Thread: New Kansas law lets pharmacists refuse to offer some drugs

A new law signed Monday by Kansas Gov.Sam Brownback lets pharmacists deny offering drugs they think could cause an abortion, The Wichita Eagle reports.Supporters of the Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act say it adds to a state law saying no one should have to participate in abortions. But critics say pharmacists potentially could decline requests for the “morning-after” pill and potentially also birth control, according to the report.

Read more @: New Kansas law lets pharmacists refuse to offer some drugs - Kansas City Business Journal

Good god my great state of Kansas is really going off the ledge. This can hurt so many lives. This bill is irresponsible and idiotic. So many problems will be faced with this bill. The hypocrisy of republican "small government" is killing me.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

While I don't think it's okay to let religious ideology dictate law, I don't think we should allow law to mandate business participation in the selling of any particular item.

Mandating that a pharmacy sell Drug X would be equatable to mandating that a tire store sell Brand X of tire, regardless of their reasoning for rejecting the sale of Brand X within their corporation.

It's a tricky situation.

Without having read a word of the OP, only the thread title...is this about BC? Because this thread is going to be very lame if this is about BC....I mean talk about your dead horses....

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Read more @: New Kansas law lets pharmacists refuse to offer some drugs - Kansas City Business Journal

Good god my great state of Kansas is really going off the ledge. This can hurt so many lives. This bill is irresponsible and idiotic. So many problems will be faced with this bill. The hypocrisy of republican "small government" is killing me.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

.....great, another BC thread, and me caught without a "oh look it's this thread again" .jpeg

Wait, Jerry, let's keep our faith in humanity just a bit longer. Maybe someone will have something informative or original to say.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Wait, Jerry, let's keep our faith in humanity just a bit longer. Maybe someone will have something informative or original to say.

No, Jerry, someone's already chimed in with the 'religious bigot' angle, and of course they're always going to blame it on us Christians even-though they say this isn't a Christian nation out the other side of their mouth. $5 says someone will bring up the technical medical stages of conception before the first page is through.

Originally Posted by Jerry

No, Jerry, someone's already chimed in with the 'religious bigot' angle, and of course they're always going to blame it on us Christians even-though they say this isn't a Christian nation out the other side of their mouth. $5 says someone will bring up the technical medical stages of conception before the first page is through.

...if you're refering to my post I said nothing about bigotry, or did I condemn religion in any way.

Originally Posted by Jerry

No, Jerry, someone's already chimed in with the 'religious bigot' angle, and of course they're always going to blame it on us Christians even-though they say this isn't a Christian nation out the other side of their mouth. $5 says someone will bring up the technical medical stages of conception before the first page is through.

That's not a fair bet since medial information is relevant to hormonal BC. Besides, most folks don't have their personal settings to display 40 posts per page like we do.

So how should we go about this, then? Some folks want BC, others, very few, do not. What's to discuss? We don't exactly make state law on this forum.

Originally Posted by Jerry

That's not a fair bet since medial information is relevant to hormonal BC. Besides, most folks don't have their personal settings to display 40 posts per page like we do.

So how should we go about this, then? Some folks want BC, others, very few, do not. What's to discuss? We don't exactly make state law on this forum.

Well I guess I could just our general positions on this, maybe that would help:

Premise: No one has the right to kill someone else unless they are a direct threat.
~Given that premise, early use of plan-B does not cause an abortion, so no one dies.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Well I guess I could just our general positions on this, maybe that would help:

Premise: No one has the right to kill someone else unless they are a direct threat.
~Given that premise, early use of plan-B does not cause an abortion, so no one dies.

True, but late use of Plan-B does cause abortion, so does that mean we should at least restrict access? Maybe require a second doctor's opinion?

Originally Posted by Jerry

True, but late use of Plan-B does cause abortion, so does that mean we should at least restrict access? Maybe require a second doctor's opinion?

I don't think restricting access further is a solution, because that would only delay a woman's use of Plan-B, thus increasing the chance of causing an abortion. The earlier she get's Plan-B, the better.

Also, think of the complications military women getting Plan-B. Sure, it's true that all military pharmacies are required to carry Plan-B because taking soldiers out of the battle field due to pregnancy harms our military efforts. Adding restrictions adds to the risk.

On another note, shouldn't private businesses be able to choose what products they will and will not sell?