Terry Tate

I think you mean proposed legislation making it mandatory to provide assistance in finding a pharmacist who will fill the rx, since it's already legal to flat out refuse service. But anyway, you recognize: 1- pharmacists would face consequences to their refusal if they're the owner/operator, and they would have to weigh the economic costs against their beliefs. After all, they are running a business. 2- there would most likely be no effect at all in a chain store, as there are often two or more pharmacists on duty, and the rx could just be filled by another individual. Even the smallest privately owned places often have more than one pharmacist on duty at any given time. I was way out of line saying I'd fire someone because of this, they could just sue me (and probably win). So worst case scenario for the customer is locating a pharmacy that will fill the rx, which, given the above, should not be too difficult at all. This is why the suggestion of increasing the reach, scope, and control of government into what a merchant does or does not carry riles me so much. It's totally unwarranted. But it appears you may be open to accepting that. I feel like my work is done here.

I'd say so. I tell you what though, if he works for me, and I decide to carry it, he damn well better sell it or I'd can him right on the spot. Pick up your things and get out, I'll finish your shift.

If a pharmacist buys and stocks product he refuses to sell, he's a confirmed idiot, and will soon be out of business. I don't think it makes him a hypocrite, though. OTOH, if he refuses to sell RU-486, but sells condoms and birth control pills, that might be hypocritical. Depends on his reason(s) for not selling RU-486.

No, they can't. The customer is free to obtain their pill from another pharmacy. Apply the same argument to doctors who refuse to perform abortions. Walk around in it, see how it fits.

Considering the topic, I think it's the best possible analogy, but maybe I should have thrown in a laserdisc somewhere ( ). Seriously, how is the doctor who refuses to perform abortions for personal reasons any different than the pharmacist who refuses to sell RU-486? The pharmacist's receipt of a rx is proof of authorization to dispense a controlled substance, not an order by a doctor. That is, the prescription is the method of controlling the substances, not a vehicle for doctors to control pharmacists. I don't believe so, since they do not have that authority. The customer is free to go to any pharmacy that carries the product and receive service. Again, they don't have that authority, but I'm guessing the customer wouldn't care much for it, and will never shop there again. Might even convince others to do the same. Both are making a decision based upon their personal morals and ethics. The doctor who refuses to perform an abortion based upon their personal morals, who would then write a prescription for a 'morning-after' pill - this doctor does not exist. Didn't the patient herself (through whatever primitive means available before the telephone) identify a doctor who would perform such a service for her or on her behalf? And did she not encounter doctors who perhaps refused? Why then is the pharmacist singled out for scorn? Strip those doctors of their licenses! Pharmacists do determine their own stock. Unless the state were to force them to carry an item. Which would come next.

Ok, no time left, I have to get ready for class. So here's the analogy that I think fits best: OB-GYNs are licensed by the state. If a patient wants an abortion, the doctor should be forced by the state to perform it, or be stripped of their license. Anyone who thinks pharmacists should be forced to sell 'morning-after' pills should be in full agreement with this.

I don't know if you address all men in general, or someone specifically. But I am not a young man, and I am also familiar with the pain and heartbreak associated with these decisions. I've made no statement to the effect of anyone's irresponsibility, nor have I suggested this product should be banned. I offer the argument that the state should not force a pharmacist to sell a product he does not wish to sell. It would still be legal and available at any other pharmacy that chooses to carry it.

Not bad, but it only represents one aspect of it. There's a better, more obvious one.

Precisely what some proposed state legislation would demand (NB: in legislatures that have already recognized that they lack the ability to FORCE pharmacists to sell this product, something that hasn't become apparent to some readers here at PPP yet). If they wanted to be a jerk about it, handing the customer a phone book would fulfill this obligation. But honestly, how many times would this happen? Would the OB-GYN's in town keep sending rx's for 'morning-after' pills to this pharmacist thinking 'maybe they'll fill it this time? No, again? Dang!'

I don't agree it is an ethical violation to refuse to sell 'morning-after' pills. 'Self-determination' and encouraging patients to 'participate in decisions about their health' is precisely what may direct them towards a pharmacist who will sell them a 'morning-after' pill. It is possible to respect personal and cultural differences, and still not sell a 'morning-after' pill. Still no takers on the most obvious analogy.

Seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the pharmacist's role - he is a merchant who sells controlled substances - this requires state licensure in order to provide a level of safety and security that the individual filling the prescription is qualified to do so without endangering the public, and to keep under control access to medicines the state finds cause to control. It does not give the state the power to force a merchant to sell a product he would otherwise choose not to sell (at least not yet). It is not discriminatory to refuse to sell a specific product to everyone. It would be discriminatory if the pharmacist refused to sell to someone because of their race, for example, but refusal to sell a product to everyone can hardly be called discriminatory. I don't know all of 'what is wrong with our society today', but a lack of respect for individual freedoms would be on my list - not merchants refusing to sell a product. BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the one analogy that directly co-incides with this topic, and we're getting phones and laserdiscs. We're in a 'pro-life/pro-choice' thread, remember? Nobody picked up on it yet?

Speaking as a dad, I hope you take some small measure of solace in this - whether or not it was in your dad's nature to express it to you, there is nothing in a parent's life that brings as much joy and pride as children, and what sacrifices may be necessary pale in comparison. Your life contributed to fulfillment of his, and your good deeds will continue to reflect well upon him.

You just can't stop yourself from the bad analogy, can you? No, building contractors are trained and licensed to perform work within safety standards proscribed by the state. However, in a more accurate analogy --- if a contractor refused to build brick or block homes, and would only build stick-frame constructed houses, in your state-run world, he should be stripped of his license. Because if a customer wanted him to build a block home, he would have to go to a different contractor. The horror! Holy cow, the phone analogy is even worse - stop yourself before you make another one! Saying everyone uses the phone is like saying everyone uses the Laserdisc?! Yeah, because not everyone has a phone, especially doctors and pharmacists. If you ask your doctor's office, they'll phone it in for you. Or, you could get the government to pass a law forcing pharmacies to carry a specific product. Same same. Another lame conclusion - pharmacies should be able to ask religious affiliation. No, all the pharmacy would have to do is fire someone who refuses to do the job they hired them to do, fill prescriptions. Shouldn't be too hard to make that clear on a job interview. 'Rogue pharmacists', 'dictators', lol. The license is intended to assure proficiency, to provide a level of confidence in the pharmacists ability to fill a prescription without injuring or killing someone. It's not meant to be a vehicle to force business owners to sell a product they do not want to sell. Of course, the 'state knows best' folks are working hard to make them refer customers to another pharmacy (note that not even they resort to your extreme). No doubt you will continue to proclaim your love and belief of 'freedom', though.

Then you could have spent the time it took to post that informing yourself, rather than stating your ignorance or assuming mine. CA considering legislation to force sale. Here's another one for you.

Of course, everyone who is adamantly opposed here to being subject to jury duty will recognize they are a part of the problem, and refrain from making negative comments on any future unsatisfactory court judgements.

What sort of fantasy world is this? There are no telephones where these hypothetical customers reside? The doctor's office calls in a prescription to a pharmacy (which any doctor's office with a telephone will do), the pharmacist refuses to fill it, the doctor's office informs the patient, a different pharmacist is contacted who will fill it. Guess where the patient takes all future business? "...does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape?" No, he can chose to sell it or not. "Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms?" Business owners (and by extension of the owner's wishes, cashiers) have the right to refuse service to anyone. Business owners have the right to carry, or not carry, any product. Including condoms. "Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?" If it's not a regular stop, yes. If it's a regular stop, no. Any other easy questions?

Is this hypothetical? Because Wal-Mart doesn't build stores where there are no customers, and if there are enough customers to support a Wal-Mart, there are enough customers to support other businesses. I've lived out in the country, 20 miles from the nearest city with a population of about 13,000 - hardly a metropolis - which had probably a half dozen pharmacies (yes, including one in a 'super' Wal-Mart). If I traveled 20 miles in the opposite direction, I could reach another small town with - you guessed it - more pharmacies. If demand exists, someone will sell the product and do rather well (100% of everyone's business who demands a specific product, including all future prescriptions of any nature, because their competitor refuses to carry it). I find support of state control of this sort preposterous.

All 'We reserve the right to refuse service' signs should be located, and the guilty should be shut down by the state. If they won't serve someone what they ask for, they should be taken out and shot. I can't be bothered to shop elsewhere; taking my business to somewhere that will sell me what I want is asking too much of me. I trust in the state to monitor all businesses, and employ agents to ensure that stores are selling items the public demands. Business owners should not be allowed to determine what goods and services they provide; that should be a state function.

Sorry, can't help anyone get out. Just me being me almost did it, though. Judge: Do you think, after this trial is over, the defendant will be satisfied he received a fair and just decision? CaWingNut: Well, I guess that depends on how it turns out, now doesn't it? (Whole courtroom erupts in laughter) Judge: (flustered) What I mean by that, juror #6, is that - CaWingNut: Yes sir, I know what you mean. Yes, I believe so. Got picked anyway (or maybe because of it). The lady who filed charges against the defendant took the stand and contradicted herself about 5 times before the prosecuter decided it was time to cry 'uncle'. The whole thing was over by the afternoon.

Only if they change the rules. Two teams enter, one team leaves.

Nice neighbors. Boy, I'd like to help you out, but three buttons is asking too much. Maybe if emergency was only '91', or just '9' I could see it. I hope I never get on a jury like that. I might be facing an assault charge myself.

Tough to get a Ron Mexico sign on TV? Too complicated to get hundreds of people to hold up colored cards simultaneously? Painted on mustaches, ponchos/zarapes, sombreros, and huarache sandals. The TV usually gets in shots of people in costume. That'd be the time to sneak in a shot of your "Don't let Ron Mexico south of your border" sign. The TSW membership network alone could probably generate over a thousand Ron Mexico's at the game. Add tequila at your tailgate, and enjoy.

Oh, I believe it. Like I said, it's always gone on, and always will. My point was I was still able to enjoy myself playing the game. I guess I should have been more specific in my first post about a parent making it a miserable experience. It was one of my parents, not someone else's.

It's supposed to be fun for the kids, even if the parents don't like it. Some of these stories remind me of why I quit playing organized sports when I was young. I experienced all of the same issues on my teams; those never change. Those things didn't bother me so much, if and when they happened. I got over it and enjoyed what I could of the rest. The reason I quit was because a parent made it such a miserable fuggin experience that it was no longer fun. It's not a job, it's a game your kids play. Some folks appear to believe they're managing a professional.

One of my kids is a July baby. She's the youngest in her K class; seems to be doing fine. We could've held her out until next year here in Florida (as well as California had we not moved), but I didn't see any reason to. Don't be a worrywort; you're involved in their lives, they'll be fine.