Skip to main content

View Diary: Rape victim denied birth control on religious grounds (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know this is your schtick (17+ / 0-)

    And I'm not interested in playing the game with you. NO ONE here was talking about what pharmacies have to have in stock. We're talking about pharmacists (and in this case, a public employee) refusing to perform the basic requirements of their job.

    Now if you want to talk about the inventory of a pharmacy, I'm afraid that particular topic would bore me to tears so I'm really not interested in having this conversation.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:24:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that this case was not handled correctly (0+ / 0-)

      for a number of reasons, most importantly, the fact that this woman already had the medication, it was hers, and the employee simply refused to give her access to it so she could take it.

      •  why is that any different? (0+ / 0-)

        If selective refusal to perform job functions is a constitutional right, why does it not protect the jailer from refusing to give medications just as much as it protects the pharmacist from having to dispense them?  Arguably, giving medications to patients is even further removed from the core job functions of the jailer.  Ergo, this should be completely permissible under your logic.

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:37:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site