it?

I hereby nominate this for paragraph of the day:

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.

In the case of attorneys filing motions that violate FRCP 11, that problem is with the partner, not the associate. It should still be a requirement that the associate files the sanctionable motion, and THEN report the partner. If proven, the state should revoke the partner's license and/or jail them.

We'd have to carve out an exception for the associate's bar license. Other than that, rock and roll!

Of all the ones here, although I've heard other very good ones.

Lawyers refusing a client does NOT create a public safety concern.  Doctors are actually somewhat restricted to turning down patients.  They certainly can refuse patients because they're not qualified in a particular specialty.  They can refuse them because of too high a patient load.  Neither of those reasons flies in the face of a public safety argument.  In almost ALL cases, a life-threatening case that winds up in an emergency room gets treated, regardless if the person has medical insurance, etc.  In other words, once public safety becomes a concern, then the state (or business) can mandate that licensed professionals do their job.

Pharmacists issuing medication falls into the public safety zone.  Now you could argue that a woman won't die if she doesn't get the morning after pill, but in some cases a woman MIGHT die if she gets pregnant.  There are certain medical conditions for which pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition for the mother.  The pharmacist knows NOTHING of the woman's overall medical condition.  All he knows is that the doctor wants to prescribe her an abortive medication.  To have him second-guessing the doctor by directly acting in opposition to the doctors orders is very dangerous.  It says the pharmacist can act completely in opposition to what the patient's doctor considers the best medical treatment for the patient.

I agree, even in Wyoming or MT, pharmacists are probably 20-60 miles apart.  However, if you're alone, you're vomiting with diarhhea (sp?), and a fever of 103F, isn't it a public safety concern to have you drive 50 miles to the 2nd nearest pharmacy because the first state-regulated pharmacy wouldn't give you the medicine they had on their shelf?

I still get the general essence of your point.  The frivolous lawsuit would still be frivolous.

However, its not up to the attorney to disbar the other attorney is it?  Its up to the state bar.  Therefore in the event that someone's medical well being (public safety) was at stake, the doctor's medical advice should prevail and not the pharmacists.  That is the big difference.

Your analogy would be better constructed this way:

Attorney says "file this (seemingly frivolous) lawsuit".  Paralegal says "I have never talked to the client for more than 1 minute, and I really have no idea what the details of their case is about, but I won't file this lawsuit, I think its frivolous".

I do have a pretty fair understanding of the pharmacist/doctor chain.  

I have very little knowledge of tort law, but who cares, I thought most redstaters want to scrap tort law and start over anyway.  ;)

Lastly, I fail to see how a pharmacist having to follow through with the essence of what medical doctors prescribe, JUST AS THEY DO NOW IN 99.99 percent of cases, would give them leeway to make decisions they're not qualified to make.

If anything, making them report doctors for overprescribing or making them report patients for doctor-hopping is actually making them make decisions for which they have not been properly qualified to make.  We ALREADY make them do that.

And the point of the person Leon was arguing with initially.

The point I'm Still getting from Leon is that regardless of whether the employer is willing to risk not being able to find employees that he needs to be Required to accomodate those employees when no such requirement is appropriate...

As attorneys are all licensed (and not just the partners) you can be in a deep load of crap if you file a sanctionable motion, even if your partner threatened your job if you didn't file it. The idea is, if you pass the bar, you are required to exhibi