Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Pro-Life Pharmacies

Health Care Pro-Life Pharmacies 2008

  • Please log in to reply
323 replies to this topic

#1 Annibal

Annibal
  • Islander
  • 3,036 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 07:35 AM

http://www.washingto...1502180_pf.html

Quote

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients' rights against those of health-care workers who assert a "right of conscience" to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

"The United States was founded on the idea that people act on their conscience -- that they have a sense of right and wrong and do what they think is right and moral," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Society, a Chicago public-interest law firm that is defending a pharmacist who was fined and reprimanded for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. "Every pharmacist has the right to do the same thing," Brejcha said.

But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods.

"I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."

The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations.

The most common, widely publicized conflicts have involved pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, morning-after pills and other forms of contraception. They say they believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion and that the contraceptives promote promiscuity, divorce, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other societal woes. The result has been confrontations that have left women traumatized and resulted in pharmacists being fired, fined or reprimanded.

In response, some pharmacists have stopped carrying the products or have opened pharmacies that do not stock any.

"This allows a pharmacist who does not wish to be involved in stopping a human life in any way to practice in a way that feels comfortable," said Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, which promotes a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill such prescriptions. The group's Web site lists seven pharmacies around the country that have signed a pledge to follow "pro-life" guidelines, but Brauer said there are many others.

"It's just the tip of the iceberg," she said. "And there's new ones happening all the time."

Some pro-life pharmacies are identical to typical drugstores except that they do not stock some or all forms of contraception. Others also refuse to sell tobacco, rolling papers or pornography. Many offer "alternative" products, including individually compounded prescription drugs, as well as vitamins and homeopathic and herbal remedies.

"We try to practice pharmacy in a way that we feel is best to help our community and promote healthy lifestyles," said Lloyd Duplantis, who owns Lloyd's Remedies in Gray, La., and is a deacon in his Catholic church. "After researching the science behind steroidal contraceptives, I decided they could hurt the woman and possibly hurt her unborn child. I decided to opt out."

Some critics question how such pharmacies justify carrying drugs, such as Viagra, for male reproductive issues, but not those for women.

"Why do you care about the sexual health of men but not women?" asked Anita L. Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "If he gets his Viagra, why can't she get her contraception?"

The DMC Pharmacy opening in August marks an expansion by Divine Mercy Care in Fairfax, a nonprofit health-care organization that adheres to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The group runs the Tepeyac Family Center, an obstetrics-gynecology practice in Fairfax that offers "natural family planning" instead of contraceptives, sterilization or abortion.

"We're trying not to leave our faith at the door," said John Bruchalski, who chairs the group's board of directors, noting that one of the organization's major goals is helping needy, uninsured patients obtain health care. "We're trying to create an environment where belief and professionalism come together."

Like the doctors, nurses and other staff members at Tepeyac, Robert Semler, the pharmacist who will run DMC Pharmacy, plans to start each workday with a prayer with his staff, which at first will just be his wife, Pam, a nurse.

"Being a faith-based workplace, it's a logical thing to do," Semler said.

Bioethicists disagree about the pharmacies. Some argue that they are consistent with national values that accommodate a spectrum of beliefs.

"In general, I think product differentiation expressive of differing values is a very good thing for a free, pluralistic society," said Loren E. Lomasky, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If we can have 20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions of how pharmacies ought to operate?"

Others maintain that pharmacists, like other professionals, have a responsibility to put their patients' needs ahead of their personal beliefs.

"If you are a health-care professional, you are bound by professional obligations," said Nancy Berlinger, deputy director of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y. "You can't say you won't do part of that profession."

California, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington state recently began requiring pharmacies to fill all prescriptions or help women fill them elsewhere, and at least another 10 states are considering such requirements. But some states exempt pharmacies that do not generally stock contraceptives, and it is unclear how other existing rules and laws and those being considered would apply to those pharmacies.

"These are uncharted waters, since the issue of so-called pro-life pharmacies are so new," said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit organization that researches reproductive issues.

Virginia does not have any laws or regulations that would prohibit a pro-life pharmacy, and is not considering adopting any, according to the Virginia Board of Pharmacy.

Critics also worry that women might unsuspectingly seek contraceptives at such a store and be humiliated, or that women needing the morning-after pill, which is most effective when used quickly, may waste precious time.

"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."

Pharmacists at eight pro-life drugstores contacted by The Washington Post said they would not actively interfere with a woman trying to fill a prescription elsewhere, but none posts signs announcing restrictions or offers to help women get what they need elsewhere.

"If I don't believe something is right, the last thing I want to do is refer to someone else," said Michael G. Koelzer, who owns Kay Pharmacy in Grand Rapids, Mich. "It's up to that person to be able to find it."

Semler, at DMC Pharmacy, said he does not feel that will be an impediment.

"We just say there are other pharmacies in the area they can go to," he said, noting that the Kmart across the parking lot has a pharmacy and that there are several other national chains nearby. "We're not threatening anybody. We're just trying to serve a niche market of like-minded individuals."

But others worry about what will happen if such pharmacies proliferate, especially in rural areas.

"We may find ourselves with whole regions of the country where virtually every pharmacy follows these limiting, discriminatory policies and women are unable to access legal, physician-prescribed medications," said R. Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin lawyer and bioethicist. "We're talking about creating a separate universe of pharmacies that puts women at a disadvantage."

I've never even considered things like this before. What if you had ovarian cancer and had to remove them, but at the cost of your potential unborn children, and your anesthesiologist refused? I wonder how close to surgery this was, for the person trying to be sterilized.

This seems extreme to me. They should just come out and say women murder babies every month when they let a mentral cycle pass without getting pregnant. It seems like part of the thought process. Which kind of terrifies me. Or a little boy going through puberty is murdering his children in his sleep when he has a wet dream.

Birth control is prevention, not abortion. I agree with the woman talking about them selling viagra to men, still. This is basically like saying the best BC is pregnancy.

I don't want to insult the christian members here. I know that much of christianity is good, charitable, etc. But I went to church last sunday with a relative and was scared and feeling dazed the whole time. The pastor kept making statements about being the best religion, no one else is always posessed by Jesus, stuff like that. And then pharmacies foisting their beliefs on others? Why become a pharmacist only to choose who "deserves" help? The NONEXISTENT child that wouldn't even be wanted, or the actual woman standing there? I have no problem with a religion that leaves me alone. Even the guys handing out Gideons on campus are fine. But refusing to treat people, refusing to help them? That seems like questionable practices. I was very sad about the fertility doctor refusing to help the gay woman. Ugh.

I take comfort in knowing that even though my relatives are christian they know I'm not and don't overly try to force it on me. I know they're not bad or brainwashed people.

But I also know that my dad's parents stopped going to church because of the atmosphere. And my parents stopped dragging us to church when I was little, and I remember being told by my sunday school teacher that my jewish friends wouldn't get to heaven. I guess I just think church and religion is not something that should be used as a method of persecution and to turn away those one doesn't like. I mean, pharmacies can stock what they want, I guess. I'm just saying more people want to have protected and safe sex than not. I think those pharmacies will lose many customers (depending on where they are, too).
"A song for a heart so big, god wouldn't let it live. May angels lead you in. Hear you me my friends.
On sleepless roads the sleepless go.
May angels lead you in."

Blue skies, Alex.


My Deviantart page!
My Films and Animations!

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:34 AM

Hmmm.

It's too early in the morning for me to think through the arguments about whether they're actually allowed to do this.  My gut is that if they receive *any* kind of government funding/support they are not.
Posted Image

#3 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:35 AM

View PostAnnibal, on Jun 17 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

I agree with the woman talking about them selling viagra to men, still.

Nope; Viagra is taking something that doesn't work and restoring it to working order. The other items take something that works the way that it "should" and changes it so that it works (or doesn't work) the way that the individual wants it. That's the difference.

#4 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:40 AM

I don't agree with them being able to refuse legal services like this. If they don't want to hand out certain meds, or prescriptions...then they need to find another line of work.

And that whole bit about them taking the prescription orders...and then not giving them back so that the person could go to another place...to me that is theft...and they should call the cops and have the pharmacist arrested and put in jail.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#5 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:41 AM

i still can't get past the idea; in the USA anyway, if you are in business, you have the choice of what you do and dont sell; no one, no gov, can force you to sell what you choose not to sell; the 'market' has always always been like that ; if I want to have my grocery NOT include wine or any spirit, I should be able to choose that; same thing with contraceptive;
I would make an exception for emergency situations like an anastethisiologist, oh hell it' too Eary morning to try to spell that since I never wrote the word before! - if it's elective or scheduled surgury you can pick and choose the one who will do the service you choose and need; but if it's sudden , emergency, they must provide the service you need ; but, ONly exception.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#6 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:55 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jun 17 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

And that whole bit about them taking the prescription orders...and then not giving them back so that the person could go to another place...to me that is theft...and they should call the cops and have the pharmacist arrested and put in jail.
Absolutely no question about it. Fired and jailed. Refusing to fill a prescription is one thing, interfering with it being filled by someone else is entirely another. If a pharmacist did that to me - I'd go through the roof.

#7 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 10:17 AM

I cringe at the use of the term "pro-life" to mean "anti-birth-control." They are not the same thing.

View Postoffworlder, on Jun 17 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

i still can't get past the idea; in the USA anyway, if you are in business, you have the choice of what you do and dont sell; no one, no gov, can force you to sell what you choose not to sell; the 'market' has always always been like that ; if I want to have my grocery NOT include wine or any spirit, I should be able to choose that; same thing with contraceptive;
I would make an exception for emergency situations like an anastethisiologist, oh hell it' too Eary morning to try to spell that since I never wrote the word before! - if it's elective or scheduled surgury you can pick and choose the one who will do the service you choose and need; but if it's sudden , emergency, they must provide the service you need ; but, ONly exception.

I've always felt the same way. Private business? It's their choice. Pharmacies are a little trickier because of the role they play. But if there are plenty of other options for pharmacies, then it's no big deal. If there are 12 pharmacies in Our Fair City, and one of them says "Nope, no purchasing contraceptives here," then who cares? Go to the Walgreens around the corner.

Our Fair City has two hospitals, one of them Catholic. It's where my wife works and where we have our insurance. I'm pretty sure our insurance won't cover a vasectomy. I'm not getting all offended and demanding that they change their policy. I'll just save my pennies.  :cool:  

Quote

But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods.

Uh . . . well, maybe prescription options. But you can get condoms pretty much anywhere. And again, the only obstacle is having to drive a couple more blocks. And once it's made clear, it's not like that customer is going to keep coming to the same pharmacy over and over saying "Can I get my pills here now?" If a pharmacy that doesn't dispense birth control starts losing business because of it. . . welcome to the free market. It's their choice.

I also agree with Lil that if there's any government funding that goes to that pharmacy, then all bets are off. But I am pretty positive that none of these places accept government funding.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 10:40 AM

I have to go with Drew here. This is a business choice. IT is why you should make the deliberate choice to not do business there. I did this with Wal-Mart. I was informed about Wal-Mart having an existing policy of locking the nightime stocking staff (At their non 24 hour stores) in with no one having keys incase of an emergancy. This policy was to prevent theft and more than one person has died. Yes they have been sued but the cost has not made them change their policies.

I have choosen to not use Wal-Mart or Sam's Club any longer. I would not do business with a Pharmacy which did not provide condoms or filled birth control pills perscriptions.  I also agree that if given sucha  perscription and refusing to return it should be grounds for a criminal action on the pharmaists and later civil action against the company. I have no problem with a company making choices on how it does business. I do have the option of going elsewhere with my business.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#9 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:22 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Jun 17 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

Hmmm.

It's too early in the morning for me to think through the arguments about whether they're actually allowed to do this.  My gut is that if they receive *any* kind of government funding/support they are not.

Good point. I would think not, as well.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#10 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:30 AM

View PostBroph, on Jun 17 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

View PostAnnibal, on Jun 17 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

I agree with the woman talking about them selling viagra to men, still.

Nope; Viagra is taking something that doesn't work and restoring it to working order. The other items take something that works the way that it "should" and changes it so that it works (or doesn't work) the way that the individual wants it. That's the difference.

You must not be a menopausal woman. ;) Hormones are not just used for birth control - they are used to stabilize erratic periods and to provide hormone replacement therapy for perimenopausal and menopausal women.

Basically, Viagara is covered because being able to get it up at will and at all costs is far more important than any woman's issue. Hormones fulfill a whole range of functions for women, including reducing the chance of getting osteoporosis, reducing the chance of getting some forms of cancer, keeping the body parts men are so fond of lubricated and stretchy, and a lot of other functions.

If you weigh the two against each other, the value of hormones for other than birth control far outweighs the important of a few guys being able to make Mr. Happy wave.

And yet, I'd bet dimes to doughuts that these "pro-life" pharmacies are keeping a nice stock in Mr. Happy's  gotta-have-it, while denying women the right to buy hormones - hormones which are used for other purposes besides birth control.

Edited by Rhea, 17 June 2008 - 11:31 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:36 AM

It is clear that these pharmacies have no right to take a prescription, not fill it, then refuse to return the prescription to the patient.  And I'm sympathetic to Drew's point that the vast majority of those who oppose abortion have no problem with contraception (although it seems clear that anybody who opposes contraception would naturally oppose abortion, so these folks are probably properly described as a subset of the pro-life movement).


This I don't understand:

Quote

Lil:
It's too early in the morning for me to think through the arguments about whether they're actually allowed to do this. My gut is that if they receive *any* kind of government funding/support they are not.

Why?  As currently interpreted, the Constitution affords individuals a right to buy contraception without interference from the state.  Fair enough.

But my right to buy does not translate into an obligation for others to sell.  If I wish to go hunting, I can't demand that a store stock a gun or ammo.  If I wish to enter in an interracial marriage, I can't demand that a racist wedding photographer sell his services for my wedding.  If I want to buy a newspaper, I can't demand that they're stocked in stores around me.  If I (well, okay, not me) want an abortion, I can't demand that a doctor perform it; I have to seek out one who will do it voluntarily.  

The legal restrictions on discrimination are pretty narrow.  I can certainly see the argument that if they sold condoms to men, they would be obligated to sell them to women; however, that doesn't seem to be the case here.  As a private business, they're treating everybody equally, which is all the law requires.

There may be some exotic licensing requirement or non-discrimination statute that I'm unaware of.  Barring that, though, I don't see why this is unlawful.

What's more, I welcome it. Do you really want your birth control prescriptions filled by a pharmacist hostile to your right to control your reproduction?  That strikes me as a rather bad idea.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:40 AM

Quote

Drew:
I've always felt the same way. Private business? It's their choice. Pharmacies are a little trickier because of the role they play. But if there are plenty of other options for pharmacies, then it's no big deal. If there are 12 pharmacies in Our Fair City, and one of them says "Nope, no purchasing contraceptives here," then who cares? Go to the Walgreens around the corner.

As somebody with libertarian leanings, this drives me crazy.  

1) "We're going to restrict your ability to buy certain kinds of medication, so you'll only be able to buy it at licensed facilities staffed by professionals with certain credentials.  It's for public safety, and to protect drug addicts from themselves."
2) *time passes*
3) "Well, these licensed facilities are the only place where you can buy certain kinds of medication, so we clearly need to regulate them.  This is justified, since consumers have no other choices."

This pattern recurs again and again and again and again.  It never seems to occur to anybody to reexamine step 1.   If the United States gets single payer healthcare in my lifetime, I can only imagine the laws that will be proposed/passed in the guise of cutting back health costs, and being justified because the government is paying for it.

Edited by El Diablo Rovotico, 17 June 2008 - 11:42 AM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#13 Annibal

Annibal
  • Islander
  • 3,036 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:56 AM

What Rhea said about Viagra. In fact, couldn't the argument be made that if It stops working, this is the natural course? Isn't the natural degeneration of the body "working the way it should"? So Viagra IS taking something that "works the way it should" (which is that it doesn't work) and changes it to fit what the person wants it to. To me it still sound like the same thing, only one promotes creating babies, not to mention promiscuity and that dirty deed that is apparently perfectly fine for men but not for women. If they go by the "life from a single cell" argument, each erection the viagra helps is probably going to mean the death of millions of little half-babies. No one cares. A woman wants to control her periods but can't because her one little egg might get fertilized? The horror.

Maybe it's because I am a woman who does not like children, especially babies, and hates the idea of marriage, this seems worse than it would to someone who likes kids and is or wants to be married. I am in the demographic that this is more likely to harm. Although, what about the mothers who have had three or more kids and doesn't want any more, is getting older in life, but enjoys sex and whose husband is taking viagra and stuff to keep their romantic life going? Should she just stick to abstinence, denying her own desires? Even though she may be married, a churchgoer, and getting older so it's dangerous for her to get pregnant, she shouldn't be allowed to have birth control just like the 16 year old highschool junior?

All business, legal and economical issues aside, since I really don't know much about that, this just seems wrong to me. It also seems like the pharmacists who got into the profession only to turn away certain people who look for help got into the wrong business, and I can't say I think them at all intelligent.

I don't think I'll EVER have to worry about this myself, considering where I live and will probably be living in the future.

I will never understand people. :(

Edited by Annibal, 17 June 2008 - 11:59 AM.

"A song for a heart so big, god wouldn't let it live. May angels lead you in. Hear you me my friends.
On sleepless roads the sleepless go.
May angels lead you in."

Blue skies, Alex.


My Deviantart page!
My Films and Animations!

#14 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:03 PM

View PostEl Diablo Rovotico, on Jun 17 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

It is clear that these pharmacies have no right to take a prescription, not fill it, then refuse to return the prescription to the patient.  And I'm sympathetic to Drew's point that the vast majority of those who oppose abortion have no problem with contraception (although it seems clear that anybody who opposes contraception would naturally oppose abortion, so these folks are probably properly described as a subset of the pro-life movement).


This I don't understand:

Quote

Lil:
It's too early in the morning for me to think through the arguments about whether they're actually allowed to do this. My gut is that if they receive *any* kind of government funding/support they are not.

Why?  As currently interpreted, the Constitution affords individuals a right to buy contraception without interference from the state.  Fair enough.

But my right to buy does not translate into an obligation for others to sell.  If I wish to go hunting, I can't demand that a store stock a gun or ammo.  If I wish to enter in an interracial marriage, I can't demand that a racist wedding photographer sell his services for my wedding.  If I want to buy a newspaper, I can't demand that they're stocked in stores around me.  If I (well, okay, not me) want an abortion, I can't demand that a doctor perform it; I have to seek out one who will do it voluntarily.  

The legal restrictions on discrimination are pretty narrow.  I can certainly see the argument that if they sold condoms to men, they would be obligated to sell them to women; however, that doesn't seem to be the case here.  As a private business, they're treating everybody equally, which is all the law requires.

There may be some exotic licensing requirement or non-discrimination statute that I'm unaware of.  Barring that, though, I don't see why this is unlawful.

What's more, I welcome it. Do you really want your birth control prescriptions filled by a pharmacist hostile to your right to control your reproduction?  That strikes me as a rather bad idea.

Erm....What I was getting at is that if these pharmacies are receiving government aid then their actions can be interpreted to be "state actions" in the same way that it works with schooling.  As such, the "state" will be seen to be supporting pharmacies who won't sell contraceptives based on their "conscience" (read RELIGIOUS BELIEFS), which is wrong.

If they're private businesses, well until someone says that being pro contraceptive or pro choice is a protected class like say ethnicity, then they can do what they want.  

Lil
Posted Image

#15 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:06 PM

Another thought to add to the mix: while health insurance providers are more than willing to provide Mr. Happy with Viagra as a covered benefit, anything that remotely smacks of birth control for women is not covered. What this means is that the sexism goes from stem to stern: men can buy drugs to help Mr. Happy perform and have it covered by their insurance, and self-righteous prigs don't tell them that they can't get Viagra because it's "anti-life" or whatever other excuse is used for birth control pills.

On the other hand, women's hormones are not covered, EVEN WHEN THOSE HORMONES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BIRTH CONTROL AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EASING MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS. Doesn't matter.

So not only do we women have to put up with insurance companies sitting in judgement on us by refusing to cover our hormones, but we also have to worry about pharmacists who feel free to refuse to serve us because it's agin' their religion.

My feeling is that a person who isn't willing to follow the generally accepted practices of their profession needs to find another profession. Can't bear to issue birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy? Maybe you ought not to be a pharmacist in the first place. And what happens to a rape victim who requests a mornin-after pill? Gonna play God there, too?

I can't help but have the feeling that this will really hurt women in small towns where there's only one pharmacy, and getting to someone who might actually fill the prescription might constitue a real hardship.

Here's a longer article:

http://www.washingto...d=moreheadlines

Quote

Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy.

This article was meant ironically, but it's really kind of scary when you think about it:

http://rightwingnews..._pharmacies.php

Quote

This whole issue brings to mind the Muslim taxi drivers refusing to pick up someone who has been drinking, is drinking, or carrying alcohol or others not taking seeing eye dogs. It's legal. If they don't like to pick up all people, even those they disagree with, pick another freaking profession. My sentiments go the same direction about persnickity pharmacists.

However, it seems to me that an Ob/Gyn is well within his or her rights to refuse to perform an abortion. In fact, few people get the specialized training for them, so forcing a doctor to do this procedure could, in fact, be harmful to the woman wanting one.

The free market has a solution--pro-life pharmacies:

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

So, pharmacists who work here can work with a free conscience. Hmmmm..... I seem to remember Catholic hospitals being forced to dispense certain drugs and perform certain procedures, including abortions. In fact, a Catholic hospital in Colorado was sued by a "transgender" woman for not allowing the surgery and the hospital eventually relented. That just happened in March. This seems to violate the separation of church and state, but then, the hospital isn't a church, per se. It's a charity.

A pharmacy is a private business so they can do whatever they want, right? Substitute people seeking birth control drugs, for say, HIV drugs. Say the pharmacy decides to not sell cholesterol lowering drugs because fat people aren't "honoring the temple". Really, many medications are needed because of some stupid lifestyle choice. Stopping at the sexual vices seems rather limiting.

Edited by Rhea, 17 June 2008 - 12:15 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#16 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:20 PM

If someone wishes to open a pharmacy that more closely adheres to their faith, more power to them.  There are lots of chain restaurants that refuse to serve pork for religious reasons.  I'm cool with this as long as there's a clearly worded sign on the door.

"This Wendy's does not serve any pork products such as ham, bacon, sausage, etc."

"This Pharmacy does not stock any contraceptive products, such as birth control medications, condoms, etc."

Allow customers the choice before they enter your establishment.  Don't remain silent unti they come up to the counter asking where something is and use it as an opportunity to preach the errors of their ways at them.

If you keep enough customers to turn a profit, good for you!  Congrats!

If not . . . oh well, close it down.  That's how business works.

#17 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:59 PM

When I was taking hormones for menopause the insurance paid for them...

Although I have always considered it wrong that Viagra was covered...  I remember one missive from an insurance company stating that they would cover Viagra but also birth control for women.  

In a place with lots of pharmacies, fine - unless by some chance that pharmacy is the only one that your insurance includes...  If the nearest pharmacy is many miles away or in another town, that's a different issue and perhaps pharmacies in those places could have a clause in their business licenses about having to dispense everything.  Pharmacists who objected could probably work elsewhere.  Is there really anyplace in the US very far from a Wal-Mart or even Walgreen's now?  I'm just wondering how likely it is that a pharmacy is the only one within reasonable distance.  

And there should definitely be signs at the entrance announcing the policy.
Cats will never be extinct!

#18 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 01:06 PM

Quote

Another thought to add to the mix: while health insurance providers are more than willing to provide Mr. Happy with Viagra as a covered benefit, anything that remotely smacks of birth control for women is not covered. What this means is that the sexism goes from stem to stern: men can buy drugs to help Mr. Happy perform and have it covered by their insurance, and self-righteous prigs don't tell them that they can't get Viagra because it's "anti-life" or whatever other excuse is used for birth control pills.
Anyone who suggests Viagra is only providing a service to men...needs to think HARDER on the subject. *COUGH*

Besides the better analogy, if you're really interested in promoting the whole women as victims routine, would have been insurance coverage for condoms.

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 17 June 2008 - 01:19 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#19 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 01:18 PM

Quote

It is clear that these pharmacies have no right to take a prescription, not fill it, then refuse to return the prescription to the patient. And I'm sympathetic to Drew's point that the vast majority of those who oppose abortion have no problem with contraception (although it seems clear that anybody who opposes contraception would naturally oppose abortion, so these folks are probably properly described as a subset of the pro-life movement).
They're not even in the same ballpark. Pro-life means protecting the life of a conceived unborn child. Preventing the conception in the first place, is actually the most effective way possible to do so. With that in mind, maybe people using birth control are a default subset of the pro-life movement. As long as we're reaching anyway. :)

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#20 Lyric of Delphi

Lyric of Delphi

    A little too much LDS

  • Islander
  • 9,092 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 01:42 PM

View PostRhea, on Jun 17 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Jun 17 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

View PostAnnibal, on Jun 17 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

I agree with the woman talking about them selling viagra to men, still.

Nope; Viagra is taking something that doesn't work and restoring it to working order. The other items take something that works the way that it "should" and changes it so that it works (or doesn't work) the way that the individual wants it. That's the difference.

You must not be a menopausal woman. ;) Hormones are not just used for birth control - they are used to stabilize erratic periods and to provide hormone replacement therapy for perimenopausal and menopausal women.

Basically, Viagara is covered because being able to get it up at will and at all costs is far more important than any woman's issue. Hormones fulfill a whole range of functions for women, including reducing the chance of getting osteoporosis, reducing the chance of getting some forms of cancer, keeping the body parts men are so fond of lubricated and stretchy, and a lot of other functions.

If you weigh the two against each other, the value of hormones for other than birth control far outweighs the important of a few guys being able to make Mr. Happy wave.

And yet, I'd bet dimes to doughuts that these "pro-life" pharmacies are keeping a nice stock in Mr. Happy's  gotta-have-it, while denying women the right to buy hormones - hormones which are used for other purposes besides birth control.

Thank you. I take BC because my plumbing sucks. It started when I was 18...two weeks every month (half my life, essentially) I was doubled over in pain and emotionally, well, insane. Then I started Yaz. Life improved immensely. I'm going to say that my ability to function is more important than Mr. Happy.

I do agree that it's the choice of the business to sell what they want. Doesn't affect me, I'll go somewhere else. But for women in small towns...yeah, this could be a problem.

My BC is covered by health insurance, although not completely. But at least I get something. Sounds like I'm lucky. And it strikes me as very odd that hormone replacements and such wouldn't be offered by the pharmacy or covered by insurance.

Edit: On the topic of Mr. Happy, I read somewhere that in studies, men who claim erection problems still develop one during a certain sleep stage...therefore the problem is not physical. :rolleyes: I would hunt down the paper, but I'm kind of at work and that would be odd reading should my advisor appear over my shoulder. :lol:

Edited by Lyric, 17 June 2008 - 01:55 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Pro-Life Pharmacies, 2008

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users