In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 My biggest problem with this is the way they're going about it, bypassing congress and the American people's ability to decide if it makes sense for us. This kind of backdoor rule making has to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 A pharmacist does have freedom of religion. A pharmacist does not have the right to impose his/her religious beliefs upon someone else. A pharmacist is there to provide a service for people. So you are saying its ok to deny service to someone based off of religion? Dangerous precedent there. And again, how is handing someone a box of pills infringing on your religious freedoms? EDIT: apparently you missed my line above on the other uses of a birth control pill prescription. Maybe you don't agree with birth control, and you view giving people the pills as supporting it? And yes... there is already a precedent for denying service based on religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How about if you're a "deeply religious person" you don't enter into a profession that you believe compromises your religious beliefs in the first place. What's next, Muslim bartenders who refuse to serve alcohol? So pharmacists only give out birth control pills now? That would have to be true for your analogy to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 McCain is in can't win situation with this. If he comes out against it he'll piss off the independents which he needs, but if he supports it will piss off the religious right who he also needs . He's probably thinking, "You couldn't have waited until AFTER the election!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 There is nowhere else to go for prescriptions. It is not like they can be ordered via mail or anything. The local pharmacist should not be the person who decides everyones health. How about the other pharmacy 2 miles down the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Should a doctor be required to perform a sex change if it will help eliminate the patients depression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So pharmacists only give out birth control pills now? That would have to be true for your analogy to be correct. Do bartenders only serve alcoholic drinks??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Do bartenders only serve alcoholic drinks??? No, but the vast majority of the drinks served are alcoholic.. to an extent that anything else is irrelevant when it comes to cash flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5935532.html I don't know about anyone else's stance here, but I think contraceptives are a necessity to our society. I think there is a huge between a contraceptive and an abortion. Regardless of politics about abortion, I think "the pill" is probably one of the best things to happen for society as it prevents those abortions from happening. To take away the preventative measure would ensure more abortions, and to take it away from rape victims is just wrong as they have gone through enough suffering. I want to hear what you guys think. I would want to see the draft rule before saying anything definitive about it, but IF it proposes what the Chronicle writer claims then I think someone in HHS REALLY doesn't want McCain to be President. As that might actually spur a few of the "Obama has dreamy eyes" crowd into actually finding out where to vote and when (heck, it might even get a few 20 somethings to register to vote so they might actually vote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I would want to see the draft rule before saying anything definitive about it, but IF it proposes what the Chronicle writer claims then I think someone in HHS REALLY doesn't want McCain to be President. As that might actually spur a few of the "Obama has dreamy eyes" crowd into actually finding out where to vote and when (heck, it might even get a few 20 somethings to register to vote so they might actually vote). I thought that the Republicans were supposed to be party that championed less govermental interference into our personal lives. The decision to take birth control should be between a woman and her doctor, not between a woman, her doctor, some wacked out pharmacist and the federal goverment. Welcome to the Christian Republican Nanny State! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How about the other pharmacy 2 miles down the road? Seems like the vast majority of Americans get their prescriptions from the corporate giants like CVS (who also owns CareMark, the biggest mail order drug company), Walgreens, etc. The concept that a CVS pharmacist would be making religious decisions like this is hard to accept. Your local, home owned pharmacy, certainly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Which is why I'm sure you give the same line of credence to people who're afraid Obama and the Democrats are going to tax the crap outta everyone, bloat the federal government with even more social programs that won't work but will cost an arm and a leg, and go after the 2nd Amendment, right? You partisans are such goddamn idiots. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Seems like the vast majority of Americans get their prescriptions from the corporate giants like CVS (who also owns CareMark, the biggest mail order drug company), Walgreens, etc. The concept that a CVS pharmacist would be making religious decisions like this is hard to accept. Your local, home owned pharmacy, certainly possible. Up here I doubt there would be much of a problem but if you live in a rural area in the Bible Belt you'd be screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Up here I doubt there would be much of a problem but if you live in a rural area in the Bible Belt you'd be screwed. totally agree. I would hope Planned Parenthood and the pill makers would have some information campaign to help educate the ones who've been denied and steer them to alternative sources like mail order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Up here I doubt there would be much of a problem but if you live in a rural area in the Bible Belt you'd be screwed.I'm pretty sure there will be no problem anywhere... if companies lose money because of it they will just fire the pharmacist. The whole issue here is CHOICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 totally agree. I would hope Planned Parenthood and the pill makers would have some information campaign to help educate the ones who've been denied and steer them to alternative sources like mail order. Or maybe pharmacy's could make sure that at least 1 staff member is willing to dispense birth control which would allow objectors to recuse themself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Or maybe pharmacy's could make sure that at least 1 staff member is willing to dispense birth control which would allow objectors to recuse themself. If they turn a customer away they should be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Boy, I just love the outrage here from the same people who want the federal gov't to be in charge of health care. What do you think, that politics isn't going to be a part of your precious socialist health care system*? * insert retarded "but if they follow my politics everything will be ok" response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Boy, I just love the outrage here from the same people who want the federal gov't to be in charge of health care. What do you think, that politics isn't going to be a part of your precious socialist health care system*? * insert retarded "but if they follow my politics everything will be ok" response. figures you'd take a WH 'end around' that impinges women's rights and turn it into a partisan bash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Maybe you don't agree with birth control, and you view giving people the pills as supporting it? And yes... there is already a precedent for denying service based on religion. Handing someone a box of pills is not "supporting" birth control. Its called doing your fuggin job. Your job is to fill someone's prescription, so do your job. If you have a problem with that, find a new job that doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Dont give me any "freedom of religion" crap either, because someone who isnt bothered by birth control (due to religion) should not be denied their "freedom of religion" of taking the pills. And what about the woman who is on birth control pills because it keeps her endometriosis more manageable and under control? How does the self-righteous bible thumping pharmacist decide which woman really needs it and which one doesn't? If something like this rule were enacted, i believe that anyone who believes in creationism and not evolution should be given the old antibiotics from 20 years ago. Why? Because if you dont believe in evolution, they theres no way you can believe that a bacteria evolved into an antibiotic resistant strain. Ergo, why do you need the newest antibiotic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts