Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  As I said, I see that kind of situation as (0+ / 0-)

    problematic for a lot of medications, not just the morning after pill.    If there's only one pharmacy in an entire town (and no local hospital with a pharmacy) then yes, the town has much more of an interest in making sure that one pharmacy carries emergency medication of all kinds.  That's more of a monopoly situation, and I agree that the town should exercise more control when there's a monopoly.  

    But for the more normal situation, where it's a pharmacist who has business competition, I think that any retail owner can carry what he wants in his business.  If the customers don't get what they need, they go to his competition.  

    •  Then pharmacies shouldn't exist as they do now. (5+ / 0-)

      And this "normal" situation doesn't really exist.  When you need an unusual medication you most often need to get it from the hospital.  Being out of stock is not as big a deal if something is commonly available at other stores. But if you have to run from pharmacy to pharmacy because you live in the bible belt and keep getting denied, then what do you do?

      This is only going to get worse as we've seen these RW zealots continue to find more and more ways to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. If you haven't noticed they don't stop trying.

      This needs to be nipped in the bud now before it gets out of control.

      Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

      by Back In Blue on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you suggest that it be "nipped in the bud"? (0+ / 0-)

        After all, the pharmacy owner has a constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion.  As long as he complies with the requirements to get a pharmacy license, and he complies with the commercial requirements to open and run a store, it would be a violation of his constitutional rights for the government to demand that he sell a product that violates his religious views as a condition of keeping his store open, I would think.  

        •  Two posibilities. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, white blitz, BYw, eXtina, LSophia

          1a.  A pharmacists license requirements would be changed by law to require a pharmacist to dispense whatever medication is prescribed by a physician unless and ONLY unless there is a medical reason not to do so.    

          b. An owner of a pharmacy must have a license to operate a pharmacy.  Same rules apply.  

          There is NO constitutional right to own a pharmacy or to become a pharmacist.  It is a regulated industry and as such the regulations can be changed.

          2. Pharmacy's are no longer a for-profit business and taken over by the government.   I'm sure we all have many points of view on this, but let's just say I'm in favor of socialized medicine and just about everyone I know who's experienced it is in favor of it, too (even my Ronald Reagan loving father-in-law who's life was saved in France a decade ago and which did not charge him one franc.)

          Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

          by Back In Blue on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:44:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think option 1 would be unconstituitonal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            if it were directed (as it clearly would be) at making pharmacists dispense medications that violate their constitutionally-protected religious views.  Government can't make violating your religion as a condition of getting a government-issued license.  Government can only give licenses based on your fitness/ability to do the work (like did you complete the requisite schooling, or take the requisite test).  

            Let me give you another example. I'm a lawyer, licensed to practice law by the state.  That's based on graduating from an accredited law school and passing the bar. The state can't condition my getting a license to practice law on my agreeing that I will take all legitimate cases that come to me, regardless of whether I want to take them or not.  There are constitutional limits to what the government can require of people in order to get a government-approved license.  A state can't place arbitrary conditions on getting a license, nor can it make completely waiving a constitutional right a condition to getting a license.  

            •  It's not arbitrary. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, white blitz

              It can be life or death at the extreme and certainly life-altering as it stands to this issue.  Deciding that you will or will not take a legal case is not the same as deciding if you will or will not dispense medicine under any circumstance.  It is illegal for a doctor to let a patient die, even if saving them violates their religious beliefs by performing an abortion.   It should be no different for a pharmacist who, after doctors and nurses, play the most significant role is a patients care.

              I'm quite offended that you would compare becoming a lawyer to caring for the health and physical well-being of people.  How libertarian of you.

              Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

              by Back In Blue on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:30:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, what I'm saying is that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                states don't require a pharmacy to carry all possible medications that can be prescribed.  No pharmacy can do that.  As someone pointed out elsewhere, many pharmacies, for example, do not carry chemo drugs (clearly a matter of life and death), and some choose not to carry narcotics. Patients simply have to go elsewhere for those drugs.    

                So, unless a state mandates that every licensed pharmacy carry every possible drug that can be prescribed, I don't see how they could constitutionally do it. If they focused in on certain drugs (contraception or Plan B) because there was a religious objection to those drugs, that would clearly be seen as imposing a religious test on getting a pharmacy license -- i.e., you can't get a license if you are a practicing Catholic, for example, unless you agree to violate your religious views.  THAT would clearly, clearly be unconstitutional.  Governments can't impose that kind of religious test on licenses.  

                My point about the lawyer was that your right to something does not equate with a right to demand that a particular person provide it to you.  Your right to a lawyer does not equate with a right to demand that I be your lawyer.  Your right to contraception does not equate to a right that Joe Smith, in particular, has to carry it to sell it to you.

                •  Just because they can't stock (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  everything that might be prescribed, doesn't mean they can't be required to stock everything that:

                  a. must be taken within a short time of being prescribed
                  b. is considered by the regulating body to be meet some judgment-based threshold of merit

                  To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                  by UntimelyRippd on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:07:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem is that (0+ / 0-)

                    the regulating body cannot base the notion of what people must stock on the idea that some people have religious objections to it and would not stock it otherwise.  

                    So, you could probably mandate that a pharmacy carry every possible drug that could be prescribed by any physician for any reason whatsoever that should be taken within 24 hours of being prescribed.  (That may well be impractical, though, as some of those drugs are expensive and rarely prescribed so only hospitals carry those -- it would be economically unfeasible for pharmacies to stock all of those expensive drugs that they may well never sell).

                    It's the second part -- "some judgment based threshold of merit" -- that is problematic. That judgment can't be based on a fear that some pharmacies would choose not to stock it based on religious beliefs.  For example, government can't say, it's legitimate for a store owner to decide not to carry a particular drug based on the economics (as many do for drugs that are expensive and rarely prescribed) but not legitimate for a drug owner to decide not to carry a particular drug based on religious beliefs.  That would be government singling out religion as an illegitimate basis for the owner to be making a decision, and likely unconstitutional.  

                    Government can impose rational, neutral requirements that have some basis OTHER THAN the fact that you are trying to get people to do something that they would otherwise choose not to do based on religion.   So, to accomplish something like you want, you'd probably have to impose a really broad, impractical mandate for all pharmacies to carry a bunch of different medications that they don't want to stock for a bunch of reasons (like they don't sell it) other than religion.  

                    •  Why FUCKING NOT? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Back In Blue, Tonedevil

                      The government isn't obliged to cater to anybody's religion. Wherever did you get the idea that it was?

                      The government puts all sorts of requirements on all sorts of businesses. Most of those requirements are explicitly uneconomical for the businesses -- if they weren't, the government wouldn't need to mandate them.

                      You're just making this shit up. The government fucking-A can demand that somebody offering medical services do so on the government's fucking terms, and if the government's terms conflict with somebody's religious beliefs they are free to do something else with their fucking lives.

                      jehovah, jehovah, je-fucking-hovah.

                      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                      by UntimelyRippd on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:47:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  There are jobs that require people to violate (0+ / 0-)

                  their religious beliefs.  Police officers have to be able to kill.  Soldiers are trained to kill in the most effective and efficient way without questioning it.   It is unequivocally against the ten commandments to kill.  Yet their are plenty, probably hundreds of thousands of christian police officers and soldiers who violate their religious beliefs because they have to in order to do their jobs.  They are required to do their jobs regardless of their religious beliefs.

                  The government can and does require it.   No excuse for health care workers.

                  Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

                  by Back In Blue on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:39:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Dispensing drugs is not a right, it is a licensed (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, white blitz

              and regulated privilege.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:03:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  True. But the license criteria (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                cannot be based on religious beliefs.  And it cannot be directed toward making sure someone doesn't follow religious beliefs.  

                There are limits to what governments can consider in awarding professional licenses.  Essentially, the purpose of licensing is to protect the public against people who are incompetent -- don't have the requisite knowledge and skills --  to be in the profession.  The license requirements have to be directed toward that goal.  You can't use the licensing requirements to make sure that a fully competent and knowledgeable licensee does not decline to provide services that violate his/her religious beliefs.  

                I don't think, for example, that a state could decide that an OB-Gyn doctor who wants to rget his/her medical license must agree to perform abortions if a patient requests it, over the OB-Gyn doctor's religious objections to performing an abortion. I seriously doubt a state could say, if you want to be a licensed OB-Gyn, you have to perform abortions if asked.  It's the same kind of principle, on a lesser scale.  

                •  They aren't (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO, Tonedevil

                  it's not like requiring you to eat pork or be hindu or something.  No, those requirements are clearly and squarely related to the functions of pharmacies.  

                  And, I think that the Ob/gyn regulations also would be permissible.

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

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:35:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO, Tonedevil

                  Who says there's a limit?

                  God?

                  You're busy espousing an abstract principle, but what you are in fact talking about is a pragmatic matter of public policy. Should a Christian Scientist be licensed to "practice" medicine, if he refuses to -- you know -- practice medicine? Should a Jehovah's witness be licensed to practice surgery, & then allowed to leave a patient dying on the table for lack of a blood transfusion? Your "principle" is on the face of it absurd. Because the government explicitly limits who can perform a service, the government is obviously not just permitted, but obligated to demand that said person perform said service.

                  You've waffled all over the place on the matter of, "oh, well, sure, if it's the only pharmacy available," but as soon as you've waffled on the particulars, you've waffled on the general principle. What, after all, constitutes "available"? Doesn't that depend on the circumstances, not only of immediate geography, but of both the time of day, the patient's immediate health, the patient's immediate other needs, the patient's access to transportation, and so on and so on? The situation cannot be reasonably defined, and indeed, the moment you define it you completely demolish the "principled stand" of the pharmacist in question: "Sure, you can have your principles, as long as they aren't inconvenient to society in general."

                  The whole idea is nonsense, and in fact, it's worse than that: It's fucking evil, because it's all about catering to the bullshit authoritarian jackassery of the worst fucking people in America. Fuck them, and their fucking anti-human fucking principles.

                  If the fucking Catholic Church is unwilling to practice medicine in their fucking hospitals, then they shouldn't be fucking allowed to run fucking hospitals, anymore than you would allow the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a fucking trauma center, or the Scientologists to run a fucking psychiatric clinic, etc., etc., et fucking cetera.

                  Jesus fucking hussein motherfucking christ on a crispy fucking cracker, how can any thinking person be remotely fucking obtuse about this?

                  To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                  by UntimelyRippd on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:42:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Respectfullly (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ginny in CO, white blitz

              i disagree. Filling prescriptions to patients is THE core function of the profession. Denying medical care is not.  

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

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:34:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  that's why it's impermissible. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ginny in CO
           As long as he complies with the requirements to get a pharmacy license, and he complies with the commercial requirements to open and run a store,
          One of the requirements for the pharmacy license is to fill the prescriptions to patients, and if that is a condition of the license, then it's no constitutional violation anymopre than compliance with any other law of general applicability is.

          Again, being religious doesn't give a special right to hurt people.

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

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:32:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I still see this as imposing your religious (0+ / 0-)

            beliefs on someone else. I agree that a physician should not have to perform a procedure that violates religious principles - although when the mother's life is in danger and there is no other physician available, I have a problem.

            Selling a product that has been ordered by a physician, that is not contraindicated for medical reasons, and is as time sensitive as this is, just doesn't qualify for the protection. It is far from a bulky drug and they don't probably need many doses. It doesn't compare to HIV or cancer drugs because none of those is going to have the same limited window of RX to fill time to be effective.

            One specialty clinic I worked in used very expensive and critical drugs for a life threatening disease. Interrupting some of them for even one dose could be serious or life threatening. We knew and used every trick in the book to be sure that didn't happen. It was a Univ of CO Hosp clinic - with patients all over the rural midwest.

            This is one place that being in health care usually is different from any other business. The money is essential to be able to provide services. In order to provide critical service, even or especially in rare situations, most professionals will sacrifice time and money to do so when necessary. It's part of the calling. Personally it is a reason basic health care should be non-profit. Anyone who is concerned about profit should be in elective practices or find another profession.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:06:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  not normal where I'm from (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, schnecke21, LSophia

      no competition in most of the rural Midwest. One pharmacy per every larger town. The smaller towns usually don't have any and the residents have to drive quite some distance to fill their prescriptions.

      Husband looking for work in NoVA/DC! Skilled in web content manag. & Photoshop. Please email me at adorgan@hotmail.com if you have any leads!

      by fille americaine on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:45:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site