Federal Gov't is trying make birth control being considered

[Ramius]

You do realize that many pharmacies are owned by the pharmacist, correct? I agree that Pharmacists working for corporations should be fired for not selling BC. I said that on page 1 or 2.

 

THIS

IS

NOT

ABOUT

A

PHARMACY

NOT

STOCKING

BIRTH

CONTROL

PILLS.

THIS

IS

ABOUT

GIVING

A

PHARMACIST

THE

RIGHT

TO

REFUSE

TO

FILL

A

PRESCRIPTION

OF

A

DRUG

THAT

THE

STORE

CARRIES

BASED

OFF

THEIR

MORAL

BELIEFS.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Should you be able to sell or not sell them? Of course... do you have the right to be fired? Of course.

whoa, so you're implicitly saying condoms would fall under the same definition as bc pills. that's some serious schitt given this BBC rule change

[Fingon]

My arguments are in many prior posts in this thread. Feel free to take a refresher, then once you understand what you are talking about, get back to me.

 

 

 

Because, you douche, the person who makes the claim has to provide proof of it being true. It's how debating works. Look it up on Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Have you found any information about pharmacies in rural America yet?

 

 

 

Ah yes, the good ol' perfect use failure rate difference. Do you know the actual difference in failure rates? How about the effect of convenience on the different birth control methods?

 

 

 

Forcing pharmacists to sell birth control is totally bankrupting America.

 

Firstly, i was resposnding to the claim that rural women would not be able to find another pharmacy.... which was not backed up at all.

 

The fact is that everything else is irrelevant.

 

 

Should Pharmacies be required by law to carry BC? No

Should a pharmacist be able to be fired for not selling BC? Yes

 

I'd like to see your data on the amount of people living in rural areas that will not be able to find birth control.

[Fingon]

THIS

IS

NOT

ABOUT

A

PHARMACY

NOT

STOCKING

BIRTH

CONTROL

PILLS.

THIS

IS

ABOUT

GIVING

A

PHARMACIST

THE

RIGHT

TO

REFUSE

TO

FILL

A

PRESCRIPTION

OF

A

DRUG

THAT

THE

STORE

CARRIES

BASED

OFF

THEIR

MORAL

BELIEFS.

You know discussions evolve... right? I was debating with someone whether pharmacies should be required to carry them.

[Fingon]

whoa, so you're implicitly saying condoms would fall under the same definition as bc pills. that's some serious schitt given this BBC rule change

Of course they shouldn't fall under the same definition. Condoms aren't drugs... besides i disagree with the new rule changes anyways. All i'm saying is that you should have the right to refuse to sell something to someone, but you have a right to be fired because of it as well.

[Ramius]

You know discussions evolve... right? I was debating with someone whether pharmacies should be required to carry them.

Oh, really?

Why should a Pharmacist be required to dispense birth control pills? He has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, and birth control pills are non-essential medication; they do not treat a disease or save a life.

 

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.

 

You managed to shove your foot so far down your throat that its coming out your ass, so now you try backtracking? Not gonna work.

[Fingon]

Oh, really?

 

 

 

 

You managed to shove your foot so far down your throat that its coming out your ass, so now you try backtracking? Not gonna work.

I said on page two that they can be fired... it's right there for your eyes. However, i believe that their freedom of religion shields them from penalties from the government.

[Chilly]

Firstly, i was resposnding to the claim that rural women would not be able to find another pharmacy.... which was not backed up at all.

 

Sure, asking me to back up my claim is fine, and I'll be happy to do so (unlike yourself).

 

Recently (June 24th), Representative Jerry Moran gave a speech to the Subcommittee on Health about the availability of Health Care in his district, a very rural area. In his speech, he noted that Seven Kansas communities have access to no pharmacies at all, and 32 counties in Kansas have only one pharmacist in the entire county.

 

According to the Journal of the American Pharmacy Association, the population-to-pharmacist ratio in rural America is 66 per 100,000, versus 78 per 100,000 in urban areas.

 

According to a study by Donald Klepser, Ph.D., Liyan Xu, M.S., Fred Ullrich, B.S., and Keith Mueller, Ph.D., there has been a net loss of 503 local pharmacy services in rural areas. Among those that were open in May 2006 and later closed, 158 were the only pharmacy serving their community at the time, and no other pharmacy replaced them.

 

The fact is that everything else is irrelevant.

 

O RLY?

 

Should Pharmacies be required by law to carry BC? No

Should a pharmacist be able to be fired for not selling BC? Yes

 

Changing your tune now, eh?

 

Where are these millions of other equivalent contraceptive options? Where's the data backing up your GUARANTEE?

[Chilly]

You know discussions evolve... right? I was debating with someone whether pharmacies should be required to carry them.

 

Really? When have I posted in this thread that pharmacies should be required to carry them?

 

Please, quote it. I'm eagerly waiting your response.

[Fingon]

Sure, asking me to back up my claim is fine, and I'll be happy to do so (unlike yourself).

 

Recently (June 24th), Representative Jerry Moran gave a speech to the Subcommittee on Health about the availability of Health Care in his district, a very rural area. In his speech, he noted that Seven Kansas communities have access to no pharmacies at all, and 32 counties in Kansas have only one pharmacist in the entire county.

 

According to the Journal of the American Pharmacy Association, the population-to-pharmacist ratio in rural America is 66 per 100,000, versus 78 per 100,000 in urban areas.

 

According to a study by Donald Klepser, Ph.D., Liyan Xu, M.S., Fred Ullrich, B.S., and Keith Mueller, Ph.D., there has been a net loss of 503 local pharmacy services in rural areas. Among those that were open in May 2006 and later closed, 158 were the only pharmacy serving their community at the time, and no other pharmacy replaced them.

 

 

 

O RLY?

 

 

 

Changing your tune now eh?

 

Where are these millions of other equivalent contraceptive options? Where's the data backing up your GUARANTEE?

First of all... I would like to say that i do not advocate the elimination of rights because some people might be inconvenienced. Secondly, there was always a distinction between pharmacies and pharmacists... on page 2 i stated that pharmacists should be fired if they cost their company money. Also, "millions" was clearly an exaggeration, but there are a plethora of other birth control options available... i will list them if need be, but they are pretty obvious. There are in fact many states that require all pharmacies to stock BC, and laws that target the licenses of pharmacists who do not sell it; those I disagree with.

[Fingon]

Try learning how to write. A "Pharmacist" is an individual. A "Pharmacy" is a business and all such businesses are not required to carry all drugs. You are suggesting that an individual Pharmacist at CVS or Walgreens should not have to dispense drugs they don't like even though the owner of the pharmacy has chosen to carry the drug.

Actually, i state that a pharmacist shouldn't have to... but he should expect also be fired. There are many state laws that require pharmacists to sell BC. I believe some states will target their licenses. Also, i was referring to Pharmacies owned by the actual pharmacist in many of my posts. (i've already explained that)

[Chilly]

First of all... I would like to say that i do not advocate the elimination of rights because some people might be inconvenienced.

 

Ah yes, the utterly simplistic characterization of convenience, I love it.

 

Secondly, there was always a distinction between pharmacies and pharmacists... on page 2 i stated that pharmacists should be fired if they cost their company money.

 

Then what the hell are you arguing with me and others for?

 

Also, "millions" was clearly an exaggeration, but there are a plethora of other birth control options available... i will list them if need be, but they are pretty obvious.

 

Other widely available birth control methods are not just 1.7% less effective, unlike your claims (the actual effective failure rate of condoms is around 15% - you need to compare actual use rates, not best case scenarios).

 

There are in fact many states that require all pharmacies to stock BC, and laws that target the licenses of pharmacists who do not sell it; those I disagree with.

 

Doesn't really bother me either way, the state government seems like a great place to decide such issues. The states provide the licensing, they get to make the rules. Whooptie doo.

 

By the way, that didn't have anything to do with the article posted.

[Fingon]

Ah yes, the utterly simplistic characterization of convenience, I love it.

That's what it boils down to, does it not? It's driving out of your way when one pharmacy doesn't carry something.. convenience.

 

 

Then what the hell are you arguing with me and others for?

There were those arguing that carrying birth control should be mandatory, and because I was under the assumption that people were well versed in these parts of the issue:

 

1. Most of these state laws target independently operated pharmacies.

2. People were saying pharmacies should be required to carry these drugs.

 

 

 

Other widely available birth control methods are not just 1.7% less effective, unlike your claims (the actual effective failure rate of condoms is around 15% - you need to compare actual use rates, not best case scenarios).

The actual effective rate of birth control is around 90% while condoms are 85%. However, used correctly they are almost identical.

 

 

 

Doesn't really bother me either way, the state government seems like a great place to decide such issues. The states provide the licensing, they get to make the rules. Whooptie doo.

Infringing on rights does bother me.

[Wacka]

The drugs are available by mail. I e-mailed my refills in and got it within 48 hours. The warehouse was in Dallas and I'm in CA.

If you forget and have to wait a few days for the BC pills, cross your F'n legs and don't F until the pills come in.

[Ramius]

There were those arguing that carrying birth control should be mandatory, and because I was under the assumption that people were well versed in these parts of the issue:

 

1. Most of these state laws target independently operated pharmacies.

2. People were saying pharmacies should be required to carry these drugs.

 

Pull your head out of your ass. Everyone was arguing that a PHARMACIST (note: this is different from a pharmacy, the place where drugs are sold) has no right to refuse to fill a prescription on "moral" grounds. You were arguing that they do. See my above post where i quoted you saying these exact things.

 

And since when is it a pharmacist's "right" to decide who they provide service too? To me, "we're not going to fill your prescription with drugs that our store chooses to stock because you are a different religion" sounds an awful lot like "we're not going to fill your prescription with drugs that our store chooses to stock because you are a different race."

[justnzane]

That's what it boils down to, does it not? It's driving out of your way when one pharmacy doesn't carry something.. convenience.

 

Any sensible pharmacy, would carry most mainstream prescriptions because there is always some local doctor who will prescribe it.

There were those arguing that carrying birth control should be mandatory, and because I was under the assumption that people were well versed in these parts of the issue:

 

1. Most of these state laws target independently operated pharmacies.

2. People were saying pharmacies should be required to carry these drugs.

Technically the pharmacy has a right to carry any legal substance they want. However, common sense would state that birth control would be at all pharmacies.

 

The actual effective rate of birth control is around 90% while condoms are 85%. However, used correctly they are almost identical.

So, you admit that you posted false info. Also, 5% difference is huge, that is 5 less unwanted babies out of every 100. Meaning that is potentially 5 less aborted babies or babies in public adoption programs. Also, the sensible person would probably combine the pill with condom usage to achieve hypothetically a 97% effective rate.

 

Infringing on rights does bother me.

Well, throughout the topic, no one has really seen it as infringing on the pharmacist's or pharmacy's rights. However, what this could do, it could free the rights of health care providers in some states from covering the pill. In turn, it could force a bunch of women to pay more for their BC or make it too expensive for them to afford. Therefore, it could infringe on the woman's right to plan a pregnancy when the time and situation are right for her and the baby.

[Chilly]

That's what it boils down to, does it not? It's driving out of your way when one pharmacy doesn't carry something.. convenience.

 

Its not simplistic because its wrong, its simplistic because it ignores human behavior patterns and the associated consequences.

 

 

There were those arguing that carrying birth control should be mandatory, and because I was under the assumption that people were well versed in these parts of the issue:

 

2. People were saying pharmacies should be required to carry these drugs.

 

Who was that? You keep talking about these people, but I can't find any of them.

 

Here's the post where you switched from "pharmacists" to "pharmacies". Silly me thinking they were two different things. Notice that I keep talking about Pharmacists, like everyone else in the thread, except for you.

 

The actual effective rate of birth control is around 90% while condoms are 85%.

 

92% actually, for an 8% actual failure rate with BC versus a 15% failure rate with condoms, which doesn't include the availability factors with condoms.

 

 

However, used correctly they are almost identical.

 

sh-- in one hand, wish in the other, and see which one fills up first.

 

Infringing on rights does bother me.

 

Depends on how its implemented.

[Adam]

The drugs are available by mail. I e-mailed my refills in and got it within 48 hours. The warehouse was in Dallas and I'm in CA.

If you forget and have to wait a few days for the BC pills, cross your F'n legs and don't F until the pills come in.

You're not the boss of me!! Don't tell me what to do!!!!

[RI Bills Fan]

The drugs are available by mail. I e-mailed my refills in and got it within 48 hours. The warehouse was in Dallas and I'm in CA.

If you forget and have to wait a few days for the BC pills, cross your F'n legs and don't F until the pills come in.

 

You're on Birth Control Pills?!?!

 

Well that explains everything...

[Alaska Darin]

No, our health care is so !@#$ed up because the government requires pharmacies to stock every drug under the sun, and insurance to cover almost everything... no matter how rare. Also, are you denying that there are other options? Drive 2 miles down the road and go to another pharmacy... problem solved.

Yeah, because it's that easy.

 

There are plenty of places in America that don't have a second option that's close by. I know that's hard to comprehend but America is a pretty big place.

 

There are very few jobs in this country that have the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs. What you're advocating is a VERY slippery slope.

 

Everyone needs to think back to when they got behind MADD because Drunk Driving really sucks. Would any of you really have believed that the government would start seizing people's vehicles because they were sleeping one off instead of driving or taxing beer to the point that a sixer of sh------- American Lager is now over $7?

 

Watch out what you wish for - you'll ending up getting it and a hell of a lot worse.