New pope..

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
He was dictaing her life in choosing what laws she is or isn't allowed to follow. He's not a judge. You atomatically think that because some woman needs a morning after pill that she is some kind of slut. There could be so many reasons that she needs it. And then you go and make a chauvinistic statement, that only men can have casual sex. I think we know who is thinking narrow minded here. This lady needed help sticking up for her legal rights. I would be willing to help her. You would rather sit back and watch her suffer more than she has too.

OK, you're right that the morning after pill doesn't mean that every woman who uses it is a slut. Point well taken.

Where in the heck did you get that I think only men can have casual sex???????? That's absurd. How is having an opinion different than yours narrow minded? You just threw that one out there with nothing to support it. Now you acuse me of being chauvinistic. And you're getting all of this from just one paragraph? Please don't just start making stuff up.

The guy wasn't stopping her from buying the pill from someone else. He didn't prevent her from going somewhere else. How is he telling her what laws she should or should not follow? He simply refused to give her the pill. That's hardly dictating law. It's not like he tried to have her arrested for murder or something. The article claimed that there were no other pharmacies open, but come on now. If it is so important to get the frickin pill than do what you have to do to get it.

[Shibby]

I went back an re-read the article and they put in the same paragraph that pharmasicts have been known not to give the scripts back. First time around I read that as part of the story. I got the idea of you thinking only men can have casual sex from the chauvinistic statment "She ruined her own life when she decided to be stupid and sleep around". Maybe I am reading that part wrong, but I can't see any other way to read it. These are the comments men make about women all the time when they feel uncomfortable with a woman being sexual (or slut as some may call it), and that is narrow minded. Not being open to other beliefs. There is nothing wrong with him not believing in filling a birth control script, but he is forcing his beliefs on someone else. As equaly wrong on the oppisite side, I would be willing to do the same to protect someone else's rights that can't stand up for themselves.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
I went back an re-read the article and they put in the same paragraph that pharmasicts have been known not to give the scripts back. First time around I read that as part of the story. I got the idea of you thinking only men can have casual sex from the chauvinistic statment "She ruined her own life when she decided to be stupid and sleep around". Maybe I am reading that part wrong, but I can't see any other way to read it. These are the comments men make about women all the time when they feel uncomfortable with a woman being sexual (or slut as some may call it), and that is narrow minded. Not being open to other beliefs. There is nothing wrong with him not believing in filling a birth control script, but he is forcing his beliefs on someone else. As equaly wrong on the oppisite side, I would be willing to do the same to protect someone else's rights that can't stand up for themselves.

I don't agree...respectfully. What other pharmacists did doesn't apply to what this guy did. There may have been other reasons for them not giving a perscription back.

I don't understand why it's so important to be open to other beliefs. What's the point of believing in anything if you don't believe in it absolutely? I believe what I believe because I feel it is right. I enjoy a good debate, but I can't force anyone to agree with me or believe what I believe and I don't try to. I'm not open to any belief that I don't feel is right, but I certainly don't try to exact vengence or meet out justice as I see fit. I don't have that right. Wouldn't she be forcing her beliefs on him by expecting him to give her the pill even though he objects to it morally? Just go find someone else who will give you the pill. It's not that big a deal.

As far as men feeling uncomfortable with a woman being sexual...um whatever. No offense, but that's pretty old and thin. That gets so overused.

[Shibby]

I'm not saying you should be open minded in believing what someone else believes. Just that you should be open minded to the fact that there other beliefs and that should be respected. Taking action against someone else's beliefs is easily taken as prejudice persacution. So would be what I'm doing I suppose, but I see it as more important to respect others and what they feel or believe, by the rights given to them to do so.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
I'm not saying you should be open minded in believing what someone else believes. Just that you should be open minded to the fact that there other beliefs and that should be respected. Taking action against someone else's beliefs is easily taken as prejudice persacution. So would be what I'm doing I suppose, but I see it as more important to respect others and what they feel or believe, by the rights given to them to do so.

I guess we're coming from two different view points. I believe that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. All beliefs aren't valid or even true. People are indeed free to believe what they want, but that doesn't validate all beliefs. I agree that it is important to respect others, but not because of what they believe. People are valuable...all of them. We're all in the same boat, too. No one of us is more or less valuable than another and no one of us is more or less needing of love and appreciation. On that we can agree.

I'll just don't agree that he was taking action against her beliefs. She was still free to believe what she wanted despite his refusal to dispense the pill. She also was still able to get the pill somewhere else too. Persecution is not being told you can't do or have something, but that's another discussion.

[Shibby]

You're right, we have two different view points and they will always seem more logical to ourselves. I am seeing it as he is forcing his beliefs on her by not filling the script. Yes, she can go somewhere else, but in the end he did forcfully (not in the physical sense so much) put his beliefs in her life. He knows what his job as a pharmacists entails. I would not get a job working for a company that has rules in regards to religion if I don't intend on following them. That's just me. I feel it is much easier to get someone to listen if you do it passivly and respectfully. He made her feel embaresed and I'm sure she got very defensive and closed up to his intents of trying to share his beliefs. This is definately one of those agree to disagree situstions.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
You're right, we have two different view points and they will always seem more logical to ourselves. I am seeing it as he is forcing his beliefs on her by not filling the script. Yes, she can go somewhere else, but in the end he did forcfully (not in the physical sense so much) put his beliefs in her life. He knows what his job as a pharmacists entails. I would not get a job working for a company that has rules in regards to religion if I don't intend on following them. That's just me. I feel it is much easier to get someone to listen if you do it passivly and respectfully. He made her feel embaresed and I'm sure she got very defensive and closed up to his intents of trying to share his beliefs. This is definately one of those agree to disagree situstions.

Than why is it that the only stories to make the news are cases like this? It would seem logical to assume that there are many many more cases where pharmacists fill the perscriptions regardless of how they feel about it. But you don't hear any of them crying to the media about someone else's beliefs being forced on them. If he didn't have the right to refuse, wouldn't she then be forcing her beliefs on him? Why should he not be afforded the right to not do what he finds morally reprehensible? His job as a pharmacist doesn't entail doing anything he objects to. Like I said, if that's what's expected of him and he doesn't want to do it than do something else, but in a sense why shouldn't he be able to do what he loves (ie pharmacy) without being expected to conform to her beliefs or without fear of being dragged through the mud for objecting? Passivity and respect don't mean inactivity. As a matter of fact, he was passive. He simply refused. He didn't prohibit her from exercising her "rights" or "beliefs" somewhere else. Our society has somehow twisted our rights around to mean that we can have anything we want and no one can tell us "no." That's not true. I doubt very much that he refused just so he could force his beliefs on her. I also doubt that anyone would care at all if he had been forced to fill the perscription against his objections. It's always the people who refuse based on a moral objection that get dumped on. How much credibility would his words have if he tried to share his beliefs, all the while helping her do something that goes against those beliefs? Doesn't make sense.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
If I owned a Pharmacy and someone I hired decided to start making there own policies, they would be gone quick. If I saw what was happening to that woman I would have snatched that fucker by the neck. Then tell him it is against my beliefs to let stupid fucks like you dictate someones life and legal rights because of there fucking "beliefs".

Oh and firing someone because they do something that goes against your beliefs and "snatching that fucker by the neck" is far from passive and respectful.

[Shibby]

Originally posted by realconan
Than why is it that the only stories to make the news are cases like this? It would seem logical to assume that there are many many more cases where pharmacists fill the perscriptions regardless of how they feel about it. But you don't hear any of them crying to the media about someone else's beliefs being forced on them. If he didn't have the right to refuse, wouldn't she then be forcing her beliefs on him? Why should he not be afforded the right to not do what he finds morally reprehensible? His job as a pharmacist doesn't entail doing anything he objects to. Like I said, if that's what's expected of him and he doesn't want to do it than do something else, but in a sense why shouldn't he be able to do what he loves (ie pharmacy) without being expected to conform to her beliefs or without fear of being dragged through the mud for objecting? Passivity and respect don't mean inactivity. As a matter of fact, he was passive. He simply refused. He didn't prohibit her from exercising her "rights" or "beliefs" somewhere else. Our society has somehow twisted our rights around to mean that we can have anything we want and no one can tell us "no." That's not true. I doubt very much that he refused just so he could force his beliefs on her. I also doubt that anyone would care at all if he had been forced to fill the perscription against his objections. It's always the people who refuse based on a moral objection that get dumped on. How much credibility would his words have if he tried to share his beliefs, all the while helping her do something that goes against those beliefs? Doesn't make sense.

It dosn't make sense, but unfortunately in business life is not fair. Business life is about making profit, not caring about ones feelings or belief. That's where I am getting at. When working a job, you have to take the good with the bad. There are no suprises of what's expected of him. It does seem that this particular pharmacy respects his decision, but agian in this case it is not fair to the woman, who expects the business to provide the service as indicated. In business, fairness is irrelavant. I may have spoken through my feelings instead more with my head with the original post. What aggrevated me the most was the sudden change in this pharmacy, where the business should come first and formost.

[Shibby]

Originally posted by realconan
Oh and firing someone because they do something that goes against your beliefs and "snatching that fucker by the neck" is far from passive and respectful.

Oh, I definately agree with that one. That's why I said before, that it is what I would do, but that dosn't make it right. That just came from me hating to see people get pushed around that can't push back. Every action causes a equal or greater reaction. That was my first feeling and probably what I would continue to do to not just stop his action, but push back. That just comes down to the kind of person I am, right or wrong.

[Primal Instinct]

Let's put this in perspective, shall we? Since when does a frigging pharmacist decide morality for a person? Let's get real here. What's so ironic and hypocritical is that the religious right claim that judges are "activist" and attempt to legislate from the bench. You can't have it both ways.

The news story that I saw on TV regarding this was for a MARRIED mother of two who had decided with HER HUSBAND not to have anymore children. A pharmacist DENIED her the morning after pill, which doesn't abort fetuses- it does not allow an egg to attach to the uterus wall. That is a big difference from abortion rights. Congress just passed a law to ensure that a prescription would be filled for a woman in just such a case. That pharmacist had no legal right to act in the way he did because he infringed upon her first amendment rights. What if that woman had been a rape victim? Would THAT even matter or should she be victimized twice- once by the perp and once by christian fundamentalists. Fucking religious edicts from a pharmacist- give me a fucking break! That shit pisses me off when someone's religious belief encroaches upon another. This is the reason for the wall of seperation that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Baptists.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
Let's put this in perspective, shall we? Since when does a frigging pharmacist decide morality for a person? Let's get real here. What's so ironic and hypocritical is that the religious right claim that judges are "activist" and attempt to legislate from the bench. You can't have it both ways.

The news story that I saw on TV regarding this was for a MARRIED mother of two who had decided with HER HUSBAND not to have anymore children. A pharmacist DENIED her the morning after pill, which doesn't abort fetuses- it does not allow an egg to attach to the uterus wall. That is a big difference from abortion rights. Congress just passed a law to ensure that a prescription would be filled for a woman in just such a case. That pharmacist had no legal right to act in the way he did because he infringed upon her first amendment rights. What if that woman had been a rape victim? Would THAT even matter or should she be victimized twice- once by the perp and once by christian fundamentalists. Fucking religious edicts from a pharmacist- give me a fucking break! That shit pisses me off when someone's religious belief encroaches upon another. This is the reason for the wall of seperation that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Baptists.

Yes, lets. Perspective is a good thing. The guy objected to the freakin pill. That's it. He didn't tell her she was going to hell or that she was a slut or that she was murdering a baby or whatever. He just didn't feel right about giving her the pill. No rights were trampled. He is in no way obligated to justify his misgivings to anyone, you least of all. The first amendment affords him the same right to free speech as the rest of you. Why does he not have a right to his own misgivings? Did she explain the situation to him? We don't know. Maybe she just went bitchy on his ass. Who knows. And on the one hand, you gripe about the religious right trying to legislate morality, then you defend your position with a supreme court ruling. But I thought you couldn't legislate morality?

You complain about deciding morality. Is that not what you're doing? Deciding morality for someone? Your comments are just as judgemental as anyone's. He didn't make a law against the pill, he didn't throw her out of the store, he just didn't want to give her the stinkin pill. Nothing more. She still had a right to go get the pill. So she has to go somewhere else. What a tragedy. Geez. She still has the legal right to use whatever damn pill she wants. There was no religious edict passed down. Give me a break.

[Jordan]

realconan, i cant put into words how ridiculous i think your arguments are... you keep saying 'its just a pill'... buddy, its a bit more than that. its a pill that will change everything about her life for ever. also, you have a very small window to take this pill. if she cant find somewhere else to get it, she's fucked. the dudes a pharmacist... thats not the way to practice your beliefs, thats what churches and private life is for... how would you like it if i worked at a regular deli but wouldnt sell you porc because im jewish? or if i worked at mcdonalds but wouldnt sell you a bigmac because im a bodybuilder? youre right that everyone can only offer their OWN opinion, however one set of ideologies has to be decided on in order run a society... social morals CAN NOT be outlined by religious, or any other type of extremist or fundamentalist individuals. Buddy, theres just no questioning this, im sorry. Thats all i have to say, im not going to reply again.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by realconan
Yes, lets. Perspective is a good thing. The guy objected to the freakin pill. That's it. He didn't tell her she was going to hell or that she was a slut or that she was murdering a baby or whatever. He just didn't feel right about giving her the pill. No rights were trampled. He is in no way obligated to justify his misgivings to anyone, you least of all. The first amendment affords him the same right to free speech as the rest of you. Why does he not have a right to his own misgivings? Did she explain the situation to him? We don't know. Maybe she just went bitchy on his ass. Who knows. And on the one hand, you gripe about the religious right trying to legislate morality, then you defend your position with a supreme court ruling. But I thought you couldn't legislate morality?

You complain about deciding morality. Is that not what you're doing? Deciding morality for someone? Your comments are just as judgemental as anyone's. He didn't make a law against the pill, he didn't throw her out of the store, he just didn't want to give her the stinkin pill. Nothing more. She still had a right to go get the pill. So she has to go somewhere else. What a tragedy. Geez. She still has the legal right to use whatever damn pill she wants. There was no religious edict passed down. Give me a break.

If it's "just a pill" then what is your problem with a pharmacist dispensing it, as they are required to do?

That's fine if a pharmacist chooses not to fill a prescription because of moral issues, even though they took an oath to do as much. The problem lies in places that have no other pharmacists or places to fill these prescriptions. This is especially true in rural areas and is unfair to women.


Furthermore, pharmacists are there to fill legitimate medical prescriptions from medical doctors and to check for contraindications, not impose their morality by proselytizing to their customers. And they DO proselytize in some cases. Fill the damn script or get out of the business if you can't perform the duties required for the position. If it's "just a pill" then what is the problem? The pharmacist consciencious clause is a right-to-life agenda, nothing more. If there is no one else to fill the prescription then that person has denied legally prescribed medicine to a customer and has violated their pharamcist oath. This is especially true in rural areas where women have limited choices of places to fill a prescription.


Should a muslim refuse the right to stock pork in a supermarket and keep it off of the shelves because of that person's beliefs?



A legally obtained prescription cannot be denied to the patient. If the pharmacist cannot fill the prescription due to his/her own personal religious beliefs, then a different pharmacist must be allowed to fill it. If there is no other pharmacist available, then the prescription cannot be denied if it has been legally obtained and there are no contraindications evident.


There are several states with laws against pharmacists denying legally obtained medical prescriptions. There is now a push to move these laws into a federal law. It is much needed, IMO. Denying medical prescriptions is in stark contrast to the Pharmacist Oath. Keep personal religion in the the home and out of the consumer market. Not everyone agrees with everyone else's religious viewpoints but pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions are directly infringing upon the rights of others and therefore, are violating that person's rights to freedom of religion.


Here is the current Senate Bill called Access To Legal Pharmacueticals Act


Here is a press release from Rep. Carolyn Maloney's official House of Representatives website:

Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Ensure Pharmacies Fill All Dr. Prescriptions




**EDIT** I bet that using a quick search, I could find at least a dozen instances where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid birth control prescription and then "preached" to the customer his/her religious views on the subject. Your post was incredibly obtuse in scope. Look at the big picture and see that these things ARE happening and NEED to be addressed by legal means. Of course, if you happen to agree with allowing religious ideologies interfering with legitimate medical care then I guess thats your prerogative. Would you like to get denied a legitimate medical prescription in a one-horse town in rural America by a muslim or a buddhist if he/she didn't agree with your "morality"? I bet not. Maybe a theocratic government or influence is OK with some as long as they agree with the ideologues in charge but would they STILL feel the same if that did not agree with the theocratical ideology? Think Taliban rule in Agfhanistan. Would you want to adhere to their religious ideologies? Probably not but they took control of the government originally through a democratic process after the fall of the centralized government and ensuing civil war. If you were part of them, great. If you weren't, then you'd understand this arguement much clearer, I'd bet.


I don't think that many would support this form of religious rule here in the US but what is the difference what the ideology is in all honesty? There is still imposition present under any religious doctrine being enacted upon believers and non-believers of a particular religion.


I have come to find that there are lots of double standards with the far religious right. Many of them are avid pro-lifers when it comes to unborn fetuses but it's "Kill 'em All" when it comes to capital punishment, even if it is a severley retarded man in Texas or in some instances, a child who committed the crime. Unreal...

[Bouncer]

lol, you guys are funny. this post was started to let you guys know there was a new pope. look what it has turned into. i think some of you have to much time on your hands.