I presume they have other birth control products. I wonder if they wouldn't ring up someone who wanted to buy condoms, or would they just have to settle for the 25 pack of party ballons. How about Viagra to single men?? If a guy goes to pick up his cialis script without a wedding ring, will they be allowed? The problem is were does it end??

//Sliding on a slippery slope of morality

ArcadianRefugee

They're just so skinny.

mama's_tasty_foods

"These are commercial transactions and require both people to consent."

You seem pretty level-headed, but arguing that medication is a transaction that requires consent between the patient and the pharmacist is ludicrous. Medication is an agreement between the doctor and the patient, and no pharmacist has a right to turn up their nose at such a transaction.

untrustworthy: Welcome to the real world. I hope you enjoy your stay.

The United States is only part of the "real world." In many parts of the real world don't have to pay for prescriptions.

This will be interesting when a doctor who's a Jehovah's Witness doesn't allow a blood transfusion because it's against his morals.

What's the big deal? There's plenty of pharmacies. If you forced them to sell the pill, they'd probably replace it with sugar pills or something.

I'd get the hell out of that town.

I guess my question in all of this is, did this pharmacist own the store, or was she working in a store owned by a corporation or someone else?

If it the pharmacist shop, then ok her call, enjoy your life riding on your moral high horse. What do they do about condoms? Have they removed those from their store? Do they dispence Viagra or any other erectile disfunction drug? I guess being moral trumps being a hypocrit.

If it is owned by someone else and they stock the required birth control, then fire her and let her get a job somewhere else. Refusal to do your job is ground for dismissal. No other job I know of offers the person the right of refusal if they do not own the business. If I, as the owner, tell you to fill a legally perscribed medication to a person, then do it or walk.

Now, that said, pharmacist think they are in a position of power at the moment because there are not enough pharmacist for the positions that are avalable at the moment. It is a moral power trip for these pharmacist who are choosing to not fill a script. And eventually it will bite them in the ass.

Waaaa? Think he has a problem with condomns too? Although I doubt he would have a problem with that, just don't want the wimins makin the choices. Gotta keep em pregnant startin at a young age so they don't do silly things like get an education.
I belive there is a corrilation between crime rate drop and aboration legagality and avability. Don't conservitaves like low crime? Ohhhh wait they like the money/votes from the prision industrial complex and useless things like the war on drugs.
Damn you, damn you all.

/I got the whiskey baby I got the whiskey

If your pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills, you can call a manager and get a different pharmacist, or go to a different pharmacy. You can also tell everyone you know about it, so that the pharmacy loses business. If the pharmacy hires someone who refuses to fill the items they stock, it's the pharmacy's problem, not yours.

By bringing the government in, you're infringing upon the rights of the pharmacist and the owner of the pharmacy. Aren't they people too?

I have refused to service women simply because they are obese. Does that make me a bad person?

HangonVoltaire Your logic re the restaurant refusing to sell alcohol is flawed. The restaurant can be dry, sure. No problem there. But if one waiter decides he's personally opposed to alcohol and will not serve it, that's the problem.

My religion opposes christianity thus I would not feel right dispensing medicine that would extend or save the life of any christian.

Am I still allowed to withhold it because of my personal beliefs? I thought not.

illadelfian
Also, they did not "make the decision for her". They simply chose not to be a part of the process. They did not stop them from getting an abortion.

I'm not a fundie anyway. I'm libertarian. As long as the pharmasist did not prevent the choice of the parent, it is not a problem.

Tizzle McMizzle

good point!

rogue_L_chick
I'm morally opposed to being denied birth-control.

Perfect.

Several months ago a woman came to the office with her 15-year-old daughter, with a consent form for the daughter to have an abortion, which has to be notarized. They were both crying. I felt very sorry for them, but I didn't want to be any part of that, even if all I was doing was notarizing their application. So I told them I was sorry but I couldn't help them. I am not a fundie, I just don't want to have even a ministerial part in an abortion.

I found this on the South Dakota web page about becoming a Notary Public:

1. A notary is to serve any person who makes a lawful and reasonable request for a notarization.
2. A notary is an impartial witness to a transaction.

Too bad they don't list "A notary should not be a total and complete asshat".

Look, mediaho, you are living in a free society that is based on a theory called capitalism. If you want a socialist or communistic state, you'll have to go elsewhere.

Isn't that nice...you sent a 15 y/o away crying....im sure that the kid will be loved and well adjusted when it grows up...it's mother doesn't want it..and you made the decision for her...

illadelfian, how do you know the kid/fetus ("it's" as per your terminology) was not aborted?

I certainly did not "make the decision for her." Her mind was made up before she got to me, I didn't change it or try to.

I respect other people's views on abortion but really, to suggest I'm the author of these people's misery, simply because I wouldn't play a minor role in their abortion, is a ridiculous stretch.

Vorticity, Soze & Albert

I was talking about sex.

Sheesh.

gilgigamesh

The burden of proof that she was fired for her religious beliefs and not for refusing to perform her job would be on her. Very difficult for her to prove. OTOH, her refusing to do her job would be very easy to prove with the women whose prescription she didn't fill as a witness. IMO, the court would agree with the employer and the woman would lose her job.

I'm sure it's already been said above a million times, but this isn't a difficult issue. No one is telling people they aren't allowed to have their own beliefs. They just have to take a job where those beliefs don't come into play. If you think birth control is wrong, don't take a job where you have to dispense it!

Just like you can't be a vegetarian chef and say you won't cook meat, you can't selectively do parts of your job. Idiots.

mediaho
"The United States is only part of the "real world." In many parts of the real world don't have to pay for prescriptions."

TANSTAAFL. They're paying for it, one way or another. Just because it's hidden and the populace doesn't care about paying taxes anymore, doesn't mean it's free.

altinos Remove thyself from this thread as you are making sense. There will be no logic allowed here.

I can't believe this wasn't posted.

Bill Maher on these uppity pharmacists :

New Rule: Pharmacists have to fill prescriptions. More and more American pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because of their personal moral objections. Hey, you know what would really teach us a lesson? If you took off your pretend doctor jacket and got another job.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe cutting off the pill doesnt even go far enough. Yeah, it's high time activist drugstores stopped coddling sluts on every aisle. Let's not sell any more makeup either. A good woman doesn't paint herself. And no more deodorant. You should smell bad. Keep the boys from getting ideas. And no suntan lotion. Ive seen what happens at the MTV Beach House, you whore. You want to avoid melanoma, buy a veil.

Why is this country becoming Utah?! You know, I know the conservatives are always saying that the coastal elites dont really get it about them because we just fly over. Okay, maybe. But, you know what? You guys don't get us either. We need to fark. Refusal to provide birth control threatens our economy and our very way of life here in Southern California. Theres a lot of hot chicks out here, man. We need birth control! I mean, seriously, how do you think movies get made?

Now, of course, I know the other side is saying, yes, but this is a moral issue. Yeah, but the problem is, not everyone gets their morals from the same book. You go by the book that says slavery is okay but sex is wrong until after marriage, at which point it becomes a blessed sacrament between a husband and the wife who is withholding it.

In conclusion, let me say to all the activist pharmacists out there, the ones who think sex is bad, probably because sex with them always is... fellas, a pharmacist is not a law-giver, not even a doctor. In the medical pecking order, you rank somewhere in between a chiropractor and a tree surgeon.

You don't answer to a law above the laws of men. You work for Sav-On. The doctors are the ones who make medical decisions because they went to medical school, whereas you were transferred from the counter where people drop off film.

[sic]

mediaho

The United States is only part of the "real world." In many parts of the real world don't have to pay for prescriptions.

Well, then, who "pays" for them?

untrustworthy: Look, mediaho, you are living in a free society that is based on a theory called capitalism. If you want a socialist or communistic state, you'll have to go elsewhere.

What the living fark are you talking about, you imbecile? I'm personally opposed to universal healthcare. That wasn't the point. Nice reading comprehension though!

untrustworthy,

First she isn't making a moral choice for you, or this other woman, she is making a choice for her self. She is choosing not to enable.

Second, she has a right to work in her trained field,up to the point where her religion will not let her go.
( should a Jewish or Muslim waiter be required to serve pork)


Suebee, Can you give me an example where a woman needs to have "the pill" right now to save her life? Shouldn't an ambulance be called? Why can't she take her business elseware? It amazes me that some women think men are so naive, and then these same women don't believe that blue balls give men cancer, almost right away, so you better do something to relieve me.

The problem is that it is illegal to fire someone based upon their religious beliefs.

Nope, you don't even have to know what her religious beliefs are. You can simply fire her for insubordination. This is not a minor thing, like the right to wear a headdress or a cross, it's seriously interfering with business.

It's kinda like a Jewish person working for supermarket who refuses to sell you anything that's not Kosher.

Hang On Voltaire, You never answered this part of my post:

We are talking about a pharmacy where substances that have been prescribed by a doctor are being dispensed. Is it ok for a pharmacist to not give someone their heart medication because it was tested on animals? What if it is an emergency? If someone died because a pharmacist (who is responsible for the safety of its customers as a liaison of the customer's doctor) decided not to hand out needed medication because of their morals, would that be ok?

soze: I'm going to assume that you don't understand that BC has multiple purposes.

I do indeed. However, as I said, "women who take birth control pills" is too many words. "Whores" is much easier to write. Would you rather I used "sluts"? "flowers"? "kittens"? I was making an example that there are no segregated pharmacies based on sexual promiscuity and then simply didn't want to keep writing "sexually promiscuous women".

Or did bad attempts at levity become verboten on Fark without my knowledge and/or consent?

The Pharmacy owner should be allowed to fire the pharmacist, although should not be under any obligation to. The government should not get involved on either side unless the pharmacist refused to release or transfer the perscription.

I might agree that there should be a specific "list" of drugs that are required to be dispenced asap, but come on, Birth control pills are not an emergancy order. No one is going to die because they had to wait a few days to travel to the next town, or order them on-line (can they be ordered online?).

GardenVariety

If you are morally opposed to doing your job, then maybe you should get a new job.

The majority of women I know Don't take birth control solely as birth control. They take it to regulate irregular cycles. They take it control endometriosis. They take it because they bleed too heavily.

Having beliefs isn't bad, but refusing to hand over a woman's medication is.

Bet they don't have any problems with handing over Viagra.

I DECLARE THE WINNA!

untrustworthy

"Besides, we are talking about a pharmacy where substances that have been prescribed by a doctor are being dispensed. Is it ok for a pharmacist to not give someone their heart medication because it was tested on animals? What if it is an emergency? If someone died because a pharmacist (who is responsible for the safety of its customers as a liaison of the customer's doctor) decided not to hand out needed medication because of their morals, would that be ok?."

Again, I am not talking about the morality of this. Hell my wife takes BC so I am not against the BC. All I am saying is that this is between the Rx and her employer. If this woman had her own shop she could damn well sell what she wants and if she did not want to sell drugs that were tested on animals then she wouldn't have to. In this case her employer can fire her and would be justified, but if she owned her own pharmacy she would be well within her rights to not sell certain drugs.


Tizzle McMizzle

"Again, I claim bad analogy. If I am denied alcohol at a restaurant, I will not die or become sick. If I am denied medication based on some farktard's religious beliefs, there is a chance that something life-threatening could occur. Keep in mind that not all uses for the pill are related to birth control."

I know that and this woman, the customer, can go to another pharmacy.

2005-05-03 03:35:52 PM Tyee

Read the thread. soze and others have given plenty of examples on why women need to take birth control besides preventing pregnancy.

sphariss: can they be ordered online?

According to all the spam I keep getting, yes.

A Mightnight Bout, and others.

I don't mean to be vitrolic, but you, and others arguing about free markets here, are either young and naive, or very foolish.

"Then drive. Or move. Or tell your friends not to go to that pharmacy and maybe it will go out of business."

I know it irritates you to play the "race card" but certainly the civil rights movement of the 60s and this situation have exact parallels. If you were black in Little Rock in the 50s and 60s, certainly you could move, or stop going to a particular business, or boycott a place that discriminated against you. This is simple capitalism and free markets. This is not the point. Do you honestly think, as in the example above, that it is a realistic solution to make a 4 hour round trip in order to fill a perscription that the pharmacy stocks right there? That they serve some people's legal persciptions, but not others? Free markets can and should be regulated when they break down. It's why we have up front pricing laws in the US now, so price discrimination does not happen. It's why we control financial markets. It's why we have OSHA laws. All of these things make a more stable, human free market. Don't be naive.

The solution is to either make birth control legal, or not. That is the time and place to regulate it. It is not the pharmacist's place to decide who's prescription to fill and who's not to fill. If she decides so, then it is certainly time to step in and legislate a civil rights act for perscription medication, as the government was forced to do with race in 1964. Obviously the Civil Rights Act of 64 would not have been needed if racist practices had not existed at the time. Let's try to avoid legislative interference on your supposed "rights" (a dirty word, in the way you are using it) and have this woman do her job without discrimination.

lemonjello12
so you can't have disabled people at any work location because they can only do selective parts of the job?

at restaurants, we have people under 18 who can't run certain machines. heck, american league pitchers don't hit, for gods sake.

saying you can't do selective parts of a job is ludicrous.

ExtremeModerate
"Remove thyself from this thread as you are making sense. There will be no logic allowed here."

Damnit, I hate it when that happens.

Wait, let me rephrase that:

"Fire the stupid beech! Make the government come in and string her up by her entrails!"

Is that better?

mediaho: What the living fark are you talking about, you imbecile? I'm personally opposed to universal healthcare. That wasn't the point. Nice reading comprehension though!

I never said anything about universal healthcare. I'd say you are the imbecile with the poor reading comprehension.

Tyee: ( should a Jewish or Muslim waiter be required to serve pork)

No, but they should understand that they will be required to do so if they fill out the job application at Pork Chop John's.

If the true moderates that exist in the USA would get their spine back things will change.

For the last 50 years the middle has sat and been pulled left then right in a farce.

I will bet my life that the vast majority of Americans believe that the pharmacist in question is a jerk. If this action ENDANGERS anyone, fire and fines are in order. However you cannot FORCE someone to do something against their will. I hold that rule above all else.

Again, do not ask the government to make NEW laws. Look into the existing framework, there is a HIGH probability that a rule has been broken. If no rules have been broken live with her choice.

Just as yesterday I defended smokers, today I defend a fundy pharachick.

..geez..
rob

Most of the points made are irrelevant. The pharmacy is regulated for the public good. It also will likely receive a substantial amount of its revenue from goverment sponsored programs such as medicare and medicaid. It should abide by the principles of common good or be relieved of its license to dispense mdeications.

As a side note I can see no need for any christian to be a pharmacist at leaast in this country. How does a longer or more comfortable life allow you to follow the example of people who were torutured to death? Has Levitra helped anyone get into heaven? Do christians need little blue pills to mutiply? Hey, I like that point, has she ever dispensed anything to keep old Methuselah stiff?

This story makes me want to see if I can get a job in a pharmacy and claim that I have a moral problem with every prescription just to see how long I can last. Then I'll try to sue for discrimination when I get fired.

so you can't have disabled people at any work location because they can only do selective parts of the job?

at restaurants, we have people under 18 who can't run certain machines. heck, american league pitchers don't hit, for gods sake.

saying you can't do selective parts of a job is ludicrous.

The company says the handicapped or underage can only do certain parts of the job. The pharmacy said that the pharmacists need to do the whole job, and the pharmacist basically said, "I'll do the part of the job I like."

This isn't about a woman's reproductive right, its about a pharmacist's right to freedom of religious belief. As a liberal, I am very much opposed to the government stepping in, like in Illinois, and taking away more freedoms from business owners. If a company wants to fire its pharmacist because she won't serve a customer, that's fine. But if a pharmacy doesn't want to carry a certain product (think small town pharmacy) they shouldn't have to. These women aren't having their perscriptions torn up and told they can't get birth control, they're merely being told they can't get it at a specific pharmacy. Forcing the pharmacist to carry birth control is not simply an inconvenience, its an intrusion of her rights.

Lets do a run down of options for each of these groups, women who get denied BC, and the denying pharmacists, if more of these laws pass:

Pharmacist 1-Break moral code
2-Find new job, sacrificing 8 years schooling

Woman 1-Go to another pharmacy
2-Use condom, spermicide
3-Use diapphram, spermicide
4-Convince partner to get vasectomy
5-Use rhythm method
6-2, 3 and 5 (a sure fire winner)
7-NOT HAVE SEX

"Wait, do you mean to tell me people are actually capable of NOT HAVING SEX?! Wow, I had no idea!"
Amazing but true, all of you are capable of not engaging in consensual sex.

untrustworthy: I never said anything about universal healthcare. I'd say you are the imbecile with the poor reading comprehension.

Okay, for the record, I assumed you were commenting on my comment that some countries have free prescriptions. Which one were you commenting on when you wrote, "Look, mediaho, you are living in a free society that is based on a theory called capitalism. If you want a socialist or communistic state, you'll have to go elsewhere."?

What happens when all the pharmicists are retards and refuse on moral grounds? Where do you go then? Simply claiming that this woman can goto another store is absurd and short sighted.

The solution is the simplest of them. If the pharmicist has moral objections to dispencing medicine, find another line of work. Go refuse to sell fries based on your fanatical religous beliefs.

I advocate bludgeoning this woman to death with a bible.