PDA

View Full Version : Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B



Carol
02-22-2012, 11:16 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101458477


Star Member maddezmom (125,664 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile

Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B
TACOMA, Wash. (AP) Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments earlier this month in a lawsuit that claimed state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, Wash., and two licensed Washington pharmacists sued in 2007, saying that dispensing Plan B would infringe on their religious beliefs because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, an act they equate with taking human life.

The state argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and that they promote a government interest the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Judge-says-Wash-can-t-make-pharmacies-sell-Plan-B-3349010.php#ixzz1n9ivsH5H
6
Tweet

Justice wanted (1,120 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Another blow to woman's rights and health safety.

Star Member BadgerKid (3,289 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Pharmacists aren't licensed medical doctors.

View profile
How can they prove there was an egg released AND it got fertilized?

NC_Nurse (11,424 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
8. When did "religious freedom" become the right to impose your beliefs on others?

View profile
Nobody's making THEM take these drugs. Why are they allowed to decide when someone else should or shouldn't follow THEIR religion.

This trend is such bullshit.

Star Member Deep13 (35,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
9. I predict the 9th will overrule him.

View profile
Funny how the patient has to bear the cost of the druggist's religious objections.

Star Member BOHICA12 (355 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. Is there any single product or item that statute can require a business to sell?

View profile
I can't think of one. Maybe some insurance instruments, but not any physical product.

niyad (18,281 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
25. a pharmacist is not the same thing as a tire dealer.

View profile
the products are prescription drugs, and people's lives depend on them. there is nothing in their training that says they get to impose their religious beliefs on other people's lives.

I truly hope you are not a pharmacist, or in any other profession that impacts women's lives and health.

Star Member BOHICA12 (355 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
27. People's lives don't depend on tires?

View profile
But if you own a pharmacy - you are the merchant - you determine the products you will sell and the products you won't sell. Dang, what is it about freedom and personal choice is so hard to understand? Your business will either prosper or suffer based on your decisions - as it should.

If we could figure out decent security, most pharmaceutical transactions could be carried out by a vending machine. Let's not elevate them too high.

Star Member saras (5,015 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
21. The judge was half right

View profile
"the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists"

Yes, this is the state's completely legal, legitimate, mandated-by-the-Constitution goal. It's an admirable goal, and most of the population wants the state to succeed at it.

It's no more appropriate than a fire truck refusing to put out your house fire because you support a different football team than they do.

Star Member Skittles (78,603 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
24. WTF

if these pious sanctimonious HYPOCRITICAL pieces of SHIT are unable to perform their duties as a pharmacist THEY NEED TO FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 11:55 PM
Justice wanted (1,120 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Another blow to woman's rights and health safety.
So a private pharmacy's rights should be subjugated in the name of women's rights? Um, ok. :rolleyes: Oh, did I mention that if one store doesn't have you want, you are free to try somewhere else?

Apache
02-23-2012, 12:04 AM
Ya know if DUmmies were capable of even the most basic critical thinking they could save themselves all this fake indignation...


There are other pharmacies that would gladly sell the morning after pill. Which, in no way, is a life or death script.


Oh, and BOHICA, bohica... keep upsetting the collective and ye shall receive thee a granite nap...

Apache
02-23-2012, 12:06 AM
So a private pharmacy's rights should be subjugated in the name of women's rights? Um, ok. :rolleyes: Oh, did I mention that if one store doesn't have you want, you are free to try somewhere else?

Beat me to the punch... it just reaffirms my contention of the DUmmie thought process.

Dan D. Doty
02-23-2012, 02:46 AM
So a private pharmacy's rights should be subjugated in the name of women's rights? Um, ok. :rolleyes: Oh, did I mention that if one store doesn't have you want, you are free to try somewhere else?

It seems lately that the Moonbats have a great deal of diffculty with The Bill Of Rights.

Now they think its State's job to override your rights, if they ( Moonbats) want something.

MountainMan
02-23-2012, 03:07 AM
So a private pharmacy's rights should be subjugated in the name of women's rights? Um, ok. :rolleyes: Oh, did I mention that if one store doesn't have you want, you are free to try somewhere else?

Funny you mention that. The original pharmacy that brought the suit had NO PROBLEM directing those women who wanted the pro-abortion pill to local pharmacies that were within 5 miles of their own shop. BTW, there were at least five other locations that met this criteria.

noonwitch
02-23-2012, 09:40 AM
I don't think Plan B/ the morning after pill should be available OTC because a physician should examine a woman before she takes something that could cause serious side effects. The WMU Health Center used to prescribe this all the time to stupid girls who went out drinking and screwing without protection. The girls were sick for a few days after taking it-heavy bleeding, cramping, things that were enough to interfere with school and social life for a few days. A young woman with a condition that causes excessive bleeding could face some serious risks if she used this drug without medical supervision at some level.

So, imo, the ethical and first amendment issues shouldn't even matter, because I believe that this is a drug that should exclusively be prescribed by a physician who has examined the woman she is prescribing it for.

Arroyo_Doble
02-23-2012, 09:58 AM
United States v Lee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=455&invol=252)

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

Apache
02-23-2012, 11:23 AM
United States v Lee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=455&invol=252)

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

You might have a point, if they were the only pharmacy in the state. But alas, they were not. This is a case of the state trampling rights...

Ok bye-bye now

Arroyo_Doble
02-23-2012, 11:43 AM
You might have a point, if they were the only pharmacy in the state. But alas, they were not. This is a case of the state trampling rights...

Ok bye-bye now

Bye.

Novaheart
02-23-2012, 01:47 PM
United States v Lee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=455&invol=252)

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

Think about what you have said here: If the state requires everyone to do the same thing, then your conscience or mythology cannot exempt you from that requirement. How is that not the establishment of religion or nonreligion?

BTW, as I understand it, there are man pharmacies which do not carry or dispense the Oxy family of drugs. Some of these places have signs in the window stating as much, because they don't want junkies tunneling through concrete walls all night to get to the dope.

I have no problem with requiring a pharmacy to post a sign which says that they don't carry or dispense a given birth control drug.

I do have a problem with any effort to force a pharmacy to continue to employ a pharmacist who personally refuses to dispense drugs which the pharmacy chooses to carry. It's like that bitch at Winn Dixie who won't handle meat because she's a Petasbian.

Arroyo_Doble
02-23-2012, 01:53 PM
Think about what you have said here: If the state requires everyone to do the same thing, then your conscience or mythology cannot exempt you from that requirement. How is that not the establishment of religion or nonreligion?

Areligion is the exact opposite of a religion.

Novaheart
02-23-2012, 05:17 PM
Areligion is the exact opposite of a religion.

The owner of Springfield Pharmacy stopped selling cigarettes. Should he have been forced to sell them because everyone else sells them?


BTW- he went out of business

Odysseus
02-23-2012, 05:49 PM
So a private pharmacy's rights should be subjugated in the name of women's rights? Um, ok. :rolleyes: Oh, did I mention that if one store doesn't have you want, you are free to try somewhere else?
Apparently, if a woman owns a pharmacy, her right to decide what she will sell doesn't count as a woman's right. Go figure.


Bye.

Really? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Apache
02-23-2012, 07:39 PM
Apparently, if a woman owns a pharmacy, her right to decide what she will sell doesn't count as a woman's right. Go figure.



Well see she's interfering with another woman's right to have a good time without consequences...


That's what REALLY matters! Remember their motto.

Adam Wood
02-24-2012, 12:00 AM
I demand that Wal-Mart carry Beluga Caviar for my personal enjoyment. It is outrageously violating my basic human rights that I have to go somewhere else besides Wal-Mart to get fine Caspian Sea caviar.

After all, caviar is food, isn't it? And as such, I have a basic human right to food. So, dammit, the federal government should be giving me my Beluga Caviar for free at Wal-Mart.


[/moonbat "thinking"]

Arroyo_Doble
02-24-2012, 10:11 AM
I demand that Wal-Mart carry Beluga Caviar for my personal enjoyment. It is outrageously violating my basic human rights that I have to go somewhere else besides Wal-Mart to get fine Caspian Sea caviar.

After all, caviar is food, isn't it? And as such, I have a basic human right to food. So, dammit, the federal government should be giving me my Beluga Caviar for free at Wal-Mart.


[/moonbat "thinking"]

Write your congressman.

Arroyo_Doble
02-24-2012, 10:12 AM
The owner of Springfield Pharmacy stopped selling cigarettes. Should he have been forced to sell them because everyone else sells them?


No.

Should people be absolved from following the law simply by saying it conflicts with their religion?

Adam Wood
02-24-2012, 10:40 AM
Write your congressman.Good idea. Only Leftists and Congress would be so Goddamned stupid as to believe that there is some God-given entitlement to fucking without consequences, so a belief that there is a God-given entitlement to Beluga caviar is right in line with that.

Arroyo_Doble
02-24-2012, 10:41 AM
Good idea. Only Leftists and Congress would be so Goddamned stupid as to believe that there is some God-given entitlement to fucking without consequences, so a belief that there is a God-given entitlement to Beluga caviar is right in line with that.

You make a great case.

Novaheart
02-24-2012, 11:19 AM
Should people be absolved from following the law simply by saying it conflicts with their religion?

If a man walked into the psychiatrist office and said, "Doctor, I hear a blue sloth that no one else hears. He says he loves me and wants the world to live in peace or he will kill us." then that person would by definition be insane. In the south, we'd simply say he's peculiar. Change the blue sloth to Zeus, and we have Christianity.

Novaheart
02-24-2012, 11:22 AM
Should people be absolved from following the law simply by saying it conflicts with their religion?

No, people who own businesses shouldn't have to sell products they don't want to sell, or serve people they don't want to serve, or be open when they don't want to be open. The flip side of that is that if the government determines that an essential service is not being provided by the market, then it can start its own delivery system. We already have government liquor stores, there is no reason why we couldn't have a government pharmacy if one is needed in a place where all the local pharmacies have their heads up the Vatican's ass.

Arroyo_Doble
02-24-2012, 11:36 AM
No, people who own businesses shouldn't have to sell products they don't want to sell, or serve people they don't want to serve, or be open when they don't want to be open. The flip side of that is that if the government determines that an essential service is not being provided by the market, then it can start its own delivery system. We already have government liquor stores, there is no reason why we couldn't have a government pharmacy if one is needed in a place where all the local pharmacies have their heads up the Vatican's ass.

That whole argument reminds me of the Muslim cab drivers who didn't want to transport people with service dogs.

Edit: Alcohol, too. The Link (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1#.T0evpnnleSo)

Odysseus
02-24-2012, 12:01 PM
That whole argument reminds me of the Muslim cab drivers who didn't want to transport people with service dogs.

Edit: Alcohol, too. The Link (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1#.T0evpnnleSo)

Or women who weren't properly attired.

It all comes down to property rights. Both the cabbies and the pharmacies have the right to refuse to provide objectionable services, but they must be prepared to face the consequences. In NYC, cabbies who arrive at the airport are put in a queue and have no say in who they take. It's first come, first served. If the cabbies don't want to take persons with service dogs or alcohol, they are free to not go to the airport (where the person queuing them up will tell them that if they don't want to take a fare, they will have to get out of line), and pick up their fares where they can. Of course, the owners of the taxi fleets might have a problem when those cabbies come in without making any fares, and they would be within their rights to replace them with drivers who are willing to make money for them. However, a pharmacy isn't being given the option to decline business that it doesn't want, it's being ordered to stock and disseminate items which it does not wish to deal in. The pharmacist knows that he will lose some business this way, but that's his choice, and if the parent company disagrees, then he has a problem, just as the cabbie does, but if it's his own store, then the decision ought to be his.

Two hypotheticals: Let's say that the pharmacy stocked newspapers, but didn't carry one of the two local papers because the owner found it objectionable. Would the state have the right to dictate that they had to offer it?

Would the same people who demand that the Muslim cabbies be permitted to deny rides to infidels, dogs and immoderate women have the same reaction if a Catholic cabbie refused to take a woman to an abortion clinic?

Novaheart
02-24-2012, 12:02 PM
That whole argument reminds me of the Muslim cab drivers who didn't want to transport people with service dogs.

Edit: Alcohol, too. The Link (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1#.T0evpnnleSo)

I support the right of cab owner drivers to not pick up anyone on the street they don't want to pick up, or to refuse to pick up at or deliver to addresses they consider dangerous or unprofitable.

The issue with the dogs and alcohol was that those can drivers were participating in an organized system of distribution of business in a public building (airport) which is designed to fairly and efficiently assign passengers to participating cab drivers. The rules were clear: you can refuse a fare, but if you do you go to the back of the line. The muzzies, who shouldn't be here in the first place, were demanding to refuse fares and keep their place in line- ie they wanted special treatment. And they got it, to the shame of the officials involved.

fuck Islam.