Pharmacist sues over 'morning after pill'

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8172573/

An Illinois pharmacist who refuses to sell the “morning after pill” has filed suit to challenge the state government’s order that the emergency contraception be available “without delay.”

Luke Vander Bleek, who owns two pharmacies in northwestern Illinois, filed suit on Wednesday in Whiteside County Court asserting that Illinois’ “conscience” law, which permits health care providers to opt out of procedures they object to on moral grounds, offers him protection from the requirement that he sell the morning after pill, known as “Plan B.”

“He sells normal oral contraceptives, but he draws the line at the morning after pill,” said Daniel McConchie of Americans United for Life, a Chicago-based law firm that takes on cases around the United States that have a socially conservative slant and represents Vander Bleek.

Vander Bleek, 42, a Roman Catholic, told Reuters on Friday his scientific training led him to believe the morning after pill is different from other contraceptives because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

“The risk is that it is going to take a human life, and I don’t think an individual should be allowed by law to draw me in to that activity,” Vander Bleek said.

[Subliminal]

1. Find another career

Mr. Bleek ought to find himself a new career if he cannot carry out his expected duties.

[expatriot]

3. your comment sums it up... so true.... nt

[Journeyman]

17. Ah, but Mr Bleek "owns" the pharmacy. . .

so it's a little different -- Does he have a right to do whatever he wants in his place of business?

He could avoid the entire issue (if he truly wanted to just not sell the product) by doing what a friend of mine does at his pharmacy: he simply tells people he doesn't carry the product and directs them to another pharmacy.

However, it is evident Mr Bleek wants to push the issue and so finds himself embroiled in lawsuits. But rather than turn on the issue of the rights and obligations of an employee, Mr Bleek's case will confront the issue as a matter of personal property rights and the role of the State in directing a private company's affairs. Quite a bit different from a simple case of not carrying out expected duties.

[Kenneth ken]

22. maybe

my reading of the story though, is that the state is trying to force him to carry the product, so the option of not carrying it is not open to him, as it is your friend, and that's what he is objecting to.

I do agree it's a different case than most of the early posters have seemed to notice.

[TahitiNut]

33. The general public "owns" the business license. Revoke it.

He can practice his beliefs on his own time, on himself, not under the cover of a business license. When we protect some specious entitlement to impose one's own religious beliefs on others, we're fucked. Nobody is asking this guy to take the "morning after" pill himself.

Would the fucking son-of-a-bitch picket a gun store for the same reasons??? Does he protest against capital punishment? The abominable hypocrisy is vomit-inducing!

[Journeyman]

38. You need to educate yourself on what a "business license" entails. . .

My business license gives neither the state nor the local municipality any say whatsoever over what I can and cannot do in my business. It's purpose is to generate some limited revenue for the local government, and more importantly establish a list for tax purposes.

Mr Bleek's argument seems to legally rest solely on his rights as a property owner. Does the State have the right to force him to do something he doesn't want to do? That's where this argument resides, and all excursions into questions about religious beliefs and the appropriateness of imposing them on others, will be superseded by this larger issue.

[Kenneth ken]

40. thanks for answering that one

I didn't like that post, but since I don't own a business, and also don't know anything about business licenses, I didn't have a good counter.

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

46. That's the SAME argument used to refuse service to blacks ...

... and for the same "religious" reasons, in many cases. It was morally and ethically bankrupt then as well as now.

Property ownership is, quite literally, an entitlement (a legal fiction, unlike possession) invented by government and NOT a 'right'.

[Journeyman]

54. Not the same issue *at all* . . .

The Civil Rights struggle was to assure equal access to goods and services. It was not about what goods and services would be available. Once equal access to the lunch counter was assured, no one expected that the diner would serve whatever the customer demanded, just that it would serve all customers equally.

Mr Bleek is not going to discriminate against any group; he wants to refuse to carry a product so he can deny its use to everyone.

As we can see from where this thread has been and where its going, the issues Mr Bleek has raised go far beyond where this argument has resided in recent months. Unfortunately, the resolution of Mr Bleek's case will possibly have a very chilling effect on the other cases that have arisen, those which test the concept of employee rights and responsibilities.

[TahitiNut]

69. "You need to educate yourself" (as you say) in logic, law, and ethics.

You made the claim that the 'owner' of a business (which I call a person licensed by the public) to operate a business has the 'right' to operate that business in any manner he desires, offering whatever products and/or services he desires to whomever he desires ... and that the government had no right to say otherwise. You made this argument in response to my proposal that the public revoke his license if he attempts to impose his religious dogma on others.

You claimed the same, exact (and false) "reasons" that the segregated businesses claimed. It makes no fucking difference what you (and they) claim this "reason" permits them to do, since the "reason" itself is totally and completely false.

The public, through government, tells you where you can do business. (It's called zoning.) The public, through government, tells you with whom, you can and must do business. (Try selling liquor or cigarettes to a minor or guns to a felon. Try refusing service to a Muslim. Try refusing service to a Hispanic.) The public, through government, tells you when you can do business. (Check out the ordinances regarding hours of operation.)

In every case, the "public good" is weighed. If you think the public can't revoke a business license for operating against the "public good" then you don't know business or business law. When 'rights' are weighed against 'entitlements,' justice (and ethics) calls for the rights to prevail.

A business license is like a driver's license ... an entitlement, not a right.

[lastliberalintexas]

96. Very good explanation TN

And you're dead on about the distinction between a right and an entitlement. Indeed, the only reason that this is even a real issue is because of the purported *religious beliefs* of the objectors. They are not arguing that as business owners they have the right to refuse a service, because they darn well know that's not the case. Hence, the religious "freedom" arguments that we are now seeing from the right wingers.

A business license means jack when compared to a constitutional right, even if there *might* be some due process concerns associated with that license.

[Sivafae]

76. But they are discriminating against women. Only women can be pregnant.

[colinmom71]

83. Actually, I see it as he is discriminating wrongly against...

Those persons who do not practice his religious sensibilities (who yes, are also women). And since religion is a protected legal class, he is indeed abusing his role as a public business to deny services of a specific type to those whose religion does not forbid contraception, or emergency contraception as is the case here. Just as he does not have the right to deny service to customers based on race, disability, nationality, etc., he also doesn't have a right to deny services to those who are following their own religious moral code.

Then there's the pesky little fact that he's also countermanding a doctor's ordered treatment for the patient, which constitutes a de facto attempt to practice medicine without a licence. This pharmacist has no legal authority to intervene or impede that treatment a doctor may feel is best for the patient. He has no idea if this patient was perhaps raped and had medical issues that make pregnancy dangerous to experience, nor does he have any right to delve into his customers' private medical history to judge whether they are worthy to recieve treatment according to his idea of religioug values...

[dionysus]

92. A friggin Men!

n/t

[mondo joe]

58. I believe Pharmacies have something other than simply a business

license.

And I think states ought to make them contingent on providing some basic public good - including dispensing certain prescriptions.

[mbperrin]

59. The state's sole purpose is to force people to do things they

don't want to do, since they don't have to force people to do things they want to do.

Yes, the state will tell you how to do it; for instance, run a restaurant and keep cold things above 45 degrees and hot things below 145 degrees and see how long you're in.

As a pharmacist, sell medicine without a prescription and see how long you're in.

Plumber? Run a drain with a positive grade and see if the city doesn't make you correct it.

Electrician? Run 200 amps worth of circuits through a 60 amp master.

And so on.......under your theory, the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" would actually be legal.

People are given permission to do business with the public within guidelines, and taxes pay the overhead required to do that and recoup other damages done by the businesses.

That's why I believe in the death penalty for businesses. Screw up too often, and you're gone! (Wouldn't it be nice to not hear Halliburton's name?)

[K-W]

81. You couldn't be more wrong.

Your business licenses gives the state say in ANYTHING you do relating to your business. Also, the state has a say in anything you do, personal or business wise that effects any other citizen of this nation.

Property owners don't have rights different than those who don't own property, at least to people who have any real concern for rights. The state doesn't have rights at all, only human beings have right, the state certainly has the AUTHORITY to force Mr. Bleak to do anything that falls within its powers.

There is no larger issue. A business license means that your business exits with permission of the state, which supposedly represents the people. They can require whatever they want from you to continue granting you the privilege of operating such an organization.

[lastliberalintexas]

95. Um, no

Supposed property rights in a business do not constitutionally trump an individual's reproductive and/or privacy rights. Although with our right wing courts of the past 15 years, you might be on to what will be the new law of the land.

Further, he is in a different situation than you are I assume, since you have not said your business is medical in nature. In addition to being a business owner, he is also LICENSED by the state to perform the functions of a pharmacist. This is not some revenue generating "license", but is instead a true regulation of the profession. The courts have long considered that the government most certainly has a compelling interest in the regulation of such a profession as to override any rights which the individual engaged in such a profession may have. While the individual can not be prohibited from becoming a pharmacist for anything other than legitimate, job related, and/or qualification based reasons, the individual does not have the right to do anything s/he wants with that license once obtained. S/he can not pick and choose which of the functions of a pharmacist s/he agrees to perform, nor can s/he pick and choose for which persons s/he will perform them.

The state is not telling him to shut his drug store down, just that any pharmacist which works there will be required to dispense ANY AND ALL properly, legally prescribed medication. Whether that pharmacist is an employee or owner of the shop is irrelevant. Indeed, he could still operate a "drug store" of sorts, selling over the counter meds and the various other items sold in most modern drug stores while not dispensing any prescription meds.

[reformedrepub]

71. Yank the license

Not only does the state license his business, it also licenses him to practice pharmacology. Yank Both licenses!!!

[Wink]

91. It's against MY religion to serve Christians

How soon before the religious freaks start using that type of excuse to not serve Muslims.

[Megahurtz]

31. I totally agree.

Get another line of work if you're not going to do your job, asshat!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. and Viagara takes an organ that god wants dead and brings it

back to life but I bet Van Bleek has no trouble selling that

[minnesotaDFLer]

4. who ever heard

of a religious fanatic selling contraceptives, he probably just started this job a few days ago just so he could file a suit.

[Jax]

21. I'm stealing that one NSMA

hilarious and spot on. :toast:

Alyce

[Megahurtz]

32. LOL!!!

:rofl:

[Kenneth ken]

34. I don't think this one is that easy

Van Bleek owns the two pharmacies in this case, so it seems to me it becomes a question of whether the state can dictate what a business must stock.

Please give this one another thought and offer up a better opinion. I'm a bit conflicted, and so far leaning toward supporting the idea that a business should be able to decide for itself what it will and will not stock for sale.

:hi: nsma

[Beaverhausen]

36. If the guy is a good catholic he shouldn't be selling any BC pills

but he is picking and choosing what he will/won't follow.

And another thing...I'm all for him following his own beliefs but he has no right to decide anyone else's for them.

[Kenneth ken]

39. I'll agree with the first part

about not selling any b/c products; he apparently sells oral contraceptives, condoms aren't mentioned.

You're a singer, if I recall; do you want the state telling you that you have to put certain songs on your next album/cd?

The way I read this story is he is opposed to the state telling him he is required to stock and dispense morning after contraception.

You do make a good point in that as an RC his selling of any sort of b/c is hypocritical, and that does weaken his case from my POV, but I'm still not totally convinced that the state should be mandating what products a business must stock.

:hi:

edit after nsma's #37 - you don't need to reply to my last point about your music; that doesn't fall under the realm of public interest as expressed by nsma, so is invalid here.

[Beaverhausen]

42. I think you misunderstood me

I don't support any pharmacist denying anything to a patient because of his/her own beliefs.

I was just pointing out this guys hypocracy.

Remember- emergency contraception is quite often used because birth control fails (rubber breaks, pills are missed, etc) or because a woman is raped. Why does this guy, who WILL sell regular BC pills NOT also sell the back up method?

[Kenneth ken]

45. yep I did misunderstand

I saw that part and agreed, but since I am reading this whole thread on the issue of the guy's rights as a business owner, I read more into your response than you were saying; as well as not recognizing emergency contraception as a back up, duh! I called it "plan b" in my first post on this thread, I shoulda had a clue, eh?

thanks for clarifying, and for making me pay attention.

:hi:

[CTLawGuy]

89. because he believes that a fertilized egg is morally equal to a

human being, and that preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall is equivalent to murder. (of course this idea is silly to me)

He may also believe that with regular birth control, no egg is fertilized, so no life is created, so none is destroyed.

[TahitiNut]

75. I firmly disagree.

Does he stock condoms? Do "good catholics" own gun stores?

The point is that NOBODY is stuffing birth control pills donwn his (or his wife's) mouth and nobody is forcing him to wear a condom. This is about other people's beliefs and other people's medical conditions -- none of which are the 'business' of the pharmacist!

Just what kind of theological or moral code affords anyone the right to impose their religious dogma on the choices others make? This sounds like Shariah (Islamic civil law), not a secular nation.

[colinmom71]

84. What's even funnier about this...

Is that a pack of birth control pills can be *made* into emergency contraception! If the pre-packaged "Plan B" morning-after pill set isn't available, a doctor with the suitable knowledge can simply prescribe a package of one cycle of birth control pills to the woman and instruct her on which pills to take in order to have the same effect that Plan B would produce! (This is also a good way to get around a prescription insurance coverage plan that will pay for BC pills but not EC, or if your clinic or pharmacy happens to be out of stock with EC at that time...)

Yes folks, this guy IS selling emergency contraception and likely doesn't even realize it! :rofl:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. The supreme court just reaffirmed that congress has the right to regulate

drug commerce in re: the medical marijuana laws. Therefore, the availability of drugs IS SOMETHING congress CAN and should regulate.

While I DO value individual freedom, he has the freedom to do something else if he can't or won't stock a LEGAL drug.

Life is a tradeoff..sometimes the public interest trumps the interest of individuals. When some small communities only have ONE pharmacy, then I believe that is an instance where public interest trumps one's OPINIONS about a drug that is equivalent to a very strong birth control pill.

[Kenneth ken]

41. thanks

I knew if you put some thought into it you could make a good argument against this guy.

I hope that didn't sound condescending; I was wanting a more elaborate explanation of why this guy is just as wrong as the pinheads who work at pharmacies, don't own them but want to push their beliefs.

The public interest argument is a good one. That's why I like reading your posts; I generally learn something.

:hi:

[Karenina]

52. And is exactly why

HEALTH CARE must not be "privatized."

[tblue37]

68. As the owner of the business,

maybe he has that right not to stock certain drugs. But as a pharmacist, licensed by a state sanctioned licensing board, he has a legal obligation not to interpose himself between a patient and her doctor.

He does not have the right to countermand a physician's considered decision about the best care for his patient. Could a pharmacist refuse to stock antibiotics in a pharmacy he owns, and then claim it is against his Christian Science religion to dispense such drugs? Maybe, but I don't think he has a right to hold a license to practice pharmacy unless he is willing to dispense the medications prescribed by physicians.

I also wonder whether pharmacies are state-licensed as pharmacies. If they are, then it is possible that he could be made to cease advertising his store as a pharmacy if he does not fulfill certain requirements.

[CTLawGuy]

90. the thing with viagra...

taking viagra doesn't result in the destruction of what fundies sincerely believe to be "human life".

If this guy sells traditional contraceptives, then he has no moral problem with prevention of fertilization. However, he believes that at the moment an egg is fertilized, it is a full human life. Which is an idea i don't agree with.

If you and I thought that a product caused what we legitimately considered to be murder (regardless of whether we were correct in a rational or scientific sense), it would be understandable that we would not want to sell it.

[phylny]

5. These pharmacies should have a big sign in the window declaring:

We reserve the right to deny birth control pills/emergency contraception.

Let's see them put their (lost) money where their mouths are.

[mcscajun]

12. That's the way I feel about it. If you have a 'conscience law'

in your state, you ought to advertise you're taking advantage of it to deny women the health products their doctors have prescribed.

Let's see the business go elswhere.

I'm not ignoring the bigger issue; that in many areas, the only drugstore in reasonable distance could be the one that's hell-bent on persecuting sexually active women. I don't agree with these 'conscience laws' that are suddenly all the rage and are promoted by the anti-abortion, anti-birth control crowd.

[salin]

87. Better yet: If you seek birth control/emergency constraception - go

to Pharmacy X.

They should, at the least, steer consumers to where they can purchase the legal medicine.

Of course they wouldn't do this - because they wouldn't want to lose all the other customers (not just those wanting the meds in question) who are disgusted by the pushing of a religious and now political agenda at the pharmacists window.

[napi21]

6. Did pharmicists ever do this in the past or is this something new?

I know there are Drs who will not perform abortions, and I think that's OK. I don't remember hearing about any pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions FOR ANYTHING in the past. Is this a new, inovative plan by the RW to contact pharmacists directly and guilt them into refusing "some" scripts on moral principals?

[Lars39]

10. They are organized to do this, yes.

http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=cc

[mcscajun]

13. It's a new thing. It's a flanking maneuver by the Religious Right

anything that can chip away at womens' reproductive control over their own bodies is okay with them.

[Patty Diana]

60. We were only able to toss out unruly customers, BUT

we could charge soooo much that they couldn't afford it, then we'd give the RX back and they'd go somewhere else. So you're right, this is all about winning a lawsuit

[Ilsa]

7. I checked with my pharmacist today and they have and will

dispense Plan B when given a prescription. No sweat. I'm glad I have a choice of where to do business where I live.

Vander Bleek wants to rewrite biology and science with these absurd notions.

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. They are turning the "rights" language upside down

The "rights" argument should go to the woman who wants to fill her prescription, or be free to choose what she wants to do to her body.

The right-wing has usurped the rights argument. They twist it and deform it and are using it against the freedoms we currently hold.

I fear this is only the beginning.

[Lars39]

11. Yes, redefining abortion is part of their strategy, imo.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Aren't there "Christian" pharmacies that ninnies like Luke can work at?

As long as they're clearly labeled "Christian," I see no problem (since I'd avoid a fundie pharmacy like the plague :thumbsdown:).

Keep goofnuts like "Luke" out of MY pharmacy.:eyes:

[0rganism]

14. a problem: nothing prevents a chain of "Christian" pharmacies from...

...buying out YOUR local pharmacy and filling it with goofnuts like "Luke".

[Cooley Hurd]

29. Fine, and they'll go out of business tut-suite!

The fundie clientele will keep them afloat for 5 minutes.:thumbsdown:

[0rganism]

35. You're lucky to have a choice

There are plenty of people with local access to exactly one pharmacy. But as long as it doesn't affect you, everything's a-okay.

Shall we let them eat cake?

[Journeyman]

16. Yes, there are. The two pharmacies he owns, for starters. . .

so the issue is more than a simple matter of where Mr Beek is employed.

[Kenneth ken]

19. umm

actually, in this case, it's HIS pharmacy, not yours.

Luke Vander Bleek, who owns two pharmacies in northwestern Illinois, filed suit on Wednesday...

so far, I seem to be the first person who has noticed that he is the owner of the pharmacy he wants to be able to not have to stock Plan B in.

I think this case is slightly different than all the cases I've read before, where the objecting pharmacist is working for someone else.

That gives me pause. I absolutely agree that a pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription; but the focus changes a bit when the question becomes does the state have a right to dictate what a business must stock?

I think everyone who has read this thread and overlooked the idea that this guy is the owner of his pharmacies needs to go back and rethink their replies in that context.

edit: Journeyman posted while I was writing this post. :)

As much as I may get flamed for this, I am leaning toward the position that a business, rather than the state should be able to decide on its own what products it will or will not carry.

[Megahurtz]

55. I DON'T lean towards the position that a business,

namely a pharmacy, should decide what and what not to carry regarding someone's health.

The State should regulate and have guidelines for what legal drugs a phamacist should carry, otherwise it doesn't fit the description of a pharmacy. That's my argument.

This sounds like it trumps on the Separation of Church and State issue since the Pharmacist's decision not to sell the morning after pill is "for religious reasons". "Morally" my ass!

He is trying to impose his religious-based beliefs on others and denying others of their own legal right.

This is not a private business where anyone should run it as they please. This is a pharmacy and it should be regulated to provide all of the legal drugs allowed by law.

Fuck this private "ownership society" business crap.

This is so wrong and I hope the pharmacist loses in a landslide!.
Bastard!:grr:

[Kenneth ken]

56. yeah

nsma explained it well for me in post 37.

I knew from my first read it was pretty messed up, but also that it was different than the recent spate of employee-pharmacist's refusing prescriptions.

:hi:

[Megahurtz]

82. That's okay,

I just noticed that the Fundies could really get ahold of this if they wanted to.:)

[salin]

88. The one concern is when/where it is the only pharmacy

in a region. Thereby making PlanB unavailable to the population.

[DanCa]

15. I remember my biology class from college

I had to put down a cat and since I couldn't do it I took a D for the lab. I didnt make the professor change the curriculum and I didnt interfere with the rest of the class' learning exp. I would respect these people more if they upheld there beliefs without imposing it on anyone else'. I also wonder why they have no problems selling condoms and such but also seem to punish the women. I am tired of these control freaks using my god's name in vain. Urgh. Sorry rant is now over.

[HockeyMom]

18. He must have flunked pharmacology school

Morning After is nothing more than HIGH DOSAGE birth control pills. You take 2 plain old ordinary BC pills and you get the same effect. He will sell BC, but not the Morning After? lol

Jerk is just doing this for PUBLICITY. Who is PAYING his lawyer's fees? Focus on the Family?

[joeunderdog]

27. Instead of bringing in scripts, hand him a termination letter.

If he gets enough of those, let's see how his morals hold up.

Vote with your wallet. It's the strongest ballot.

[Kenneth ken]

30. you can't fire the owner of the pharmacy. n/t

[joeunderdog]

66. That is to say, terminate your account.

Many scripts are monthly, some for life. That's alot of business to lose.

[Kenneth ken]

78. thanks for clarifying

(sorry to reply so much later)

I don't think that's the best option in this case though. I have come to understand that the state does have a compelling interest in requiring him to provide the emergency contraception, as the state's role is to protect the interests of the public, and that trumps one person's beliefs of how they should be allowed to run their business.

Prescriptions fill a different role than other products, so a person should be able to go into any pharmacy in the country with the expectation of having their valid prescription for legal controlled substances/medicines filled.

It's all well and good for residents to boycott a small business, but what of the person who is vacationing or traveling on business, and finds themself in need of a prescription that the local pharmacy won't stock?

[anitar1]

20. Then maybe they should be forbidden to carry any

birth control in their stock and to also have to display a LARGE sign in their window announcing this. We might see a change of heart when the money flow lessens. Perhaps people could get their reps to propose a bill advocating this action.

[Canadiana]

25. Yea I think the sign is necessary.

And on all their advertising anywhere (yellowpages etc) they should say that they do not carry any form of birth control. You see, with the morning after pill, hours count. (the longer one takes it after intercourse, the less effective). Hence, one does not want to waste time going to an idiot pharmacy that lets their idiot personal beliefs get in the way of doing their job.

[Demit]

23. Plan B is not an abortifacient. It prevents pregnancy--it can't end one.

Despite what the pharmacist's "scientific training" leads him to believe. If a woman is already pregnant, Plan B can't do a thing.

The majority of fertilized eggs never implant anyway. Is this also considered the taking of human life?

[IChing]

44. The science is too much for me now, where is my Creationist Museum?

I need to find answers quick!!!

This is about control not abortion since the pill is nothing of the kind, I hope he gets fined
and loses his license.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. all your eggs are mine

Hope he loses the damn suit. I suppose he also sells condoms--or not? Or viagra doled out to a seventy year old man whose wife is past menopause and cannot ever have a child that would result from their "fun".

After all, Catholics maintain that sex is primarily for procreation and not for fun or enjoyment.

That man is "spilling his seed" into a barren vessel and he and she both know it when it could have , indeed when it SHOULD have been used to fertilize an egg.

But no, people like this jerk fail to see that inconsistency--all he sees is an evil "EVE" cavorting around, arrongantly, in his pharmacy wanting to have enjoyment and fun without the consequences of a pregnancy.

[daleo]

26. I was under the impression that a fertilized egg was not an embryo

Unless and until it implants in the uterus. I have heard that sexually active women probably have an egg fertilized about once per year or so. Most don't implant. So, if he considers this an abortion, then God aborts tens of millions of fetuses every month, worldwide. He must think God is a monster.

[Beaverhausen]

28. So this guy thinks rape victims should have to continue a pregnancy

asshole

[Desertrose]

43. These guys who refuse to dispense need to find another career.

Did they just all of a sudden realize they might have to dispense these types of meds?

HELLO?? were't you paying attention in college??

What does your certificate to practice pharmacy say??

Did you sign it?

These guys really annoy the hell out of me.
:grr::grr: :banghead::grr::grr:

[Jade Fox]

47. Another brave defender of fertilized eggs.....

Fuck these people. I'm really getting tired of them and their idiotic "morals".

[PittPoliSci]

48. i bet this guy

still sells mercury to "cure" headaches.

[LiberalFighter]

49. Illinois Law - Health Care Right of Conscience Act

Health Care Right of Conscience Act CIVIL IMMUNITIES (745 ILCS 70/)

In the context of the act I don't believe that pharmacists are covered. Even without pharmacists this law is corrupt.

[leesa]

50. If men got pregnant this guy would be first in line for this remedy.

[IChing]

51. This is not a pregnant pill, don't give into their language

but you already know that right?

[symbolman]

53. Well

If I owned a gas station then I would refuse to sell him GAS as his Religion does not Believe IT EXISTS..

I say we should revoke the driver's licenses of anyone that claims the bible is literal and/or refuse to sell them gas, or plumbing or anything that isn't found in their precious book. Don't believe in DNA? Then you don't get a vaccination.

How about he gets sued by any woman that gets pregnant due to his refusal and forced to pay CHILD SUPPORT for the remainder of the kid's life.. and that would include ALL the kids that were born because of his refusal.

What would happen if Liberal Doctors told Christians, "Well, since you don't believe in Science and your kid has cancer I guess I'll just have to "let some blood" and apply some leeches and then you can go home and Pray.. a LOT.."

Shut them down. This is nothing less than Prejudice. They love to talk about being victims? Well, it's about time that someone sues these assholes for being prejudicial..

Tahaiti Nut is right, these are the same folks that wouldn't let blacks sit at the counter.

[Initech]

57. Someone needs to teach this guy what birth control pills actually do.

It's not killing a human life, dumbass.

[truthisfreedom]

61. this is great, because when he loses, it will set a precedent that will

shut these idiots up once and for all.

[Patty Diana]

62. I'm a Pharmacist and you get your collage degree, then you get a state

license after being tested for days on end. You need a license for each state you work in. But I feel that this jebus freak practice is purely sexist. It would be like an emergency room doctor throwing out women, blacks, old people etc If they say this is legally OK then GOD help us all___the doors of hell will be open. Just look at judge janice brown's record on women and old folks.. So it can happen here

[seejanerun]

63. Make them post a notice in the store window

stating their policy in re dispensing Plan B or any drug. Then all of us would know which pharmacies to support and which to boycott.

[mandomom]

65. Viagra?

What are his thoughts on prescriptions to cure erectile dysfunction in single men?

[mandomom]

64. Animal husbandry

may be the career adjustment he needs. You know, work with animals that have no free will; just leave thinking human females to make their own decisions.

[Mairead]

67. The "he should be able to do what he likes with his business" argument

makes no more sense than the idea that a paramedic should be able to refuse treatment to someone based on the paramedic's religious prejudices. As a society, we give all sorts of legal power and protections to the individuals who take on those roles; they stand in a special place of trust and responsibility, and in turn we have the right to require them either to perform their role selflessly or find other work.

[napi21]

70. I think I have to vote for the Sign in the Window answer.

I support the Dr who says he simply won't perform an abortion, so I guess I have to say it's OK for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense meds he feels are wrong for the patient.

HOWEVER!!!! I think the pharmacy should be required to either have another phaarmacist who will fill ALL 'scripts, or post a sign prominently in the front window stating they do not fill 'scripts for certain meds.

That way, it's up to the consumer to decide which business to support.

[Mairead]

73. And if it's the only pharm in the area? (nt)

[murielm99]

72. Look at this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/national/10pill.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1118463075-TPKrBeR6yEV15aBp58ULdw&oref=login

The pharmacist in question owns pharmacies in Prophetstown and Morrison.

Both are small towns in Whiteside County. We have a DUer from Whiteside County, madrchschod. Calling madrchschod!

I live not far from there myself. Both of these small towns are a little bit away from other communities. I don't buy that there are other pharmacies within ten miles. I don't know if he is the only pharmacy in town, but it would be a bit of a hardship to get to another town to get the prescription renewed, if time is of the essence. It would also be inconvenient for people who work.

I tried to find local coverage of this story. I will keep looking. People around this area are not all that fond of the religious right. We are sort of live and let live.

[Mairead]

74. Where did the 'ten miles' come from? I didn't see it.

But can you imagine having to walk ten miles if you're one of the many women too poor to own a car or afford a taxi? That feels like a hardship to me--I'm a brisk walker with long legs, but it would still take me 5 hours to walk the 20 miles round trip.

I have a hard time with the idea that someone in a privileged healthcare profession should be able to pick and choose what meds to dispense. That definitely feels like a licensure issue to me.

[Sivafae]

77. This is pure and simple discrimination against women.

Will this pharmacy carry all available medicines that are for men only? If so, then they cannot discriminate simply because they do not believe in whatever drug that is on the market that is for women only.

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. I know this douche bag.

Lots of skeletons in his closet.

[murielm99]

85. Please tell us about him.

Those of us who live in the area need to know!

[MadisonProgressive]

80. Can't the state just take his license away?

FUCK HIM

[ChrisK]

86. Why is someone from the 13Th Century running a 21 Century business?

If this were a money issues I would be a bit more understand but when it comes to religion one needs to leave that at home, even if you're the owner of the business..I respect that he should be able to sell what he does and does not want but we're not talking about liquor or cigarettes here, we're talking about medicine.

And when did a pharmacist become a health care provider?

Odd how religion how become more about sex and less about love :eyes:

[AngryOldDem]

93. Not this again!

For the gazillionth time:

If you in good conscience cannot DO YOUR JOB, find another fucking line of work.

Sorry for the language, but damn...JUST DO THE JOB.

[Igel]

94. I'm of two minds.

On the one hand, forcing him to violate his conscience by selling the product is, as far as I'm concerned, equivalent to forcing a Muslim or Jewish owner of a restaurant to serve pork. One can argue that since many people want pork in their meals, s/he should be forced to accommodate the public.

Similarly, Gentile/non-Muslim owners should be compelled to serve halal/Glatt kosher food, even during Passover.

On the other hand, I like not being forced to violate my conscience, and extend this "privilege" to others.

Having the druggist post a sign would be appropriate, but I'm afraid it would degenerate into a scarlet A or yellow star of David for boycott purposes. I'm not sure that using state authority to coerce somebody into assisting with a boycott is something I'd approve of.

[lastliberalintexas]

97. The medical profession is a special case

since it impacts others' lives much more than a typical profession/business. However, even conceding that, the restaurant owner whose religious beliefs mandate (for example only) that cottage cheese containing products be served after sitting in storage at 120 degrees for 4 days will be SOL as well.

While the individual's rights are (theoretically) mostly supreme in our country, the individual loses that supremecy once her/his actions directly impact another individual. The old "your rights end at the beginning of my nose" adage.