Court Tells Pharmacy It Must Provide Contraception Despite Religious Objections

ChezC3 said:

Court Tells Family-Run Pharmacy It Must Provide Contraception Despite Religious Objections | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Yet another egregious violation by the State on a person's conscience.

Click to expand...

Not surprised about this ruling. This is a side effect of the ACA Mandate. You either do <this> or you get fined.

But hey! Its not REALLY using force! After all, you have a CHOICE to open up that business right? I mean come on, you don't have a Right to open up a PRIVATE business!

Kal'Stang said:

Not surprised about this ruling. This is a side effect of the ACA Mandate. You either do <this> or you get fined.

But hey! Its not REALLY using force! After all, you have a CHOICE to open up that business right? I mean come on, you don't have a Right to open up a PRIVATE business!

Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with the ACA. It specifically is dealing with a state law. That law was passed in 2005, which is a full 4 years before Obama became president. From the specific link that talks about it.

At issue is a 2005 state law that mandates pharmacies provide the morning-after and week-after contraceptive pills to customers even if they religiously object to doing so. Individual employees may recuse themselves from filling such prescriptions if they have a religious objection, but another employee must be present to fill the prescription.

Click to expand...

This I don't agree with. If a pharmacy doesn't carry a specific product, that should be their choice. They should only be mandated to sell products they choose to carry. As long as they carry those things, then yes they should have to provide them to people. And I think hospitals should have to have morning after pills as a part of a rape kit.

RAMOSS said:

This case has nothing to do with the ACA. It specifically is dealing with a state law. That law was passed in 2005, which is a full 4 years before Obama became president. From the specific link that talks about it.

Click to expand...

The ruling however is recent.

ludin said:

just because someone dispenses drugs doesn't mean they have to dispense all drugs.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. A pharmacist has a fiduciary relationship with the patient, just like a doctor. You can not "refuse to treat the patient", and countermand the doctors' orders at will. A pharmacist is not a doctor, and is not allowed to prescribe or deny medicine.

I'm afraid it's you who has it backwards. The law clearly states that even religious believers must obey the law. The Amish have to report for the draft just like everyone else does, that's what the Supreme Court says - even though they're pacifists.

ChezC3 said:

BULL ****

This is an overreach
PERIOD.

Click to expand...

lol - shouting will not get you heard any better.

Really, you can complain all you want, but the law is crystal-clear. Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense a legitimate prescription can be stripped of their license and prevented from practicing again.

ballantine said:

lol - shouting will not get you heard any better.

Really, you can complain all you want, but the law is crystal-clear. Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense a legitimate prescription can be stripped of their license and prevented from practicing again.

Click to expand...

:lamo

I wasn't shouting I was mocking.

ballantine said:

Yes, it does. A pharmacist has a fiduciary relationship with the patient, just like a doctor. You can not "refuse to treat the patient", and countermand the doctors' orders at will. A pharmacist is not a doctor, and is not allowed to prescribe or deny medicine.

I'm afraid it's you who has it backwards. The law clearly states that even religious believers must obey the law. The Amish have to report for the draft just like everyone else does, that's what the Supreme Court says - even though they're pacifists.

Click to expand...

Um... Pharmacists are allowed to deny medicine. One of my friends recently refused to fill a prescription for an infant that was a dangerously high dose, and after calling the prescriber and being degraded by them she refused to fill it on safety concerns. Not only was that legal, but it was her duty to do as a pharmacist. Every prescription you approve of and dispense is your liability if something goes wrong. Doesn't matter that someone else prescribed it, you approved of it and handed it out thus you have liability. It's a double check type of a system. One key aspect of the job is to refuse filling dangerous prescriptions and calling the office to make changes and educate them on why it's dangerous to fill (and this happens more often than people think). Also, they are doctors, since 2000 all new pharmacists do 4 years of graduate school to earn a doctorate degree in pharmacy. Your whole job is to evaluate prescriptions for safety and efficacy as well as the typical making sure what's prescribed is dispensed among other things like medication counselling, and in clinical settings managing pharmacotherapy and diseases. You might want to actually educate yourself on a profession before bashing or undermining it.

Also, some pharmacists can prescribe medicine. Nearly all prescribe immunizations and in some states like California and Oregon they are allowed to prescribe hormonal birth control. Clinical pharmacists commonly prescribe drugs with similar authority to what PA/NPs have. Most states have conscience clauses protecting practitioners who do not want to use their professional licenses to do things that go against their morals or ethics. Washington is really the only state that has a clause saying you can't refuse to dispense based on ethics. Illinois tried to do something similar and that (although it was an executive mandate by gov Blago) was thrown out in court.

Kal'Stang said:

The ruling however is recent.

Click to expand...

Yes, the ruling was recent. It, however, was upholding a law that was passed 10 years ago, before the ACA, and therefore had nothing to do with the ACA.

RAMOSS said:

Yes, the ruling was recent. It, however, was upholding a law that was passed 10 years ago, before the ACA, and therefore had nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

Do you really think that such a law would have passed Constitutional muster if it hadn't been for the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA? Never before has anyone or any business been required to have a product that they didn't want. Until ACA came along.

You know, I will never understand that mindset that some people have that allows them to think that it is perfectly OK to FORCE people to buy a product that they do not wish to buy/sell.

phattonez said:

There are other pharmacies that you can go to.



Contraception does not decrease the abortion rate.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...n-about-how-contraception-decreases-abortions

Click to expand...

near USC in Los Angeles Calif where you say you are located you're right, there are many pharmacies, what about a woman living in Cedarville or Alturas or Weaverville Calif?

waht if there's only one pharmacy within 50 miles and they refuse to sell it based off of "religious objections" (seriously, where in the bible is regular contraception banned, I'd be happy to argue this point if one can show me an actual principal that wasn't invented 50 years ago that christians for the preceding 1961 years never cared about)

seriously, the morning after pill prevents pregnancy, nothing about it can be construed as "abortion" anyway.

Kal'Stang said:

Do you really think that such a law would have passed Constitutional muster if it hadn't been for the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA? Never before has anyone or any business been required to have a product that they didn't want. Until ACA came along.

Click to expand...

that is not true, Washington State has regulated what medications pharamcies are required to carry for the better part of four decades now..

many states have done likewise. if you need medicine you need medicine, the same is not true of pepsi or snickers bars, or what have you.

EMNofSeattle said:

that is not true, Washington State has regulated what medications pharamcies are required to carry for the better part of four decades now..

many states have done likewise. if you need medicine you need medicine, the same is not true of pepsi or snickers bars, or what have you.

Click to expand...

There's lots of laws on the books that haven't been even slightly been brought before SCOTUS much less found if they are actually Constitutional or not. So just because X laws haven't been challenged before does not mean that they are not unconstitutional. In order to get such laws challenged enough to find out if they're actually Constitutional or not the person doing the suing MUST have tons of money. How many people do you know have that kind of money?

Kal'Stang said:

There's lots of laws on the books that haven't been even slightly been brought before SCOTUS much less found if they are actually Constitutional or not. So just because X laws haven't been challenged before does not mean that they are not unconstitutional. In order to get such laws challenged enough to find out if they're actually Constitutional or not the person doing the suing MUST have tons of money. How many people do you know have that kind of money?

Click to expand...

well I'm sure some pro-life advocacy group can rustle up some money for a challenge.

EMNofSeattle said:

well I'm sure some pro-life advocacy group can rustle up some money for a challenge.

Click to expand...

And the ACA ruling by SCOTUS set the precedent of saying that it is OK for the government to force people to buy/sell a product.

So, we're now back full circle to what I said earlier.

Kal'Stang said:

And the ACA ruling by SCOTUS set the precedent of saying that it is OK for the government to force people to buy/sell a product.

So, we're now back full circle to what I said earlier.

Click to expand...

good. if you don't wish to sell birth control you can choose not to own a pharmacy. people in rural areas have a right to access medicine. and as it turns out, no one can provide an example of these people's religious beliefs being so important they close up shop. so clearly they're not sincere in claiming a religious exemption.

EMNofSeattle said:

good. if you don't wish to sell birth control you can choose not to own a pharmacy. people in rural areas have a right to access medicine. and as it turns out, no one can provide an example of these people's religious beliefs being so important they close up shop. so clearly they're not sincere in claiming a religious exemption.

Click to expand...

I live in a rural area. Actually I live in what is considered the Boondocks by many. I'm with in 5 mins walk of 2 different pharmacies and with in a 30 min drive of a dozen more. Using the excuse of "people in rural areas have a right to access medicine" doesn't fly well with me.

As for people closing up shop...1: People have a right to make a living so why should they close up shop? 2: This is still being litigated and as such until such litigation stops why should they close up shop?

And no, people do not have a Right to access medicine. They have a Right to emergency medical care. Contraception does not and has never fallen into the category of emergency medical care.

And I'm not really surprised that you wish to chase people out of business for simply not stocking an item. What right do you have to force people to carry a product? Where do you draw the line? When it starts negatively affecting you? Or before then?

Kal'Stang said:

I live in a rural area. Actually I live in what is considered the Boondocks by many. I'm with in 5 mins walk of 2 different pharmacies and with in a 30 min drive of a dozen more. Using the excuse of "people in rural areas have a right to access medicine" doesn't fly well with me.

Click to expand...

there are varying levels of rural, I've been to places in the US where there's one town with one pharmacy for over 50+ miles.

As for people closing up shop...1: People have a right to make a living so why should they close up shop? 2: This is still being litigated and as such until such litigation stops why should they close up shop?

Click to expand...

because the man upstairs will be angry at them for selling abortion pills

And no, people do not have a Right to access medicine. They have a Right to emergency medical care. Contraception does not and has never fallen into the category of emergency medical care.

Click to expand...

well in some states they apparently do

And I'm not really surprised that you wish to chase people out of business for simply not stocking an item. What right do you have to force people to carry a product? Where do you draw the line? When it starts negatively affecting you? Or before then?

Click to expand...

it does not negatively effect me that pharmacies keep medicine stocked. I do not have the right, however state pharmacy boards do. and legislatures.

ballantine said:

Yes, it does. A pharmacist has a fiduciary relationship with the patient, just like a doctor. You can not "refuse to treat the patient", and countermand the doctors' orders at will. A pharmacist is not a doctor, and is not allowed to prescribe or deny medicine.

Click to expand...

this is so jumbled that it logically makes 0 sense. No a pharmacist has not duty to anyone but the pharmacy. if i don't carry a certain drug then i don't carry a certain drug.
i don't have to carry all drugs. No one is refusing to treat anyone if i don't carry it i can't help you.
You can't demand service for something that isn't offered. no one is saying they are.

I'm afraid it's you who has it backwards. The law clearly states that even religious believers must obey the law. The Amish have to report for the draft just like everyone else does, that's what the Supreme Court says - even though they're pacifists.

Click to expand...

the constitution and even the hobby lobby case overrules state law.
the last is moot as they would qualify for conscience objection status.

The state law is in conflict with federal laws therefore any court ruling should side with the federal government.
this will go to the SCOTUS and they will rule like they always do in favor of the store in this matter as they have already ruled on
this issue before.

the state cannot force someone or in this case a business to violate their religious objections or views.
the pharmacist however is required to send that person to another pharmacy where they can get it filled.

EMNofSeattle said:

good. if you don't wish to sell birth control you can choose not to own a pharmacy.... .

Click to expand...

And by the "logic" that allows the government to order citizens to buy and sell products, another juridiction could order all bookstores to sell christian religous material- right?

EMNofSeattle said:

people in rural areas have a right to access medicine.

Click to expand...

No, they have a right to open a competing store and then sell whatever legal products they want.

EMNofSeattle said:

no one can provide an example of these people's religious beliefs being so important they close up shop. so clearly they're not sincere in claiming a religious exemption.

Click to expand...

Are you really that proficient at mind reading?

EMNofSeattle said:

there are varying levels of rural, I've been to places in the US where there's one town with one pharmacy for over 50+ miles.

Click to expand...

so have i. actually i have been in places where the nearest pharmacy is 50 miles.

because the man upstairs will be angry at them for selling abortion pills

Click to expand...

or they just don't believe in abortion there are a number of non-religious people that
do not believe in abortion either. to frame it as just religious people is using a big paint brush.

well in some states they apparently do

Click to expand...

which in some cases violate already established federal rulings on the case.

it does not negatively effect me that pharmacies keep medicine stocked. I do not have the right, however state pharmacy boards do. and legislatures.

Click to expand...

actually they don't. as it violates previous court rulings on the matter.
as long as they can point the person to someone that does there is nothing that the state can really do.
nor should they be able to.

Cryptic said:

And by the "logic" that allows the government to orider citizens to buy and sell products, another juridiction could order all bookstores to sell christian religous material- right?


Are you really that proficient at mind reading?

Click to expand...

this is a bad analogy since most books stores already sell christian and religious material.

ludin said:

this is a bad analogy since most books stores already sell christian and religious material.

Click to expand...

Are they forced to sell these products by the government, or do they choose to sell these products? It is a big difference.

EMNofSeattle said:

there are varying levels of rural, I've been to places in the US where there's one town with one pharmacy for over 50+ miles.

Click to expand...

Yes, I imgaine the open range roads I took in Idaho would have that characteristic. Its also totally irrelevent. In a free society, if one wants to buy any legal product, one needs to:

A. sell that product yourself
B. reside where somebody else is willing to sell it
C. Drive some where and buy it.

Forcing people to cater to one's needs by selling a product one wants to buy may seem like a good idea (espescially if you are the one doing the forcing), but the concept does not mix well with democracies.

ludin said:

so have i. actually i have been in places where the nearest pharmacy is 50 miles.


or they just don't believe in abortion there are a number of non-religious people that
do not believe in abortion either. to frame it as just religious people is using a big paint brush.


which in some cases violate already established federal rulings on the case.




actually they don't. as it violates previous court rulings on the matter.
as long as they can point the person to someone that does there is nothing that the state can really do.
nor should they be able to.

Click to expand...

this is becomig a news story because an appellate court REVERSED an earlier ruling saying they didn't have to stock plan B, the new ruling says they have to stock it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling does not apply here because the RFRA only applies to federal courts adjudging federal action