• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Objective. As long as the pharmacist directs the customer to someone who WILL fill the prescription, I have no issue with an individual pharmacist acting on his morals. It would be like a gay couple going for couples counseling... to a therapist who rejects GM and gay relationships as sinful. As long as they give the couple names of people who would treat them, there is nothing wrong with what that individual does, ethically.

Why do they have to do anything? Why do people think anyone HAS to do anything for anyone else? Because why?
 
Publicly owned as opposed to Public Accommodation compliance.
 
Why do they have to do anything? Why do people think anyone HAS to do anything for anyone else? Because why?

I believe it's an ethical standard that is part of one's licensing.
 
To me, public means governmental, where one's morality is irrelevant... or at least over ruled by the Constitution. Any privately owned business... and a business listed in the stock market is still owned by private citizens with their shares, are still private IMO.

Morality in government is not irrelevant and the constitution is decided by people that decide cases based on morality, not so much intent or law.
 
Morality in government is not irrelevant and the constitution is decided by people that decide cases based on morality, not so much intent or law.

And once those cases are decided, different morality is irrelevant. If the Constitution states something that adheres to a specific morality, opposing morality is meaningless from a constitutional position.
 
To me, public means governmental, where one's morality is irrelevant... or at least over ruled by the Constitution. Any privately owned business... and a business listed in the stock market is still owned by private citizens with their shares, are still private IMO.

Thats the thing about the stock market, they open themselves up to the public, as such they should not hold policies that may be biased. Not to mention those companies do recieve governmental assistance in the form of subsidies, bailouts, tax exemptions etc etc.
 
And once those cases are decided, different morality is irrelevant. If the Constitution states something that adheres to a specific morality, opposing morality is meaningless from a constitutional position.

The problem which you simply ignored is that morality is deciding the cases, NOT the constitution. The constitution is just what they use for their morality, nothing more. Its the weakness of the design they figured out only years after the country came into being. The supreme court idea is simply a failure.
 
Thats the thing about the stock market, they open themselves up to the public, as such they should not hold policies that may be biased. Not to mention those companies do recieve governmental assistance in the form of subsidies, bailouts, tax exemptions etc etc.

Companies that sell stock in the stock market are only called public businesses because they sell stock to the public. The people that actually buy the stock are the only ones that have any claims of influence and ownership. Assistance from the government does not change claims of ownership either.
 
The problem which you simply ignored is that morality is deciding the cases, NOT the constitution.

Wrong. Morality decided the Constitution, and since cases are also decided by the Constitution and the morality there, I am correct.

The constitution is just what they use for their morality, nothing more. Its the weakness of the design they figured out only years after the country came into being. The supreme court idea is simply a failure.

In your opinion.
 
Wrong. Morality decided the Constitution, and since cases are also decided by the Constitution and the morality there, I am correct.

In theory, yes. In practice however, you are completely wrong.

In your opinion.

In my opinion? Bias has been part of the supreme court since the very early days of the country and its almost always been encouraged by the standing president and the congress. Almost all interpretations of it that has ever been used, most notably the living Constitution interpretation is nothing more than a way to put in place an intent and morality that was never there to be begin with. This is only compounded when they use prior cases to decide the present day cases to decide what powers are given to the government. In theory the supreme court was to make sure the Constitution was followed, but its almost always used to reinforce desires of individual men and government.
 
Last edited:
In theory, yes. In practice however, you are completely wrong.

No, not at all. The morality of the Constitution continues to decide cases, now.

In my opinion? Bias has been part of the supreme court since the very early days of the country and its almost always been encouraged by the standing president and the congress. Almost all interpretations of it that has ever been used, most notably the living Constitution interpretation is nothing more than a way to put in place an intent and morality that was never there to be begin with. This is only compounded when they use prior cases to decide the present day cases to decide what powers are given to the government. In theory the supreme court was to make sure the Constitution was followed, but its almost always used to reinforce desires of individual men and government.

The Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Alexander Hamilton said it best: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

The Supreme Court, both in theory and practice makes sure that the Constitution is followed, however, with changing times, the Constitution is used to interpret things that did not necessarily exist when it was created. The essence of those issues is there, though.
 
Gotta disagree with you on this one, Objective. As long as the pharmacist directs the customer to someone who WILL fill the prescription, I have no issue with an individual pharmacist acting on his morals. It would be like a gay couple going for couples counseling... to a therapist who rejects GM and gay relationships as sinful. As long as they give the couple names of people who would treat them, there is nothing wrong with what that individual does, ethically.

this would NOT be the same at all. You are talking a private practice.
Im talking a public pharmacy if we allow people who want to freely discriminate based on their own personal beliefs where does it stop, why would digs "morals/opinions/religions" be more important than mine if I run a public pharmacy and want to discriminate against him for his religion? that is NEVER ok in US ever and Id love an argument to why it would be acceptable in a public pharmacy. It is simply not and in my opinion its ignorant, disrespectful, disgraceful and hypocritical as an american.

A private therapist is NOT a public pharmacy they are not the same. So you are telling me if im a pharmacist at the local food center and my religion says being black is sinful Im allowed to refuse service on that alone? no way, never im not buying it.That would be legalizing discrimination. If you disagree Id say you are making an exception for ones religion and not the others.

Ill wait to see what you have to say, it should be interesting. DIgs choose not to answer my example question because he probably couldnt do it objectively
 
The difference here I think CC is that a pharmacist is generally public. A counsular is not. There is a world of difference imo between a public buisness and a private buisness.

Peoples arguments in this thread remind me of the whole controversy with muslim cashiers at grocery stores refusing to run pork and beer through their check out stands because it goes against their moral code. IMO anyone that holds a public service job or company has no right to force their values upon those that use their services. If I was the boss of a public company and one of my employee's refused to do something because of personal moral values then that person would be fired for not being able to do their job fully.

yep this is the basic foundation of the argument. Dont like public rules stay out the public realm its really simple.
 
A pharmacy is a private business. If it is the policy of that business to NOT sell these types of medications, then there is no issue with them doing that. If that is NOT the business's policy and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, he/she should be fired. If the pharmacist owns the business, he/she can decide to not carry or sell the drug if he/she chooses.

this is NOT the exampleI used. If a pharmacy wants to not stock this items (only because they are do not save lives) I am fine with that. My example is nased on public buisness which a pharmacy is and if that item is in stock.


SO again, if its a public buisness and I already have a prescription you better fill it and if you dont you are discrimination and violating my rights if the ONLY reason you choose not to fill it is based on your own personal morals/religion etc.

My immediate advice is you have no business being a public pharmacist if you cant do your job with competence.
 
No, not at all. The morality of the Constitution continues to decide cases, now.



The Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Alexander Hamilton said it best: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

The Supreme Court, both in theory and practice makes sure that the Constitution is followed, however, with changing times, the Constitution is used to interpret things that did not necessarily exist when it was created. The essence of those issues is there, though.



Hold on there...No where in Article 3 does it say anything about interpreting the Constitution for the changing times. If you want the Constitution to change, then that is what the amendment process is for. Period.

j-mac
 
No, not at all. The morality of the Constitution continues to decide cases, now.

Nope. Like I said it almost never has.

The Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Alexander Hamilton said it best: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

Yes, with the meanings and intent of the clauses in mind. That is not how it is practiced to day or in almost all of our history.

The Supreme Court, both in theory and practice makes sure that the Constitution is followed, however, with changing times, the Constitution is used to interpret things that did not necessarily exist when it was created. The essence of those issues is there, though.

No they don't. They wiggle around it to find how they can change the meaning of clauses for what they want at the time. It is no surprise that cases like Texas v. White decided the introduction that has no power all of sudden implies and was meant so that leaving the union was illegal. It is no surprise that the commerce clause went from meaning fed has the powr to end disputes between the listed members(and no one else) to mean complete control over the commerce regardless of group. It is no surprise the welfare clause that was intended so that laws cover the country as a whole and not just one area of the country all of sudden mean "safety net programs" and welfare of the people. None of this is a surprise. It is the will of man seeing what they want to see so they can reach the goals they desire. The morality of the lines that are on the paper is long gone and in fact had a very short life span. In fact, the founders themselves breached the intent of what they created with one of their very first actions after the country was founded. The supreme court has always been what is today, a badly implemented and planned idea.
 
Last edited:
Those pharmacies are not public. They are inside private businesses. Whatever the policy that those businesses have is the policy that I would expect their employees to adhere to. I would imagine if they did not, there would be consequences.



It wasn't clear. If it IS in stock, and it IS policy for them to be sold, the pharmacist probably needs to look for a place where it is NOT sold. However, even in pharmacies that are included in a larger store, I would imagine that the pharmacist is in charge of ordering stock. He could then choose to not stock this particular item. As long as that was not against company policy AND as long as he offered the customer another place to purchase the item, I have no problem with that.


there you go now you see what im talking about and what my example was based on.
I am OK with them not stalking them also but if I could vote tomorrow to make them stock them I would do it 100%. WHy you ask because its still discriminaition IMO where do we draw the line, we only accept it now because BC drugs or abortions drugs arent going to harm the person in a life or death way if they arent dispensed but what if it was a drug that was criticle in life or death?

Say I was in a small town, one public pharmacy and the drug that I needed to keep me alive was against the pharmists religion for some reason, he chose not to stock it and now my life is put in danger because of this? that is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Now we can say hey what if they were out or closed my life would have been in danger too and yes I agree but those arent decisions made by anothers religion/morals that would be indirectly forced on me.

When the decisions are based solely on religion and effect me in the public realm I will always deam them as WRONG and discrimination. I have y own religious beliefs and I am simply not arrogant, selfish or silly enough to think if I own or operate a public store I get to play by my own rules, If I cant handle public rules that WE ALL have to play by I simply dont play.

But i am glad that you do agree with my example

public pharmacy, in stock and I have a prescription, I get my meds and the morals of the pharmacist are of no conern
 
Hold on there...No where in Article 3 does it say anything about interpreting the Constitution for the changing times. If you want the Constitution to change, then that is what the amendment process is for. Period.

j-mac

Exactly. That is just an argument for people that wish to change it to their desires.
 
this would NOT be the same at all. You are talking a private practice.
Im talking a public pharmacy if we allow people who want to freely discriminate based on their own personal beliefs where does it stop, why would digs "morals/opinions/religions" be more important than mine if I run a public pharmacy and want to discriminate against him for his religion? that is NEVER ok in US ever and Id love an argument to why it would be acceptable in a public pharmacy. It is simply not and in my opinion its ignorant, disrespectful, disgraceful and hypocritical as an american.

Your "opinion" on this is valueless. This is not a "public" pharmacy. A "public" pharmacy would be government run. This is owned by a private individual or company. They can choose to sell to whoever they like. They can choose to not have the medication being discussed in stock. Your argument is invalid because you are using the term "public" incorrectly.

A private therapist is NOT a public pharmacy they are not the same. So you are telling me if im a pharmacist at the local food center and my religion says being black is sinful Im allowed to refuse service on that alone? no way, never im not buying it.That would be legalizing discrimination. If you disagree Id say you are making an exception for ones religion and not the others.

Again, you are using the term "public" incorrectly. If the pharmacy does not want to sell that particular medication, they do not have to.

Ill wait to see what you have to say, it should be interesting. DIgs choose not to answer my example question because he probably couldnt do it objectively

digs is right. I don't know why he didn't respond, but I did.
 
Hold on there...No where in Article 3 does it say anything about interpreting the Constitution for the changing times. If you want the Constitution to change, then that is what the amendment process is for. Period.

j-mac

No, not period. Pretty much anything we need, yesterday, today, and tomorrow is right in the Constitution. Covers pretty much everything... all one needs to do is apply it to a current situation. On the RARE occasions that something is not there, or that something specific needs to be altered, the amendment process is there. For the most part, it isn't needed.
 
Nope. Like I said it almost never has.

Nope. Like I said it pretty much always does.

Yes, with the meanings and intent of the clauses in mind. That is not how it is practiced to day or in almost all of our history.

With the meanings and intents applied to things that occur that the founders didn't consider, but are still easily applicable.

No they don't. They wiggle around it to find how they can change the meaning of clauses for what they want at the time. It is no surprise that cases like Texas v. White decided the introduction that has no power all of sudden implies and was meant so that leaving the union was illegal. It is no surprise that the commerce clause went from meaning fed has the powr to end disputes between the listed members(and no one else) to mean complete control over the commerce regardless of group. It is no surprise the welfare clause that was intended so that laws cover the country as a whole and not just one area of the country all of sudden mean "safety net programs" and welfare of the people. None of this is a surprise. It is the will of man seeing what they want to see so they can reach the goals they desire. The morality of the lines that are on the paper is long gone and in fact had a very short life span. In fact, the founders themselves breached the intent of what they created with one of their very first actions after the country was founded. The supreme court has always been what is today, a badly implemented and planned idea.

Wrong, of course. Everything you mentioned is right there in the Constitution. It is easy to apply things there to things that happen today. That's what makes the document so great and so timeless. If this wasn't possible, we'd have to rewrite the Constitution every 50 years or so.
 
Exactly. That is just an argument for people that wish to change it to their desires.

No, it's an argument that is an accurate description of the the Constitution's application. Like I said... everything is there.
 
there you go now you see what im talking about and what my example was based on.
I am OK with them not stalking them also but if I could vote tomorrow to make them stock them I would do it 100%. WHy you ask because its still discriminaition IMO where do we draw the line, we only accept it now because BC drugs or abortions drugs arent going to harm the person in a life or death way if they arent dispensed but what if it was a drug that was criticle in life or death?

It's not discrimination. No one HAS to sell the drug if they do not want to.

Say I was in a small town, one public pharmacy and the drug that I needed to keep me alive was against the pharmists religion for some reason, he chose not to stock it and now my life is put in danger because of this? that is totally unacceptable in my opinion.[q/uote]

Go to a different town.

Now we can say hey what if they were out or closed my life would have been in danger too and yes I agree but those arent decisions made by anothers religion/morals that would be indirectly forced on me.

You are not forced to shop at that one pharmacy.

When the decisions are based solely on religion and effect me in the public realm I will always deam them as WRONG and discrimination. I have y own religious beliefs and I am simply not arrogant, selfish or silly enough to think if I own or operate a public store I get to play by my own rules, If I cant handle public rules that WE ALL have to play by I simply dont play.

You are again using the word "public" incorrectly. It is a private business.

q[uote]But i am glad that you do agree with my example

public pharmacy, in stock and I have a prescription, I get my meds and the morals of the pharmacist are of no conern

We don't agree. There is no "public" pharmacy in your example. If the business decides that they will not sell BC, you're out of luck. Go elsewhere. If the pharmacist does this against company policy, complain to management. They will either insist that he sell the drug, or fire him.
 
I'd boycott them and hope that others would too.
How do I know if one of my local pharmacies is one which gave inaccurate information? Is there a website I can go to and search my zip-code or city?

Also, being a healthy person who hasn't had the need of a pharmacy in several years, how would you suggest I boycott a given pharmacy?

How will I know when to end a boycott? How will I be notified that a given pharmacy has changed it's ways?
 
Back
Top Bottom