-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/38765/a-win-for-patients-rights-on-contraception/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
There are lots of medicines prescribed now that did not exist 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, DaGoat. Pharmacists -- mom-and-pop or not -- are professionally obligated to carry any legal medication for which a patient might bring in a prescription. They accept that obligation when they decide to go into this field. They cannot pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill and which they will not based on their personal views or whether the product was around when they first became pharmacists. Also, your point, if it were valid, would be just as valid for chain pharmacies as for mom-and-pop pharmacies. There are lots of pharmacists working at places like CVS and Wal-Mart who got into the profession "before this was an issue." That is a bogus argument.
The other obvious problem is it's not the government's place to tell private businesses what inventory they must stock and sell.
Another bogus argument. It's the government's place to protect the rights of consumers against unsafe, unscrupulous, and/or unprofessional business practices. The government has a legitimate -- indeed, a constitutionally mandated -- interest in defending both public safety *and* the right of individuals to live their lives and make choices for their lives as they see fit, within the law. If a particular individual cannot bring themselves to fill a prescription for Plan B contraception, they should not have to -- but they should also not be hired or be allowed to remain in a job that requires them to do exactly that. People cannot have both their individual rights and the individual rights of others.
This is just not true. It's fairly common in my town for a patient to have to call around to different pharmacies to find a certain medication if it's not prescribed that often, and often the pharmacy will have to order a medication overnight from it's supplier if they don't have it in stock. There is no way a pharmacy can stock all meds that someone "might bring in" a prescription for. Where do you find these claims? Do you have any documentation that supports your contention pharmacies must stock all meds someone might come in for?
Pharmacies stock things they think they can sell, which is appropriate.
People cannot have both their individual rights and the individual rights of others.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
No, Ryan is not the only one who thinks your remark is racist.
That was Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s quote.
Try to keep up with the conversation.
The other obvious problem is it's not the government's place to tell private businesses what inventory they must stock and sell. If I were one of these pharmacies I would just not stock the Plan B and tell patients I'd have to special order it, but if they want it now to go over to Walgreen's or wherever.
Personally I am pro-choice and don't have a problem with Plan B contraception, but respect the views of those that disagree with me.
You seem to be the only one who thinks the remark is racist. Perhaps you’re a little too sensitive.
I had hoped to suck Kathy into commenting on the “populations we don’t want too many off” quote, but I guess she’s not biting.
That quote comes from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, commenting on Roe v Wade.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07...
The main thing I'd say about this is that it was clear that when Justice Ginsburg said "we," when she was talking about populations that we don't want to have too many of (you can get the exact quote from the piece), she meant some people in the world, not herself or a group that she feels a part of. That's not how she sees the world, as you I'm sure know. Her point was about other people's conception of who they thought should be encouraged to have children and who shouldn't be, not her own.
In other words, Bazelon is saying the we should have been in quotes, like this:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that "we" don't want to have too many of.
This, of course, hasn't stopped any right-wingers from assuming that Ginsburg was admitting the pro-choice movement was all about eugenics or others who were convinced that her use of the word "we" was something more nefarious than a reference to "some people.""
http://jezebel.com/5311192/justice-ginsburg-eug...
It's funny in a way to see conservatives accusing their opponents of being racist... civil rights have finally made enough progress that even the right wing is OK with it now. I suppose in 50 years we can look forward to the 'homophobe' card getting used in that way.
Yes, we’re making progress.
I’ve even heard of a few liberals who don’t hate our country, who’ve stopped spitting on military people and who are now unsure whether they want a total communist government. I suppose in 50 years we can look back on all of this and see how silly our preconceived ideas were.
I read that tortured explanation you linked to.
(sigh)
You might want to consider that sometimes people slip up and tell the truth. The eugenics movement was a very legitimate part of left wing politics and must have had some influence on Ginsburg. At the time, you were considered to be anti-science and anti-intellectual if you questioned the logic of the eugenics movement.
Perhaps she meant it not so much concerning race, but maybe genetic defectives. As liberals recoiled recently from the thought of Palin having a less-than-perfect child, Ginsberg’s thinking process was coming into its own when these anomalies were prime candidates for the selective culling promoted by the enlightened thinkers of the left.
Ginsberg has been a strong advocate of retaining the right to dispose of the wrong kind of babies at will, so her statement isn’t too far out of the realm of possibilities to simply take at face value.
Either way, I’m sure you would extend the same level of deference if Scalia had said the same thing.
As all of us conservatives know, the “Before Time” was when people rode dinosaurs to the drive-in.
My point about Ginsberg is that her formative years (when she was eating her Wonder Bread) was a time when the people she would look up to believed in eugenics.
“From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[11] and Sidney Webb.”
As you can see, everyone young Ruth would aspire to be like was a promoter of eugenics. Don’t feel bad if the influences of her youth instilled the desire to rid the planet of undesirables, such as “the poor, mentally ill, blind, "promiscuous" women, homosexuals and entire "racial" groups…”.
It’s not as if she hated these groups of people – no liberal hates just because someone is in a special group (except for conservatives) – she simply wanted to help all of humanity by eliminating the oxygen and food that would be wasted maintaining these people so that more deserving groups could live.
Let’s add a few links for the intellectually curious. That means NO BUSH or PALIN allowed!
Here is some information on a book written by Barack Obama’s current Science Czar, John Holdren:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
And here is a short video on Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic&eurl...
and
"it's not the government's place to tell private businesses what inventory they must stock and sell ... The morning after pill shouldn't be granted special conditions that are not there with other meds for the single purpose of 'making' people dispense it."
That's the difference between so many of us and the extremists.
If you think the blatant politicization of medicine (as with science, in the case of global warming, for example) by lefties is bad now, just want until after the lib Dems make "progress" on health care "reform."
No, obviously. But many on the left say their demands, wishes, claims on others are "rights" [sic].
Even if they are touching, such as the sign I saw yesterday saying "Health Care is Not A Privilege!"
Note that this common misuse of "right" has some of us concerned that the Ninth Amendment might be subject someday to judicial activism featuring such misuse as part of the bogus rationalization.
The real rights at issue here are those of the pharmacies and of the pharmacists as individuals.
Even in 2009, someone has the (real) right to defend what he or she honestly believes as propriety. On the other hand, the closest analogue, the position of those theoretically seeking contraceptives under what are controversial circumstances, in no way is a "right" in a radical-left, developmentally-reversed sense in that anyone has the "right" to whatever one wants, to whatever behavior one wants to enjoy.
"I can do whatever I want!" is accompanied by "Gimme! -- it's my 'right'!"
Related:
It's no different in practice than restrictions on alcohol sales or drug sales or drug use, including the cases where sales are legal but are still refused for one reason or another. The only difference is in matter of degree.
I saw your comment about that after I posted mine.
It's not the same principle at all. Restaurants serve specific types of food and not others by definition. That's what a restaurant IS. Thai restaurants don't serve burgers and fries.McDonald's doesn't serve coq au vin.People go into restaurants knowing and expecting that they will be offered specific types of food; they don't expect to be shown a menu that features every type of food in existence.
This is in addition to the fact that restaurants serve a discretionary/entertainment/leisure-related purpose. Nobody has to eat in a restaurant for health reasons.The professional mandate is completely different from that of a pharmacy that fills doctors' prescriptions.
This ruling only applies to pharmacy owners and not individual pharmacists. If a pharmacy can reasonably accomodate a pharmacist who has a jesus issue with certain medications, then they can do so and still not be out of compliance with the law. The value of an employee who can't fulfill their job duties becomes a personnel issue.
I think we will see other rulings regarding this, as republican dominated state legislatures are passing laws to defend the right of medical personnel to withhold treatment based on religious grounds. In the case of this law, it was a ruling that pharmacies had to dispense a particular medication, which is a pretty narrow ruling.
The law in many states (6) is you are not allowed to refuse to dispense because of personal feelings nowhere does it indicate the Pharmacy must carry every drug known to man that someone may get a prescription for. Kathy's view of a Pharmacies professional obligation is not a universal one. Even in Cali a individual can refuse to dispense particular drugs, it's the pharmacy that must provide access to drugs they carry.
So much for claim of a universal standard.
I see your point. I should have used the word "fill" -- iow, Pharmacists are professionally obligated to fill any prescription.... Not carry.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions on the grounds that they find the product morally objectionable are prioritizing their right of conscience above the patients' right to make her own health care decisions. As a practical matter, if a prescription can be handed off to another pharmacist to fill, I'm fine with that, and I'm sure anyone else would be, as well. But if there is no other pharmacist there who will fill the prescription, then refusing to fill the prescription is a violation of that patient's rights.
I am saying that a pharmacist who does not approve of contraception should not be forced to fill a prescription for contraception, but if there is no one else there who *can* and *will* fill the prescription, then that anti-contraception pharmacist should not be allowed to remain in that position, because then he or she is privileging his or her own rights over the rights of the patient -- or, put another way, that pharmacist is then trying to have her own rights *and* the rights of the patient (confiscating the latter's rights, iow).