Chilling: Repuke fundie pharmacists refusing to fill birth control

[Zorra]

prescriptions.

Over the course of history, religious fanatics have hurt a lot of people because of their belief in the absolute correctness of their ideology. This is what led the Founders of our nation to so wisely keep church and state seperate. Because at that time or not long before, fanatical fundamentalist Christians were burning innocent women at the stake.

This new wave of christo-fascist fanaticism in our country is like some new mob insanity. It is chilling. Cotton Mather is on the loose once more. These fundies may deliberately hurt non christo-fascists because their beliefs are different, and they think that they are doing the "will of God".

Personally, I would never get my goods and/or services from a republican, particularly a republican fundie. The plain and simple fact is:

They might deliberately hurt me because they think they are doing "God's will."

Our resident fundie madman in the WH invaded a sovereign country and killed a whole lot of people because he said it was "God's will".

Any questions?

Druggists refuse to give out pill

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.
snip---
Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041109/ts_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

Campaign To Starve The Beast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2600099&mesg_id=2600099&page=

[fudge stripe cookays]

1. We had another in Fort Worth the other day...

and a rape case in Denton within the last year where the girl was prescribed Emergency contraception and the Eckerd pharmacist would not fill it. Fortunately, she and her friend were able to go to a nearby Walgreen's instead.

The Eckerd's pharmacist was dismissed because of the huge boycott begun locally.

Everyone please continue to let us know of businesses that are either Repuke or GOOD liberal places to send your business. (Zorra's Starve the Beast link, or PM me).

FSC

[Shoeempress]

2. I would think she could also sue for religious discrimination.

[Nordic]

3. notify Code Pink. Seriously

I think they're on the case.

These pharmacists need to be boycotted into oblivion.

They need people protesting outside of them, handing out info, every damn day until they go under.

[katmondoo]

7. Picket them

Believe me, it WORKS. As long as you keep moving and do not block access to the store you can legally picket.

[Nordic]

8. exactly

find code pink in your area:

http://www.codepinkalert.org/Local_CODEPINKs_form.shtml

[Jade Fox]

4. This trend proves that the Right-to-Lifers are really anti-sex.....

They are all about punishing women for having sex. Abortion wouldn't
be an issue if those liberal sluts would just be nice girls and abstain from
sex all together. That's why they shouldn't have birth-contol either.

[Strawman]

34. Yep and they will overreach

Sad as it is they may be able to get away with getting legal persecution on the books for gays or maybe even even stop women in some states from getting abortions for awhile because most people just don't care about protecting the rights of others. But ultimately, these people want to control every detail of everyone's life and bring it into accord with their religious beliefs. That means no sex for pleasure. Good luck getting a majority of people in this country to sign on for that. Once they go there and start pushing too hard, they're walking into their political graveyard, so I'd rather see them try it now and start the inevitable backlash to their bullshit before they do any more incremental damage to the rights of those most vulnerable. Hopefully we can ride the momentum of that backlash tidal wave far enough to undo all the crap they have already done.

[hlthe2b]

5. Boycotting pharmacies and pharmacy chains which hire pharmacists

and allow this to happen is the only way to stop it. If you have reason to believe this has happened in your state, or there are incidents linked to a certain pharmacy, I urge you to write to them, letting them know why you will no longer be using them for ANYTHING.

I think we, as DUers could preemptively contact all chain pharmacies and ask them to put their policy ON THE RECORD-- regarding this issue! I also think we should contact NOW (National Organization of Women) to ask what THEY are doing to counter this! Grassroots efforts are fine, but why are these large established organizations not taking these issues on?

[Zorra]

17. I agree, and you make good points about contacting national organizations.

We need to let the christo-fascists know that they are not going to get our business - "our" meaning a very substantial majority of the national population.

[American Tragedy]

6. How can we nail these people?

I'm not talking about just generally starving the beast, I want to get these guys in particular. I think someone has to systematically remove these radicals from of the pharmaceutical industry, and this administration ain't gonna do it.

[Zorra]

9. We can no longer trust our justice system to uphold the Constitution.

And, IMO, for this reason, we must identify all republican christo-fascist companies and professionals and refuse to use their goods and services.

A Directory of Democratic, Green or liberal independent professionals (such as Pharmacists) and tradespersons would really go a long way in making sure that we are supporting folks that believe in democracy.

[Nordic]

10. do what THEY do. Find out where they live!

and show up at their homes.

[Zorra]

11. But, that might scare innocent children. Do we want to be like them?

I don't want to be like them in any way.

[Nordic]

15. they declared war on us long ago. War means we sink to the

lowest common denominator.

I don't want to be like them either. But I do want to kick their ignorant ASS.

These people need to have some intimidation, some fear, some harrassment.

They deserve it.

Fuck 'em

[Jack Schitt]

12. Birth control prevents conception.

I don't understand why, even pro-lifers, can't grasp that idea. If birth control is used, then there'll likely be no conception. Shouldn't that make the pro-life fundies happy????

Not only does birth control prevent conception, it's also used for various other things. A pharmacist cannot assume it's only for controlling birth.

God damn these fundies.

[pacalo]

14. You're right.

A pharmacist cannot assume it's only for controlling birth.

Women use birth control pills also to regulate their hormone balance.

[Nikia]

16. Some believe that it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting

Some consider that the equivalent of an abortion.
Even if I opposed abortion, I don't find that point of view to be correct at all.
The pill usually suppresses ovulation so that there is no fertilized egg. Taking every pill on time almost guarentees that there will be not be a fertilized egg due to sexual activity. The fact that there are occaisionally pregnancies in women that take the pill suggest that if there is a fertilized egg due to sexual activity that the pill does not guarentee that the egg will not implant.
A fair amount of fertilized eggs do not implant. I have seen differing figures but it is definitely more than half. Eggs that are fertilzed late are more likely to fail to implant. This means that couples who believe in only naturual family planning (having sex when ovulation is not likely to occurr) are probably losing many more fertilzed eggs than women taking the pill.
There are other prescription drugs that could decrease the chances that a fertilized egg would implant or increase the chance of early spontaneous abortions. Should pharmicists who are afraid that they would be causing "an abortion" by prescribing the pill also refuse to dispense these drugs to women of childbearing age.

[pacalo]

13. We're now seeing the fruits of mixing religion with government.

This mad, warped administration has to be removed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. I don't really care.

Choose another drug store. Catholic hospitals don't do abortions, either.

:shrug:

[MissB]

19. It should matter

Or, you should care.

In many areas, there is only one pharmacy. Think rural.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. I live in 'rural' America.

No one lives that far from somewhere else.

[MissB]

22. The more obstacles they throw up

The more difficult it is for people to get birth control. And then there will be more women getting pregnant, and possibly getting abortions.

Look, I could/would drive 100 miles to get birth control if I had to . I have plenty of money for gas. I have plenty of money for contraception. I have plenty of time. Not all women do.

Women should not have to go to another pharmacy to get a prescrition filled.

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. I disagree.

If the pharmacists personal beliefs oppose birth control, then I believe you have no right to impose YOUR beliefs on him/her.

[MissB]

24. If the pharmacist has personal beliefs against certain kinds of medication

Then that person should not be a pharmacist.

Birth control is used for reasons other than to prevent conception. Pharmacists have no right to grill a woman to decide whether the birth control is for non-conception reasons or not.

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. Interesting theory, now back it up with legal citations.

A lot of what we think on a certain subject is not what the law dictates about the same situation. I believe that fundies have as much right to be pharmacists as do anyone else, and if you don't like dealing with a fundie pharmacist, go somewhere else.

:shrug:

On edit: In other words, show me a specific legal duty on the part of the fundie pharmacist to dispense birth-control pills.

[MissB]

30. You may search for your own citations, if you wish

I'm not going to agree that it is okay for a Regressive pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control. Personally, I'm against the idea of allowing religious fundamentalists take over. :shrug:

Not everyone has the option to go elsewhere.

[tigereye]

32. I do think that if someone is hired as a pharmacist

they should dispense whatever medication that their job description requires them to dispense. If you extend this argument, Tony, like the Supreme Court might, if queried,( since I know you are in law school) then by a similar argument, a fundie pharmacist who does not believe in the use of anti-psychotics might also deny a patient the use of these drugs that are required for their mental health, or by the same token, a Christian Scientist might also deny medications since they do not believe in use of medications. The implications of this type of denial of service are too far reaching, I think, for that type of argument. To me, that is not health care.

And the reasons you are taking said medications are also private. :)

[oldcoot]

42. How are women suppose to know what their pharmacists believe?

The women in this article were not expecting to get their prescriptions filled at church pharmacies. Instead, they were going to national chains such as CVS. In one case, the woman was trying to get her prescription filled at a CVS pharmacy when one of its pharmacists refused to fill an order for birth control. Since CVS has no policy against selling birth control pills, this pharmacy would normally be a good pharmacy for women who want birth control pills.

Whether or not the pharmacist has a legal right to refuse to fill an prescription for birth control pills depends upon the state. While the owners of individual pharmacies can decide what products they will or will not sell, their employees do not necessarily have that right. According to the article, one of the "pro-life" pharmacists lost her job with Kmart after she refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills. Unless she successfully sued to get her job back, Kmart obviously had the right to fire her for not doing her job.

While some states are passing laws to "protect the rights" of these so-called pharmacists, I have absolutely no respect for any one who knowingly and willing takes a job at pharmacy that sells birth control pills and then refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills because of their "morality." If they were really that moral, they would not want to work for any business that profits from selling an immoral product.

[stanwyck]

36. How far are you willing to take this?

Do fundamentalist public school teachers get an "out" on teaching aspects of science which contradict their religious beliefs? Will these teachers be allowed to blacklist literature which they feel is religiously inappropriate? How much latitude are you going to give people in their responsibilities, known when they accepted their positions, in the name of the authority of religion over state?

[Zorra]

29. If the pharmacist does not like me and will not sell me medicine that

may save my child's life, do I still not have the right to impose my beliefs on her/him?

Where do you draw the line?

This is why we have seperation of church and state, and laws governing the distribution of medicines:

To prevent religious fundamentalist nutcases from hurting people with their superstitions.

Some of these people let their kids die rather than take them to the doctor because of their religious beliefs.

Is that OK too? Do they have the right to let their children die?

Where do you draw the line?

[mainegreen]

45. Come to maine

In some places, towns are 30 miles apart. The nearest school might be an hour and a half away.

[Lugnut]

20. Since when

Are pharmacists licensed to practice medicine? I would file a formal complaint with the state's licensing board.


On edit: typing error

[0007]

26. This is the United States?

[AmyDeLune]

27. Once they start

refusing to fill one kind of prescription on personal religious/moral grounds, how long before they start refusing others as well?

What if a pharmacist decides that AIDS/HIV is a punishment from God and refuses to fill those prescriptions? Or that organ transplants defy God's will, and refuse to fill those prescriptions?

How long before someone dies for one of these pharmacist's "morals"?

---Amy

[Zorra]

31. Exactly. Very good comparisons. These people are dangerous. n/t

[MountainLaurel]

33. Next up: psychiatric medications

Since most fundies believe that "mental illness" is just a symptom of the selfishness of secular society or caused by a lack of faith.

[noamnety]

28. just a suggestion

If I were really certain I didn't want to have kids for a while, I'd get an IUD - it's good for a decade, roughly (and can be removed at any time). It's pretty easy to see what the agenda is for birth control.

http://ideamouth.com/appointments_and_disappointments.htm#Health

[MountainLaurel]

35. Good idea, but

1. many insurance plans won't cover contraceptive devices.
2. my experience has been that doctors are reluctant to give IUDs to women who haven't borne children.

[Nigel_Tufnel]

37. IUDs are BAD NEWS

They can cause perforations and other damage to your uterus. They also cause inflammation and pelvic inflammatory disease, which can affect your fertility. Heavy bleeding is a common side effect, especially if you haven't borne children. You can also expel the IUD, be unaware of it, and be unprotected! You should definitely do some research before you go for that birth control method...

[noamnety]

38. The new ones are safe and reliable

The dalkon shields had a bad rep in the 70's, and rightfully so.

They have potential side effects, as does the pill - you'd have to look at the risk factors of an individual to see which is best suited to an individual. Heck, you can make the pill sound dreadfully scary too, what with blood clots, strokes, cancer, gallstones, and diabetes. But I really think it's the legacy of the shield which makes women shy away from them.

[Sarbannes Oxley]

39. It may be their right...

I'm not sure, but I believe that a pharmacist/doctor has the right to not do things they are morally opposed to.

Has anyone else heard/read this?

The thing to do would be to take your business to another pharmacy in that case.

[oldcoot]

40. What if the pharmacist decides not to return your prescription?

One of the pharmacists in the article refused to return the prescription to the customer after refusing to fill her prescription. If she does not have her prescription, she could not go to another pharmacy.

[Zorra]

41. Like, uh, refusing to treat black folks because they think it is morally

wrong? Refusing to sell medicine to women because they think it is not a woman's place to make purchases without their husbands consent?

We still have laws against discrimination in the U.S., I believe.

Pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for religious reasons should have their licenses suspended or permanently revoked. These people are a threat to the public well-being.

If they don't want to sell medicine, they should find another line of work.

[Sarbannes Oxley]

43. I'm not arguing what ~should~ be done...

only what the actual legal situation might be.

How could this be construed as a "discimination" case? Your two examples are obvious discrimination: against someone because they are a woman or because they are black. How can one establish discrimination against "birth controllers", for lack of a better name.

If someone were not selling birth control to women while at the same time selling it to men-- we might have a case of discrimination. But not selling birth control to anyone is something of a different nature. I suppose it would be no different than a grocer deciding not to sell alcohol for some personal ethical reason. It may be stupid for business, but is it the grocer's right?

I don't know. All I'm saying is I think I read something about this very issue (pharmacists not selling birth control) several years ago and the main point was that they have that right-- right or wrong, so to speak.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. They do NOT have the right...

to practice medicine without a licensev -- that is in effect what they are doing. I have been given the Pill to treat a fibroid tumor that is pressing on a leg nerve. I am sexually inactive currently, so the medication would not be for birth control.

If a pharmacist were to refuse me my medication because he does not agree with its usehe is acting as my physician.

If he/she should have such problems, they should get the hell out of the field.

[Sarbannes Oxley]

46. Agreed... to a certain point.

I wonder too what someone would be in the business for if they had issues with such situations. Regardless though, pharmacies are private businesses and I presume to sell or not sell whatever they want-- just like a grocery or department store. Again, I'm not saying whether one should agree or disagree with what this pharmacy is doing-- only what the base for a potential legal case might be.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my doctor ordered me to place a hot water bottle over an area of infection-- to reduce potentially dangerous inflammation. I go to my local Target store and they don't sell hot water bottles any longer because they decided just didn't move enough of them. Is Target obliged to sell hot water bottles because doctors sometimes instruct patients to use them?

I know it's a weird example, but I guess I'm wondering if there is an actual legal basis for complaining about this. Is it in fact the law that pharmacies MUST sell birth control?

I will research it again, but as I stated before, I don't think that is the law.

[elehhhhna]

Chemotherapy can render one sterile. Can they refuse that, too?

[tanyev]

47. If a fundie pharmacist owned their own

pharmacy, I can accept them setting their own policy for dispensing drugs. It should be posted, and customers could choose to go there or not. But when they work for chain pharmacies who do dispense birth control pills, I don't understand how they get away with refusing to fill those presciptions. I don't understand why the owners of those pharmacies hire them in the first place. This may still be a consequence of a shortage of pharmacists that I heard about a couple years ago. If there were more pharmacists out there to choose from, people who are not willing to dispense certain drugs would have a harder time finding a job.

[mondo joe]

48. I agree. Own your own, you decide,

I agree - if they own their own pharmacy they can decide what to fill.

But if they don't want to fill evverything in the commercial formulary, they ought not to work there.

[snippy]

49. The Reich Wing has pushed some states to pass laws giving these

pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense the pill. Most states do not have such laws yet. However, the republican party is working on changing that.

If a person has a religious objection to dispensing legal medicines they probably should not become a pharmacist just as an orthodox Jew should not go into sausage making and the Amish should not go into IT. No one has a right to become a pharmacist and no pharmacist has the right to practice medicine.

If a Reich Winger against the pill does become a phamacist, he or she should expect to get fired for this or make arrangements with the employer to allow the pharmacist to avoid filling the prescription so long as another pharmacist is available to fill it.

The democratic party should make this a national political issue.