Pharmacies don't have to dispense "Morning After Pill"

[Shelly1582]

Private company should have the choice to sell or not sell a product.

Government should not tell a private entity they HAVE to sell something they do not wish to sell.

It is as simple as that.

If they do not carry the product, it then does not become a question of a pharmacist refusing to sell a product because of his own religious views, it simply means it is not in stock. If my pharmacist at CVS told me he wasn't going to dispense my prescription due to it going against his own religious views I'd be willing to bet he'd be looking for a new job, and rightly so.

He could then go apply for a position as a pharmacist at a catholic hospital.

 

[mrjarrell]

Private company should have the choice to sell or not sell a product. Have no problem whatsoever with that.

Government should not tell a private entity they HAVE to sell something they do not wish to sell. No problem here, either.

It is as simple as that.

The problem arises when the business DOES carry said product and one of their employees chooses to impose their subjective "values" on a paying customer. If they want to do that they should open their own pharmacy and stock what they wish, but if a pharmacy is carrying that drug they should have no say whatsoever in its sale. Sell it or quit. Another problem which has arisen in cases like this is the pharmacist refusing to return the patrons script, after refusing to sell the product to them. That's theft and they've been allowed to get away with it because of their beliefs. On a related note, the "morning after pill" is not an abortifacient. It is simply a larger than usual does of the birth control pill. Can we assume that all of you in favour of forbidding this are now in favour of banning the pill?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I believe it was 88GT that posted that libertarians would be the worst kind of statists if their brand of government were in power. On the one hand we want government to not tell establishments if they can allow smoking on the premises. On the other, we want the government to tell pharmacies they have to sell a product they support.

According to the article, this ruling applies to the state's ability to force people and their businesses to do something, against their will or not. And not so surprisingly, because it also may have a religious aspect to it, it most be wrong.

Which is it? Government good? Government evil?

 

[Clay]

The problem arises when the business DOES carry said product and one of their employees chooses to impose their subjective "values" on a paying customer.

this I can agree with, but in this case the person is an employee of a private business and should do what their employer requires, OR find a new job.

 

[Shelly1582]

I believe it was 88GT that posted that libertarians would be the worst kind of statists if their brand of government were in power. On the one hand we want government to not tell establishments if they can allow smoking on the premises. On the other, we want the government to tell pharmacies they have to sell a product they support.

According to the article, this ruling applies to the state's ability to force people and their businesses to do something, against their will or not. And not so surprisingly, because it also may have a religious aspect to it, it most be wrong.

Which is it? Government good? Government evil?

Not the pharmacies themselves, they can choose to not carry the product, gov having nothing to do with it. It is pharmacists trying to inflict their own religious beliefs on others that I disagree with.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

this I can agree with, but in this case the person is an employee of a private business and should do what their employer requires, OR find a new job.

But wouldn't you also agree that that should be between the employee and the employer?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not the pharmacies themselves, they can choose to not carry the product, gov having nothing to do with it. It is pharmacists trying to inflict their own religious beliefs on others that I disagree with.

Who should be the one that wins? If I understand you correctly, your desire to purchase a product should trump my rights. Religiosity of the situation has nothing to do with it.

 

[NYFelon]

But wouldn't you also agree that that should be between the employee and the employer?

Yes. If the policy of the company is to dispense any and all drugs legally dispensable by prescription, and have it in stock, the aforementioned pharmacist is bound by his employment to dispense those drugs. Do you disagree? Perhaps, if he is a contract employee, he may get a contract concession stating that he or she specifically may not be compelled to fill such prescription, provided there is another pharmacist on site to dispense the prescription. Short of that, I see no way for an employee to say "I don't believe in this drug, therefore I shall not dispense it." and be either A) qualified to hold such a position or B) remain an employee when showing wanton insubordination to established company policy.

 

[Shelly1582]

Who should be the one that wins? If I understand you correctly, your desire to purchase a product should trump my rights. Religiosity of the situation has nothing to do with it.

If it's your job to sell medication, and your company carries this medication, you need to sell it or find a new job. Maybe open your own pharmacy that does not carry "offensive" products, or apply at a catholic run pharmacy. It's not a matter of winning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If it's your job to sell medication, and your company carries this medication, you need to sell it or find a new job. Maybe open your own pharmacy that does not carry "offensive" products, or apply at a catholic run pharmacy. It's not a matter of winning.

But should the state intervene? Shouldn't such disagreement be resolved between the employer and employee?

This is not what this case is about anyway. It's about whether the government can compell pharmacies and pharmacists to sell a product they don't wish to.

It seems some are blinded from the larger issue here by their objections of others' "religious objections".

An Illinois appellate court Friday affirmed a lower court finding that the state cannot force pharmacies and pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives - also known as "morning after" pills - if they have religious objections.

In 2005, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich mandated that all pharmacists and pharmacies sell "Plan B,"

 

[Shelly1582]

But should the state intervene? Shouldn't such disagreement be resolved between the employer and employee?

This is not what this case is about anyway. It's about whether the government can compell pharmacies and pharmacists to sell a product they don't wish to.

It seems some are blinded by the larger issue here by the mention of "religious objections".

We haven't really gone off topic. My view is that Pharmacies may choose not to stock the product if the wish, but pharmacist's working for a pharmacy they do not own have no say in the matter. Most stores decide what products they stock on the shelves and this should be no different. The gov really should not become involved unless peoples rights are being violated in the manner mentioned previously. ( A pharmacist refuses to fill a script due to religious beliefs and will not return the script to customer to be filled elsewhere)

 

[NYFelon]

... A pharmacist refuses to fill a script due to religious beliefs and will not return the script to customer to be filled elsewhere

At this point, IMHO, the pharmacist has violated the law. He has committed theft of property.

I'll go back and re-read the first post, it could be I was wrong. I think however, that was an interjected argument, and not the crux of the OP. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We haven't really gone off topic. My view is that Pharmacies may choose not to stock the product if the wish, but pharmacist's working for a pharmacy they do not own have no say in the matter. Most stores decide what products they stock on the shelves and this should be no different. The gov really should not become involved unless peoples rights are being violated in the manner mentioned previously. ( A pharmacist refuses to fill a script due to religious beliefs and will not return the script to customer to be filled elsewhere)

Yes, not returning a script would seem to be theft of property. I think we can agree there.

Otherwise either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine. To summarize: In your scenerio, you want your "rights" to purchase a product to trump another's "rights" to not. Additionally, you want the government's threat of force to subordinate the other person's rights to yours.

 

[indiucky]

I guess it'll now be OK for some pharmacists to refuse to sell chemotherapy drugs, insulin or other drugs because the illness the person is suffering is the will of the gods, too.

I had no idea there were folks that still equated pregnancy with illnesses. How very 1950's of you Sir.

I heard Jupiter was a trojan man so perhaps "the gods" are not even aware of this.

 

[lucky4034]

What I don't understand is how so many people can ***** about government handouts, welfare and the such... but are so willing to enforce parenthood on those most likely to need these handouts?

Why do you want irresponsible people to reproduce so badly?

 

[indiucky]

Why do you want irresponsible people to reproduce so badly?

Why do you want to kill people because their parents may be irresponsible?

 

[donnie1581]

wrong thread

 

[firehawk1]

At this point, IMHO, the pharmacist has violated the law. He has committed theft of property.

THIS I can agree with. If a pharmacy has made the decision not to sell this "medication" they have no right to refuse to return the script to the patient. The pharmacy must have the right/ability to refuse to sell a medication, but the patient/consumer has the right/ability to simply go somewhere else to purchase it.

 

[Shelly1582]

Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department?

 

[firehawk1]

"Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department"?

Yes, IF your employer gave you the ability to make that decision.