WE Blog

These people who claim to be pro-birth pharmacists are a walking contradiction. Fact is that contraceptives reduce pregnancy and reduce the need for an abortion. These are the people who are putting money in Tiller’s pocket and at the same time chastizing him. Married women use contraceptives. Contraceptives have been around since before Christ. Let them go forth and multiply, just keep your opinions of my reproduction to yourself!

Women shouldn’t have to go from store to store, especially if that’s the only store in town because of the operators religious beliefs. If you can’t fill a script, you went into the wrong profession. It isn’t your job to judge.

Its like a Jehovah’s Witness surgeon….denying you blood because of their religious beliefs. A patient has the right to healthcare, and healthcare includes contraceptives.

Randy points out the great paradox of many insurance companies- men having sex and treatment for ED- that’s accepted and good, but its on the women to abstain if they don’t want to have children.

FilmFan- here is a good article for you to read. The most comprehensive study of HOW emergency contraceptives work….and since EC is just birth control pills I’m going to believe that they likely work the same way in women who use BC.

http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/popbriefs/pb11(2)_3.html

Another thing that should be addressed is certain ER doctors who refuse to prescribe EC post rape, or post ‘contraceptive accident’. I had an actual aquaintence who went to her ER for an accident- and the doctor there denied her a script back when it was still by script only. She ended up shelling out over 150 bucks by the time she was able to get it and lost precious time. Oh and that’s another thing…it still isn’t available to underage girls or in towns where the pharmacy won’t carry them. ER’s need to stock EC.

Well I know my pharmacy is in close relationship with my doctor, if my doc prescribes something, and I discuss it with the pharmacist, the pharmacist will call the doctor to suggest an alternative, such as cost or what have you. There have been more times than one where a doctor prescribed something and when discussing with the pharmacist a symptom, found out that it was indeed a side effect of the medication and the doctor had no idea.

I think the drug reps will eventually get to the pharmacists if they start being the ones to pick which med. Note that now, drug reps concentrate on the doctors and not the pharmacists who really should be in the know on the medication.

So a pharmacist who doesn’t “believe in” the germ theory of disease wouldn’t have to dispense antibiotics either?

Or, a pharmacist who believes depression is caused by demonic possession could dispense Proverbs instead of Prozaz?

And a pharmacist who believes cervical cancer is the product of promiscuity wouldn’t be required to formulate chemo solutions?

If pharmacists are more bent on saving souls than lives, they should get behind a pulpit instead of a pharmacy counter. They have absolutely no right to interfere with decisions made by a doctor and patient.

I’m sorry, but pharmacists work under the orders of doctors. If he has a moral problem filling a doctor’s prescription, he can take it up with the doctor, who is the ultimate authority regarding who gets what medicine. If the pharmacist still won’t fill the doctor’s prescription, he should be sued for malpractice, and get the hell out of the pharmacy business. His job is to fill precriptions, not monitor his customer’s adherance to christian morality.

It is a business like any other, they can sell or not sell whatever they want. If I owned a hardware store and decided I didn’t want to sell red handled hammers, I don’t have to. My business, my rules.

Box, viagra doesn’t restore normal function, it creates an exaggerated response, and can be very deadly. So you’re advocating the death of men? What was your response yesterday, that God is in control of people’s lives- perhaps God doesn’t want these people getting a hard on.

Oh how quickly the hipocricy comes into view! Perhaps if God gives you a limp one, or Measles and you become sterile, you shouldn’t be having sex.

See, we can play this game.

Bottom line, birth control doesn’t kill life, but if you prefer abortion… death by starvation…death by abuse, I suppose you could also say God wouldn’t have let that happen if it wasn’t meant to happen.

You can believe all you want, but as I’ve shown clearly the research doesn’t support that EC kills a life.

I agree with Beber, pharmacists that refuse to fill medication for women’s reproductive health need to be required to put up big signs expressing that.

This is too easy. Go to another pharmacy. One’s not close by? Drive farther. Have your script mailed. We shouldn’t force a business to do what we want. It’s the businesses decision.

We celebrated our “freedom” last weekend?
Humbug!

In an EC case, one doesn’t have the luxury of time to get their script.

And we shouldn’t have to pay to drive to another city to get what is rightfully ours.

By teh way, accessiblity is why I have my son.
But mine was a snowstorm that prevented me from obtaining my birth control.

Pharmacies ar private business. As such, unless they are violating the law, they have a right to carry whatever drugs they choose to, or choose to not carry. Their customers have a right to go somewhere else. It’s called freedom.

Exactly fleet, access to birth control is NOT the reason Politmom had a child, IT WAS HER CHOICE to have unprotected sex.

I love it. We don’t have to be the weaker sex, we can be strong, and yet we have this

“irresponsible men to pressure women into sex.”

If you are so strong, how can men somehow “pressure” you into having unprotected sex?

A woman keeping her legs closed, worked wonders as far as birth control, at least in my experience.

I think it was woody allen who said that his girlfriend was on oral contraception. He asked for sex and she said no.

Sorry, don’t know why the double post

It was my choice to have sex. I WANTED to have sex, I just didn’t want a child to come of it.

Why, other than the fact that I was unprotected, should I have said no? I realize the circumstances were beyond my control as far as obtaining the bc. But I was engaged, I had no reason to say no whatsoever.

I was a few days away from the ‘absolutely no’ period of time during my cycle. I didn’t realize at that time that after going off birth control is a highly fertile time.

And I chose life. and we know how that turned out.

If a storm knocks out the power/phones to the Circle Cinema or Michelle’s Beach House, can the electrician and the telephone company say “oh we don’t repair things for sinners” and refuse them service? This is about the stupidist thing I have ever heard of and it should not be tolerated for one second.

Nobody has rights to the labor of another person. It is really just that simple.

It is also well established in this country that you only have the right to life-saving treatment. In such a case I’m sure you would be in the hospital and not in line at the pharmacy arguing about the moral implications of the medication.

“Kev
Posted July 7, 2008 at 9:20 am | Permalink
If a storm knocks out the power/phones to the Circle Cinema or Michelle’s Beach House, can the electrician and the telephone company say “oh we don’t repair things for sinners” and refuse them service? This is about the stupidist thing I have ever heard of and it should not be tolerated for one second.”

Sorry, apples and oranges. The electric company is a state regulated monopoly. There is no alternative. As to the phone–I believe there are altenatives, but I don;t know for sure. Seems like i have seen advertising for same.
Mostly, soounds like whining to me. “I want it. You must give it to me”
I guess Freedom of choice doesn;t extend to anyone but pregnant females.

Box, you consider it dysfunction, but its a normal part of life and sometimes disease causes that to happen…again, GOD made it happen to keep the lesser men from procreating. Heh.

It’s real simple, if you run a pharmacy and choose to deny certain medications, that is your right, but PUBLISH that information and POST it on your door.

Then those of us that object can boycott your business, ask our like minded friends friends to also do business elsewhere.

Even if we have no need for those products that you refuse to sell, we’ll go elsewhere. Post on your door that you refuse to sell medications that violate your principles and we will take a principled stand to deny you our business.

Perhaps when you have lost more than fifty percent of your business, you can choose between your “principles” and going out of business.

Isn’t it arrogant and elitist for a pharmacy employee or owner to substitute their judgement for that of the customer or the customer’s doctor?

And with the emergency contraceptives, time is of the essence. My local Walgreens on Harry and Broadway had a guy who refused to give a woman her Plan B prescription. Wichitans picketed the store to draw attention to this failure of the store to serve its customer’s needs.

Company policy – amazingly – allows an employee to refuse to fill a lawful prescription, but the customer must be given a reference to someone willing to perform their duties.

So the end result is inconvenience and increased costs and perhaps some outrage and added trauma for the woman, if not worse.

“Do not misread my position”

It was a general comment and not directed at anyone in particular.

Political_mama
Posted July 7, 2008 at 9:43 am | Permalink
Box, you consider it dysfunction, but its a normal part of life and sometimes disease causes that to happen…again, GOD made it happen to keep the lesser men from procreating. Heh.
—

Excellent point. If men took far greater personal responsibility for the health of their own circulatory systems, there wouldn’t even be a market for Viagra/C*alis/etc.

That that ridiculous drug found a market is directly related to the choices enough American males make about diet and lifestyle.

enough = too many

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

From PHARMACIST CODE OF ETHICS

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/Pharmacist_Oath_and_Code_of_Ethics.html

A pharmacist has the right to his own beliefs. That said, it is his/her responsibility to do their JOB correctly. It is NOT their responsibility to diagnose
nor write prescriptions NOR it is their job to pass judgment on others. IF they are going to be a pharmacist, and work as a pharmacist, then they should do their job without prejudices. so fill the prescriptions as written and keep their opinions to themselves. And if you come upon a pharmacy that allows the pharmacists to not fill a legal prescription, then boycott that pharmacy and tell them why you are doing it. IF it the only phamacy in the area, then complain to the Medical board of your state.

I guess I come down on the side of markets in this case.

Here’s the thing. While it could take a few years (during which time females with no option except the local pharmacy would or could suffer at the hands of the local pharmacist’s personal ethos), in time the local pharmacy would be writing its own death certificate.

Why? Because companies like Walgreens and Rite Aid will figure out a way to serve legal medicines to all qualified consumers. I figure it would take a couple years before some “small-town Walgreens” business model would take out the local guy. This market is has a couple insurmountable things going for it:
1. It’s huge, the market for female birth control.
2. It’s to society’s benefit to prevent unwanted pregancies, especially if they could ultimately result in abortion.

“1. It’s huge, the market for female birth control.

2. It’s to society’s benefit to prevent unwanted pregancies, especially if they could ultimately result in abortion.”

I have to agree to both counts. Notice, I did not argue that pharmacists should not fill any particular legal prescription. My only argument is that is is their business, and their right to choose.

Perhaps a filled prescription of the ‘morning after’ pill should come with a phone number for the local plumber that happens to be pro-fetus clog removal. That way your toilet will remain clog free.

Remember how the conservatives bellered when muslim taxi drivers refused rides to people carrying liquor?

Regular-do you have to be so crude? Damn.

P_mama,
You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
I am a BIG proponent of individual freedom and do not feel a private business or independent pharmacist should be force into dispensing thing they one DO NOT STOCK, as they don’t stock every drug as is, and dispense something they have moral objections to.
We can disagree while still respecting the other person and be civil….something sometimes absent here.

Here is the thing. My org a few years back …actually I did a lot of the legwork for this venture personally= we went around to all the pharmacies in our county to find which stocked EC and which did not.

We took that information and attempted to have it printed in the local newspaper.

Guess what? They would’nt print it.

Political Mama-

Your point being? Recently an organization that I belong to had some major news for it’s type of organization. I sent a press release to the Eagle, and they declined, because they were not doing any features on that subject.
There are lots of ways of getting the word out. THe local paper is only one.

You know full well if the situation were reversed that we’d have an entire different conversation right now.

LJ’s viagra is refused to be filled. You know he’d be angry.

Perhaps that is what we need to do, start refusing certain medications to men.

It is the pharmacists job to provide legal and safe medications to his/her clients. It isn’t his/her job to tell them what they need or don’t need based on his/her beliefs.

jehovah’s witness refuses to fill prescription for blood thinners (that wouldn’t happen, but imagine if it did).

“LJ’s viagra is refused to be filled. You know he’d be angry.”

Just because I disagree with you is no need for a personal attack. Don;t need Viagra, and if a pharmacist doesn;t want to carry it, it’s his perogative.

Wow pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of their own personal beliefs. What is the world coming to, I don’t think it is their job to judge people and to decide who gets what medication. If they wanted that kind of authority they should have become doctors because they are the ones who decide if a patient gets meds or not. Pharmacys are in business to fill the scripts that a real doctor prescribes not decide who should get them and who shouldn’t based on what they believe in. I know a guy who owns a liquor store and doesn’t drink, should he refuse to sell alcohol to his customers and insist they drink non alcoholic beverages just because he does not partake. No, it’s not his job to decide if other people can or can not drink.

LJ I don’t know if you use viagra or not, and it wasn’t a personal attack just an example.

What’s so hard about going to another pharmacy?

You people are all about me me me.
Go somewhere else for your purchases. He won’t get your dollars and you’ll get the drugs you want. Everybody’s happy.

“Freedom’s just another word for doing as I say.”

Do you not see your own hypocrisy here?

My response is a reaction.

To people doing exactly what it is you scolded me for.

A pharmacist is a dispenser of drugs and medications approved by the FDA.

He or she is NOT a moral arbiter invested with the capacity to tell other people how to live.

Consider the slope and scope of allowing otherwise.

There are Christians who believe that ANY form of medical intervention is at odds with God.

Hey maybe they’ll get them a couple of hundred young, similarly ill minded folks and send them to pharmacy school.

Then when someone goes to get their insulin or other medication, said “pharmacist” will just give a disapproving, judgemental scowl and hand them a bible.

The irony is extremely rich when it comes to Viagra. That’s where the RR’s hypocrisy tends to glow like a Timex under a black light.

RR:
Only women who are sexually irresponsible need access to BC. In the words of g.raston, “if they’d just keep their d*mn legs together” this wouldn’t be a problem.

But men don’t have to be responsible for their own circulatory health, no sirree. Glug animal fat like there’s no tomorrow, hell with exercise, I ain’t seein’ no damn doctor. It ain’t our fault when our circulatory systems are so junked up that we couldn’t get near wood if our lives depended on it. Who cares though, we have Viagra.

Bottom line: only women have to be responsible when it comes to personal health. That just ain’t a man’s job.

:roll:

My personal thought, for those interested, is that the pharmacist should fill such prescriptions.

However, overrriding that is that it is their business, and they should have the ability to choose what services they offer, just as any other business. Including doctors.

“Freedom’s just another word for doing as I say.”

And, apparantly, the right to act in conformity with one’s conscience. They reserve that right only to themselves.

Well…. lets see a green minded gas station owner, who refuses to sell gasoline to gas guzzling SUV’s and over-sized Pickem-ups… Hey, it is his personal beliefs…. How far to the ridiculous can we stretch this??

Pharmacists have to study all of the meds in their pharmacy programs, to get the R.Ph. degree…. Lets see these Pro Life Pharmacists refuse to take the courses about Reproductive drugs in their schools… And let them try to get their licenses…

And that isnt any more stupid or irrelevant than Seven’s dumbkopf comment above… :-)

See, here’s how it becomes very easy to conclude that the RR’s real goal has nothing to do with human life per se. The real goal is to control the sexual activities of Americans. That’s the only real human life they’re intrested in.

Here’s how the reasoning goes. Nearly all on the RR argue that no woman has an absolute legal right to an abortion. Now we come to 2 subsets of the RR. Those in the first group (I’ll call it group A), like seven above, argue that a business has an absolute right to sell whatever it wants, even if the sale of certain items, like female BC, could arguably lead to fewer abortions. Some on the RR argue that BC should be outlawed, too (group B).

For those of the RR who belong to both groups A and B above, it’s obvious that preventing abortion ain’t the goal. After all, denying BC will lead to more abortions. Therefore, respect for human life per se is not their real concern. Controlling sexual activity is the goal for those in both A and B.

The question I have is this. How big is the intersection of A and B? My feeling is that this group is shrinking in size overall…but if you were to go by some posters here you might conclude that it’s growing in Kansas.

See PMama what did I tell you??? The agenda of the RR is FAR more than just anti-abortion… And hey, they just havent gotten to Viagra yet… But I have seen some of their “thinking” points on male enhancement… That should really hit the fan!!

Because enema, there is only ONE pharmacy in my town. This is Kansas, that is true of So many in Kansas.

Say the pharmacy in the next town doesnt’ carry them either…then what? How far should a woman have to drive in order to exercise her rights?

How far do you have to drive to exercise your rights?

I know people drive here from clear out of state to exercise their right to abortion.

Just do the right thing for crying out loud and stock the pills. Case closed.

#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 7, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink

So which is it, “Regular? –

Were you “…addressing the realities,” or going for the “reality” of crude dark humor?

What a sad sack of slime you must be.
————————-

Just addressing the sycophantic, shiftless sponges of society who want everything to be served to them on a silver platter.

Not really, PMama. They want to make it illegal to disagree with their “interpretation”. That’s no joke either!!

“Pedant” notes –

“…it’s obvious that preventing abortion ain’t the goal. After all, denying BC will lead to more abortions. Therefore, respect for human life per se is not their real concern. Controlling sexual activity is the goal…”

Always has been.

The macro issue is to keep women in “their place.”

Barefoot and pregnant.

Not out taking away “men’s” jobs and salaries.

Second-class citizens.

Pictures of fetuses just raise emotions and bucks for advocates of Illegal Abortion.

The macro issue is to keep women in “their place.”

Barefoot and pregnant.
————————
No, just bent over and willing.

(more crude humor from the dark side)

I already posted where you can read about “them” Nathan. Forget your reading glasses??

Chas,

I have no idea who you are talking about. If you want to provide a link, please do so.

Giving me instructions on a google search would simply be classic Chas style where you can say anything I find is not what you were talking about.

So who is this “they” you are talking about?

Is it kind of like those shadow government people you were talking about?

As one of my High School Chemistry teachers used to say about the word “it” I will apply to the word they:

They are over there.
They are in the room.
They are across the street.
They are here blogging.
They are in your home.
They are friends with your family.
They are EVERYWHERE.
etc…etc…etc…

They are real!

LOL

Well ya know what?

The flying spaghetti monster JUST touched me with his noodley appendage.

He enlightened me that what that pharmacist did was not cool and allowed that maybe I should go over to her house and eat all her food and poo in her rec room.

I may have lost something in the translation.

It was either that or “burn the witch!”

The comedy stylings of “Regular” —

The macro issue is to keep women in “their place.”

Barefoot and pregnant.
————————
No, just bent over and willing.

Like Will Rogers said, “The problem with Republicans is every time they tell a ‘joke’ they sound serious, and every time they say something serious it’s a joke.”

NATHAN you stupid idiot >>>>

I NAMED the two groups upthread… GOOGLE them, and you can read for yourself what their intended agenda is… So, are you trying to tell the Blog you dont know how to use GOOGLE??? or what??

I am not doing your home work for you… If you had half the brain you think you have, you would know what those groups are without throwing your little hissy fit…

Your idiotic pattern of “40″ questions about something that is posted, is no longer acceptable…. At least not to ME…

Happy GOOGLING!!! :roll:

Chas,

I know how to use Google. It appears as if you will continue to play your little games here.

Either you have a source or you don’t and you didn’t post one, so you don’t.

So who is this “they” you are talking about?

ASKED AND ANSWERED NATHAN!!!

PM, life is a lot less scary when you step out of the Kook Corral.

““militant fundamentalist Christians”

I must have missed these people in uniform with M-16’s and fortified churches. Or is this a Liberal scare tactic?
—

More often than not, it’s true: scratch a lefty, find a totalitarian.

“GMC70″ lies –

“Dominionists are little more than a few nuts….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

Well, at least a few interesting things have come from this thread. We now know that boxic has to get his little blue manhood out of a bottle, which allows him to pass on genes he shouldn’t. We know that reggie needs to require women to have sex with him, as it’s the only way he can get any. We also know that fundies will do or say anything, no matter how untrue or how much pain they cause others, to force everyone to obey their immoral version of morality (of course we knew that already).
Back in the 1940’s and ’50’s, pharmacists were claiming they had the right to refuse to sell antibiotics and other life-saving medicines to black people. Seems they’ve resurrected the same old arguments to deny women their rights. Amazing how recycled stupidity has become.

Since most of this “my choice” arguments centers on the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing abortion as a “right,” and since the same Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is indeed, also an individual right — Should Wal-Mart be allowed to choose NOT to sell handguns in their gun department, because of the wishes of their owners?

chas is gonna blow! Everybody get down!
I think I saw him up in the clock tower!

More loving words from the minister.

Chas, your ‘male enhancement’ order is ready for pickup at Walgreens.

Chas,

Here is the problem.

What group calls themselves the “Christian Nationlists” or “The Dominionists?”

What is the definition of a “Dominionist” and a “Christian Nationlist?”

The simple truth is that you would be hard pressed to find many who call themselves either of those names.

So who is this “they” you are talking about?

One has no expectation to speak nice words to the face of Evil, Nathan.

“At least as many degrees as you”

TeeHee.

Chas, the comparison is simple. Both are legal. Both have been affirmed by the Supreme Court as a person’s rights. Both are challenged by people who don’t like them. Both stores have refused to sell something that they, the storeowners feel is not moral. Both have the capacity to stop a life. I’m just saying what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

No, GMC, that is not a fair analogy!!

It is however, a terribly poor fallacy!!

Correlation does not equal causality!!

FALSE Logic

“Nathaniel” comes up with this beaut –

“What group calls themselves the “Christian Nationlists” or “The Dominionists?”

What is the definition of a “Dominionist” and a “Christian Nationlist?”

Click the link I provided up-thread, “Nathaniel.” It’s kind of a long read. I hope your lips don’t get tired.

“…you would be hard pressed to find many who call themselves either of those names.”

“Dominionism” is a theological/political strategy masquerading as a philosophy.

Read the link and you’ll come face-to-face with the memes and rhetoric of just about every right wing-nut who post to this forum. Word…for…word.

And “GMC70″ comes forth and claims the dominionists are just a fringe group of internet crazies. Either that makes all you tighty-righties a part of the lunatic fringe of CONservatism in “GMC70’s” view, or you’re a force to be reckoned with.

Because, k’know, you’re crazy.

I used to think you guys were stupid.

Nah. Not some of you.

Some of you know things or read things and think about things and share those things in good faith and a passion to share.

(Not to say there aren’t some CONs who simply aren’t the brightest pencils in the deck. Some of you guys — hey! I just might be getting to who “they” is! — are the rats of Hamlin following the Pied Piper.)

“If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… you’ve got a duck.”

“Both have been affirmed by the Supreme Court as a person’s rights.”

The Court just ruled on guns in DC…

I dont recall that the Court ever ruled on Birth Control?? Thats one fallacy there…

The BIG fallacy is that WalMart, last I knew, SELLS BC pills in their Pharmacy…

“Both have the capacity to stop a life.”

So does Clorox Bleach — Are the moralists objecting to the sale of Clorox Bleach??

The FALLACY is there… It even has a formula… Off the top of my head, I am not remembering the equation….

Mostly it has to do with correlation and causality…. Check that out…. IT is a BOGUS analogy!!

Furthermore, I dont even know that WalMart does NOT sell guns… Again, last I knew, they DO sell guns…

BTW, Birth Control is not Ex Cathedra in the Catholic Church. It is only Papal Opinion… BIG difference there….

Chas,

Bayonets stop life as well.

IF you would try reading, MarthG, I said the Analogy is not fair…. That was in direct response to GMC claiming that it was a fair analogy…. Try using ALL the words if you want to make a quote… ok??

AND…. A Fallacy does NOT have to contain false statements in order to be a fallacy…

Look it up….

Birth control has been argued by some as an extension of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision on abortion. Even so, discount it, and focus for the moment on “morning after” pills, which ARE designed to circumvent nature. WalMart probably sells these, as far as I know. I also KNOW they have chosen to quit selling handguns, as a moral choice of the store’s owners.
I’m not talking about Vatican viewpoints. That discourse points us outside of this discussion.

The bottom line is that you rebel against a pharmacy choosing to sell pills based on their moral choice, but argue that WalMart should be allowed a similar choice in their gun department.

For the record, I support the business to decide what they want to do. I do have problems in “closed” businesses, where no reasonable alternative exists, such as Muslim cabbies refusing to take airport fares for people carrying alcohol. Those people have no where else to turn for a ride. I respect WalMart’s decision, there are plenty of other places to get a pistol. If there were only ONE pharmacy in a large radius, then I would expect them to meet the needs of the total community. On the other hand, in an urban area where the nearest alternative is 5 min’s away, then I would have to support the business owner’s decision.

Shoe
That
Feable
Unicorn
….before he comes up lame….

“So what is the position on those who would refuse to sell antibiotics to blacks?”
—–
No one is doing that.

Political_mama
Posted July 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
So what is the position on those who would refuse to sell antibiotics to blacks? Should they just find another pharmacy? Or is that somehow different?

Yeah, somehow different. Like against the law. lots of laws.

Chas, let’s get off the logic kick for a second. You argue that pharmacies should NOT be allowed to refuse to sell these items; yet you also tell me that WalMart has the “right” not to sell handguns, a legal device, because of their moral position on the item.

Please provide your argument as to how one should not be allowed, and the other can be allowed.

We’re past the point of “Egad! Guns are BAD!” hysteria. Please argue this from a free market and legal items perspective.

So, now, you want to change the focus from Birth Control pills (which were in usage FAR before Roe V. Wade) to Morning After Pills… which are NOT abortion pills… If you want to talk about abortion pills, you need to deal with RU238…

So, now, which one do you want to try to deal with??

WalMart decides not to sell GUNS… So what?? What does that have to do with a woman’s reproductive system??

You are building a false argument… plain and simple… One argument has to do with selling guns…. the other has to do with health care… Please to show ANY way shape or form where selling GUNS, and selling Pharmaceuticals have anything in common except that they are both a part of retail sales???

Hey, I will even give you one to work on…. Will the Pharmacy that refuses to sell Birth Control pills sell a Rx for Morhine??? Or, hey, how about Insulin??? Thats a major life/death drug….

Chas
Posted July 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

1) Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

If A is true, then B is true.
B is stated to be true.
Therefore, A must be true.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.
—————————

Chas posts bullsh yt, then his posted lies are true.
Chas states his lies are true.
Therefore Chas’s bullsh yt is true.

Yeah, nothing like substituting bullsh yt for truth.

No, MartyG, I wont argue your ridiculous point with you… It is a PHONY argument, AND, it is highly disingenuous… Come up with something in the proper realm of analogy, and then maybe we can talk…

See, WalMart sells Birth Control Pills…. They also do not sell GUNS, apparently…
They also do not sell Cadillacs, or Chevrolets…

However, they DO sell car batteries….

Please try to keep yourself focused…. ok??

The comparison of pharmaceutical drugs to firearms is well….weak.

No one prescribes firearms.

When these pharmacists choose not to dispense any given prescribed medication, they are over ruling not just their customer but the Doctor who prescribed the medication as well.

That’s jumping “rank” as it were.

If they cannot sell certain legal drugs, they are in the wrong line of work.

BTW, the lady in the lead article said she couldnt sell the BC pills, because it was against her religion… She doesnt believe that she can do that because of her membership in the Catholic Church… I think we got to leave the Vatican in here… if you want to be Genuine in your argument…

So far as I can determine, WalMart is not refusing to sell Guns because of a religious belief… I can only think of a few denominations that would object to members owning/buying/selling guns as a part of their belif system… and I dont think the owners of WalMart belong to any of them…

#
Anon1
Posted July 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

And Regular, your little off-color, disgusting jokes line you right up there with the pictures of dead babies on the side of the Operation Rescue vans. If you are going to make crude jokes, at least get your facts straight first. Birth control, and emergency contraceptives, do NOT cause abortions. What they do is PREVENT the possibility of implantation. If the egg doesn’t implant, a pregnancy does not result. An abortion would be ending an existing pregnancy.
——————————
Anon1,

Blow it out your ballast tanks.

When I want your opinion on my dark humor, I’ll have it beaten out of you.

Chas, I’m not being disingenuous. WalMart has for years sold guns, ammo, target, etc, in their gun department. Only recently did they decide to quit selling handguns, and they did so out of moral grounds, not business grounds. They used to sell a LOT of handguns. They bowed to the political pressures of the anti-gun world. That’s their choice, and though I don’t like it, I support it. Back to my original point, why can’t a pharmacy make the same choice?
Blue Jay, just because a doctor wrote the script, doesn’t give the person the right to demand it. A prescription is just an authorization to purchase something that is otherwise not sold to the public. This is not the military, there is no “rank” to jump, and a doctor can’t “order” a pharmacist to do anything.

As a longtime Right Wing-Nut, I propose –

A Pharmacist Should Have The Right to Shoot Any Woman Who Presents a Prescription for Birth Control!”

It’s the pharmacist’s 2nd Amendment right!

It’s “protecting an innocent life!”

If you take away the pharmacist’s right to protect an innocent life from its potential murderer, you are a traitor!

They should rig all those machines in bus station men’s rooms with a bomb, so anyone who tries to buy a condom is murdered on the spot! They’re murderers, I tell ya!

These people aren’t “pro-life.” They’re Pro-Illegal-Abortion!

And they’re crazy.

Actually Chas, I think his argument is somewhat relative.

However, what he is missing is that you never said that it was okay for Wal-Mart not to sell guns. In fact, you posted that you believed they still did.

On another point, do you not suppose Wal-Mart’s decision to stop selling guns had anything to do with the lawsuit filed against them by the family of a women who (if i remember all this correctly) purchased a gun from Wal-Mart (legally, mind you, the courts found the employee followed all proper gun sales procedures) and then killed herself with it? Seems that is a bit different from a question of not choosing to sell something due to personal moral beliefs.

Now mind you, according to my religious beliefs, I should not believe in birth control either. HOWEVER, I am a realist enough to know that there are PLENTY of people out there who need to be using birth control, and likely will not stop having sex due to a lack of accessibility to birth control. Great. What do you suppose will happen when those people do get pregnant? And increase in the number of abortions that those BC pills could have prevented, an increase in families on welfare, an increase in child abuse and neglect cases and a general drain on our economy? All of which could have been prevented if their pharmacist had provided a prescription given them by their doctor? Doctors don’t prescribe BC or EC willnilly and without full investigation of the facts AND of whether or not they think it is appropriate.

Yes, of course WalMart must be licensed by the state to sell any guns, pistols or rifles. As to the Board of Healing Arts? No, I would expect not, but what does that have to do with anything?

I’m still waiting for some reply other than words like “bogus,” and “drive a semi through it.” How can you defend one’s business to choose what it sells, yet somehow, this birth-control business trumps the law, and cannot be denied? Please explain.

“When I want your opinion on my dark humor, I’ll have it beaten out of you.”

More threats of violence from McCluer – perhaps he is a little testy today – maybe he isn’t so regular.

OKay, littlejohn, but now you are back to arguing semantics. You must admit, the majority of dr’s are not going to go running around prescribing medications their patients don’t need, if for no other reason than to protect their own hind end. They don’t make money off of the prescriptions, so there would be no reasoning for it…

I didn’t say that your argument was wrong, nor did I get negative on you. I simply stated that I held a different belief. There’s no reason to start piling on ridiculous statments like other posters on here are won’t to do. I know you are above that. But blanket statements like the one above are treading dangerously close to a line, don’t you think?

ANon1

Sorry, I was not trying to go negative, or start piling on “ridiculous statements” Unfortunately, I do know of doctors (because I know the patients) that prescribe whatever without investigation. I have no real idea why. I have known pill junkies that could get whatever painkillers they wanted from their doctor, by a simple phone call. Of course the patient was lying, but there was no investigation. And there are unscrupulous doctors. Consider the guy that gave Elvis all those scrips. Anyway, I did not mean to make any blanket statement.
I think it is okay to hold a different belief than others. That really is my point . I am sorry that my post seemed otherwise. Peace

who thinks it’s possible she could become pregnant…sorry.

I’m pretty sure a pharmacist has the choice not to carry some brands and have a preference to sell other brands.

If the pharmacist doesn’t want to carry a brand that for instances markets a ‘morning after pill’, who is going to tell him/her that he/she can’t?

Telling a privately owned pharmacy what to carry is wrong and possibly illegal.

Some pharmacies don’t carry my particular mix of insulin, should I sue them or put them on a ban list just because they don’t?

I don’t think so. I know which pharmacies carry it and go to them to purchase it.

BTW, I could get insulin for free at the base, but they don’t carry that mix prescribed by the Physician. Too bad for me, but I go to Walgreens and pay the co-payment through my insurance to pick up then insulin.

It’s that simple, really it is.

Approved for Over the Counter sale, don’t forget…
Pharmacy access to emergency contraception (EC) is currently available in more than 30 countries. In these countries, women are able to get EC faster because they are not required to have a prescription.

Recognizing the importance of pharmacy access to emergency contraception here in America, pharmacists in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington can become certified and trained to provide Plan B directly to patients. The requirements for certification vary from state to state.

From: http://www.go2planb.com/ForPharmacists/DispensingPlanB/DirectAccessStates.aspx

I have attempted to fill prescriptions before at a local pharmacy and was told that they don’t stock it. I then found another pharmacy that did stock it and would sell it to me.

Should I have screamed that they were denying me my civil rights. If a pharmacy refuses to fill a prescription it probably doesn’t even stock that paticular medication. What then would I gain by standing there while an unprofessional pharmacist yelled at me while a crowd lined up behind me.

Did my feet stop working?

Since we are discussing sexual health and reproductive issues, I just came across this site:
/www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_data/states/kansas.html

“The United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the industrialized world. Half of the six million pregnancies that occur among American women each year are unintended; of these, 1.3 million end in abortion.”

Many interesting Kansas statistics…

If a doctor prescribes a medication and the only source of that medication refuses to fill that prescription, isn’t that an example of a pharmacist attempting to over-rule the doctor; in short, an attempt to practice medicine without a license?

As a private business, okay.

A pharmacist takes a moral stand and refuses to vend birth control.

The marketplace would probably hand the pharmacists their comeuppance. But there are plenty of small towns that are virtual monopolies.

It’s not all that unusual that physicians vend medications from their offices. My family doctor when I was a kid did it simply because he resented that the local pharmacies were taking 400% mark-ups for drugs, simply for counting pills. He sold most of his prescriptions at cost. He told me he wrote prescriptions only for those patients he thought might not pay their doctor bills. :-)

Most MDs, after all, took all the chemistry classes it takes to get a pharmacist license. Most don’t bother to take the test to become dispensers of prescriptions, but it’s well within their skill-set.

Choosing to be a “pro-life pharmacy” is probably a marketing decision for small communities in which it might gain favor. I’d love to be a competitor of such a business. But how many hogwash towns in western Kansas can support two pharmacies? I’m confident my pharmacy would but Mr. Self-Righteous out of business, but it might take a while.

There are other better investments.

Like, say, tattoo removal centers for the soon-to-be middle aged X and Y generation.

“That thing on my hips? It’s the Chinese character for ‘I was drunk.’”

“Like, say, tattoo removal centers for the soon-to-be middle aged X and Y generation.

“That thing on my hips? It’s the Chinese character for ‘I was drunk.’””

Now that’s funny.I don;t care who you are. And in some cases of friends of mine, sadly true.

Pedant-
I guess my argument would have to be based on availability. If there is another pharmacy available, then maybe okay. I have a different thought process on availability than many here. I live more than 20 miles from any pharmacy, so “the only one in town” doesn’t mean much to me. But, as previously posted, your argument makes much sense. I will have to more thoroughly ponder a decision to change or not change my position.

Am I correct that the Plan B emergency contraceptive is NOT available in Kansas as an over the counter product?

I don’t know who makes a policy like that… Isn’t the product approved by the FDA as over the counter??

I have not found the answers online …

MartyG
Posted July 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
…Why should we impose some kind of demand on the free market system? If the “state” wants to demand that, then let the state provide the prescriptions.
—

Yeah, in a roundabout way I think that’s where this is headed.

I was going to suggest that such “right to life” pharmacies agree to relinquish the rights to sell certain FDA-approved prescriptions. The relinquishment would be remedy to their decision to selectively serve patients who hold legal prescriptions.

But that’s just another way of giving the state more power to regulate…which is just another way of saying “the state provides the prescriptions.”

Morning-after pills such as Plan B are not just a contraceptive. They are a dangerous overdose of a daily contraceptive drug – which requires a prescription – that can act as an abortifacient, sometimes causing the early death of a fertilized human embryo. Conception can occur within 24 hours of coitus, but the abortifacient can cause the death of the living human embryo up to 3 days or more after, although the effectiveness at preventing pregnancy is much less after 24 hours.
There can be no enforced sales or participation is such early abortifacient “treatments” – no more than enforced participation in surgical abortions by pharmacists or any other medical professionals.

“For the record, birth control, in 99.99999% of the cases, is a choice, not a life-saving demand.”

That is a very precise calculation, I must say! :D

Let’s assume a more reasonable number is 99.99% (humor me, I ain’t asking you for sources here).

For that (statistical) one in every 10,000 patients for whom birth control is not “candy or cigarettes,” what standard of duty does the pharmacist owe the patient with a legal prescription? None, even though the patient holds a legal prescription which may save her life?

Personally, I think California seems to have the most reasonable solution. Namely, if you as a pharmacist won’t personally write the scrip, fine. Have somebody else on duty write it or refer the patient to someone who will.

Pedant, like you, I could endorse the California model. I spoke earlier about the remote location, i.e. unusual circumstances in that regard.
After over an hour on this, I think the point here is that somehow, having a prescription gives some the reason to make “demands.” Especially birth control, which we both agree, is MOSTLY an elective behavior.
I started this thread to point out that just having a “right” to something (guns) doesn’t make it demandable in the marketplace. The free market (as opposed to a closed market) will sell what they want (legally) and choose what they don’t want to sell. To argue otherwise, as Chas says, is “disingenuous!”

#
TomPaine
Posted July 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

How many pharmacist owned pharmacies are their? Most would seem to be large corporate entities walgreens, walmart, riteaide, target ect and most all them wouldn’t allow a employee to unilaterally refuse to serve a customer
———————-
Mebbe so, mebbe not.

It depends if the opportunity is afforded to the pharmacist being hired to make amendments to their conditions of employment based on moral objections.

If Walgreens has no such provisions, then I suppose it’s not illegal not to hire the pharmacist, at least not from my limited knowledge of the law.

Any pharmacists out there know?

Anyone? Anyone?

Having surfed this issue for awhile, I remember the story now.

The right wing thinks that making this easily available will encourage people to have sex, as they will not have to fear the danger of an unintended pregnancy. Especially the teenagers.. (who make up 18% of abortion patients, I think.)

Better to have them scared and in danger of getting pregnant…

Of course the result can be unintended pregnancy and one more abortion…

If men could get pregnant and still made the laws.. Emergency Contraception would be over the counter in liquor stores….

RE: tattoos of Chinese characters.

Ok, I lived in Taipei for a little over a year (2 Chinese New Years, though). The second CNY I talked my friend into getting out of town for the week, mainly because Taipei empties out (everybody heads out to the countryside to visit the paternal pop and mom). The only people left shoot Chinese firecrackers all damn night long, to ward off ghosts, and the year before this had literally driven me nuts.

Ok, so neither of us has a lot of money. She finds a budget tour of Bangkok and Phuket (with a busload of Taiwanese tourists…it was hilarious and a great experience…this is a whole other story, believe me). To make a long story short, there we are on the beach at Phuket and there are tons, I mean TONS, of antipodean, European, and American tourists there nearly all of whom are sporting tattoos.

The funny part was that my friend couldn’t stop laughing at all those with the Chinese character tattoos. She just couldn’t believe it; according to her if 90% of the waiguoren (mandarin for ‘foreigners’) with tattoos could read Chinese, they wouldn’t have had the tattoo. No way, she’d giggle. She was shocked at how many of them were just like GMC’s “love you long time” kind of thing.

All I could do was shrug my shoulders. Yeah, that’s show business I guess.

Bottom line: if you get a tattoo, at least know what the hell you’re having traced indelibly on your own damn skin.

It’s pronounce poo-KET, fyi.

MartyG — I have been gone on some errands… I am still having a major objection to your Guns/Drugs Analogy… Sort of like complaining cause Roger Clemens has more strike outs than Brett Favre… Athletic competition yes, but not the same game…

Thus, with drugs/guns… I was pleased to see you removed the gun part from your argument…

As far as the pharmacist not selling Birth Control, for what she called religious reasons, I still say that is less than genuine on her part, since Birth Control for Roman Catholics is NOT an Ex Cathedra ruling… but rather, a Papal Opinion, as I mentioned earlier…

In other words, I think the pharmacist in the lead article has some sort of different agenda… And it aint Catholic!!

Chas
Posted July 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
One has no expectation to speak nice words to the face of Evil, Nathan.
=======================================

Nathaniel
Posted July 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
Chas,

Calling GMC70 “evil” and then saying because he is so is reason to call him names is hardly any better. Actually, it is worse.
========================================

PLEASE NOTE HOW NATHAN LIES >>>>

Chas called NO ONE EVIL!!! When are you folks gonna wake up and see what goes on here??? Eh??

NATHAN >>>>

If you are so mentally challenged that you cant even Google Dominionism, and Christian Nationalism, and instead just try to tee off on ME… over what YOU fail to comprehend… Just GO SUCK AN EGG… Or did the chicken come first??

It seems interesting that the guy on this blog who expresses the most extreme pro-life position, and gets positively teary-eyed when somebody calls him a name or questions his moral values is the same one who just a few days ago on another thread was bragging about being skillfull enough to extinguish a human life at 900 yards. Curiouser and curiouser!

You know that’s so true, they don’t have everyone scared to death of God anymore because more people are non believers or at least partial believers..not enough to change their lifestyle…

that they have to use another fear factor to keep the masses in line with their brand of morality.

Would we even have this conversation if there were no such thing as religion?

I’m starting to wonder if we need either a repeal of the first amendment or a new amendment barring public speech of religion.

‘Few pharmaceutical companies have products related to abortion

Boxlock
Posted July 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Permalink’

Where do you think contraceptive pills and morning-after pills come from? A tree in someone’s back yard? These are all pharmaceuticals and being manufactured and sold by pharmaceutical companies everyday.

I have no problem with so-called pro-life pharmacists being pro-life but what I do have a problem with is the fact that it is their job to fill the prescriptions that DOCTORS have prescribed for their patients. So how is it the pro-life pharmacist’s decision, or even right, to deny a doctor’s patient their medication?

Some days its god, guns, and gays — today, its god guns, and drugs…

And back comes MartyG with his one trick pony…. WalMart/Guns, and Drug Store/Birth Control… Marty, give it a rest… It’s STILL a bogus analogy!!

“The birth control/morning after pill comparison to guns has further similarities. Both are designed to thwart nature. To stop a life, or to stop a life from forming. Both are opposed, on moral grounds by some people.” [MartyG]

Marty, that isnst even a good non sequitor

“I’m starting to wonder if we need either a repeal of the first amendment or a new amendment barring public speech of religion.”

PMama — I understand your frustration, but that isnt the solution…

Hello again, Chas! I risked repeating my earlier arguments because Mom (who evidently didn’ read our earlier discourse) asserted that somehow, because a doctor ORDERED it, the whole community had to kowtow. By the way, I didn’t pose it as a non sequitur, in that I never said one follows the other. I just mentioned two similarities regarding the two products.

Hey I’m sick of you fundies always deciding what the hell is right or wrong for anyone else.

If you can sit there and deny my right to my own f’n decisions, then I’m going to start calling for a rollback on your freedom of speech and religion.

It’s STILL a bogus analogy!!

BTW – “Correlation and causation” indeed. Your ignorance is showing, Chas. These have nothing to do with it; neither apply here. There is not a statistical study here to apply those terms to.

Oops. Sorry about the near-double post. sloppy fingers!

Personal connections? Sure, I’m an avid NRA member, and I send hundreds of dollars to the NRA-ILA to further their political agenda. I have several guns, and a concealed carry permit here in Kansas. I am retired military. My son and daughters are both marksmen and gun owners, my son is a Life Member in the NRA. We REALLY believe in what they stand for.
Chicago is the city of my birth and early years. I still have family there, who visited me a few months ago. When I took them to the shooting range, I had to explain to them why they are not allowed the same freedoms I have. Why they are not permitted to defend themselves with a handgun. Since I’ve been on board, a couple of weeks now, I’ve seen stories about Mayor Daley, I’ve seen studies about how restrictive Chicago is, not only on gun rights, but everything including fois gras. I’ve seen stories how the answer is for the police to watch over the people from watchtowers. I’ve seen comments how many are avoiding downtown (and the Taste of Chicago) because of the lawless street vermin. I know how the good people of Chicago love their city, and develop a “closed” mentality regarding the rest of the nation. You’ve seen the comments here regarding those of us from out of town. I’m here trying to use these forums to make Chicagoans aware of what is happening with the Supreme Court decision, and how it will challenge Chicago’s 36 year old, unconstitutional gun ban. Why me? Because the Tribune and the Sun Times aren’t telling you, and people are uniformed on the subject. OK, there it is, that’s my agenda, glad you asked!

OMG! My BIG mistake! I thought I was posting on a similar board in the Chicago Tribune. Those people have chastised my posts from being out of town. SORRY! I forgot for the moment I was speaking to fellow Kansans! Nevertheless, you get my drift, and my “agenda.”

“Pharmacists are (typically) business owners and should be free to operate their business any way they choose.”

Yep, and we are free to boycott their businesses and encourage our like minded friends to do the same.

After their business drops off by fifty or sixty percent, they may rethink their positions.

BlueJay,

Advocating the destruction of others property is pretty petty and immature, not to mention wrong.

BTW – “Correlation and causation” indeed. Your ignorance is showing, Chas. These have nothing to do with it; neither apply here. There is not a statistical study here to apply those terms to.

GMC — one doesnt need a statistical study to apply correlation…. And MartyG definitely implies some absurd correlation between WalMart not selling handguns, and a pharmacy not selling certain prescriptions…

There IS NO Correlation…. And if you want to insist that there is, you should resign from the BAR — for lack of ability to undertake simple critical thinking….

NO, saying it isnt so, doesnt make it so… You are right… However, Saying I am WRONG, doesnt make me wrong!! At least I am pointing out the absurdity of the FALSE Correlation…. All YOU can do is throw out your usual, and, very tiresome, Ad Hominem!! So, come on, GMC. What you got?? Anything but your usual BS CRAP??? Give it your best shot…

PMama, calm down. Everything we’ve discussed here is an item of law, and thus must be enacted, presumably by a majority through the legislative process. The court decisions we’ve referred to are the decision of a majority. That’s how this country works.
So tonight alone we’ve seen cries of “Libertarianism,” “spray paint their cars,” and all kinds of emotional, threats and/or intollerance.
Why is it that birth control pills cause such an issue? Why is it that you want YOUR behavior to be unregulated, but others (repeal the 1st amendment, and stop discussions of religion) must be squelched? That’s not how this country works. I suspect that through these discussions you realize that your positions are flawed, and that you are in the minority, and that you don’t like that. Either work to change the system, or adapt. What you’re calling for is “your way or the highway.” We live in a country where the majority still rules.

BlueJay,

I do not advocate bombs or assassinations.

How does the wrong of another justify your advocating something illegal and wrong here?

A Majority used to rule in lynch mobs, too, Marty… That had to be stopped… and it was… You said earlier that the Supreme Court had ruled on Birth Control…

But, you know what??? It didnt!!

So, the only Court ruling you are standing on here, is your right to own a handgun.

I havent seen anybody on this thread disagree with you… at least not yet…

I share PMama’s frustration with you and your kind that want to control everything that people do in their lives (with the exception of that gun thing)…

You know, why dont you all go take your guns, and go down to the Courthouse, and tell the nice folks there what you want done, and how much you are willing to pay for what you want… I really wish you would do that… So somebody else could tell you, NO, you cant do that here!!

Oh, yea, dont forget to take your Bibles!!

Or the pharmacist might say, “No, we don’t sell contraceptives, but we DO sell ovulation temperature monitors to help you determine when you’re fertile.” Well, that’s NOT she wanted, is it? Same with WalMart directing me to a rifle when I want a handgun. A FAR different product. Both are in the gun or pregnancy department. Both are legal. Both help people control their destiny. But both are designed differently, and some people have a thing about one design over the other.
Guns and morning after pills both stop lives. Admit it. Both are legal. This is the very essence of how/why these items stir the sensibilities of people. So how can a store be allowed to sell one, but another store must be forced to sell the other?

MartyG
Posted July 7, 2008 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
OMG! My BIG mistake! I thought I was posting on a similar board in the Chicago Tribune. Those people have chastised my posts from being out of town. SORRY! I forgot for the moment I was speaking to fellow Kansans! Nevertheless, you get my drift, and my “agenda.”
=========================================

Yep… your “agenda” is crystal clear, oh ye of many names.. You and James(Regular) should get along just great!

You know, before I became a marine biologist, I wanted to be a pharmacist fresh out of high school. $78,000 salaries, nice company cars, cushy hours after putting in your dues for a few years, and only 6 years of school!

You aren’t entitled to those benefits unless you actually do your job. And your job is to fill the prescription if you have it in stock.

I have to admit, I’m a little bit torn, because the part of me thinks it’s the business’s choice whether to offer these products or not, and it’s not the government’s place to force them. BUT, there is the very real truth that in the tiny Kansas towns, there is usually only one pharmacy in town, and that can spell disaster for someone with limited transportation. That’s just not fair—those who can afford cars and gas and have free time get their drugs, and those without are in the position of having an unwanted child.

The only solution to this I can think of is make it easier for birth control prescriptions to be mailed to such rural customers in a timely manner, with the doctor’s office setting everything up, and EC being available 24/7 over the counter.

But individual pharmacists, who work for a company that is NOT opposed to such drugs, should be immediately fired if he (and you KNOW it’s a he) refuses to do his job. If he wants to play judge and jury, let him find a company that feels the same way.

“P_Mama, do you know what ED is? ED, that’s erectile dysfunction, get it, DYSFUNCTION. Viagra type drugs are by definition to restore a dysfunction. Morning after pills stop a normal function.”
Erectile dysfunction was coined by Pfeizer, the makers of Viagra. Before that, it was plain old impotence. “The most common explanation for ED is that the erectile tissue is just getting old. ‘As we age, we lose elastic fibers, we lose smooth muscle, our tissues become more rigid,’ explains Gerry Brock, a professor of urology at the University of Western Ontario…” -From BONK by Mary Roach.

Looks like ED is a perfectly normal occurance with age. Viagra is unnatural.

Oh, and just maybe, that pharmacy ought to be required to put up a fully visible sign on its front door, or window: WE DO NOT DISPENSE CONTRACEPTIVES OF ANY KIND.

That would be a courteous touch…

Now then, let’s take this down the road just a little bit…

Let’s say that Mr. Pharmacist down in some other town somewhere, comes to this great moral revelation that Obesity is something that greatly offends his sense of morality…

That, along with the contraceptives….

NOW, he says, I will no longer dispense prescriptions for obesity, or anything to do with it, since, my morality tells me that people should not use drugs to fight being FAT…

I guess he has that right as well??

BlueJay,

Where have I ever advocated terrorism and violence to advance my ideals?

I don’t think anyone should do it.

Looks like someone has been watching The Devil’s Advocate.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the movie. I just don’t believe everything Al Pacino said in it about God.

Chas, I just read in your last post something I can agree with. IF the store stocks the item, then SOMEBODY in the store must be available to sell it. If that store hires someone who says, “Boss, I can’t do that,” and hires him/her anyway, then it is the management’s responsibility to work around that limitation, because they accepted it. Like hiring a mechanic who can’t “do” tire repair because of muscle limitations.
I think you and I are in agreement that the STORE, like WalMart in my gun analogy, can decide not to stock an item. That’s a business decision on their part. But I must agree, if they stock it, they are honor-bound (for what good that means in today’s society) to sell it.

Ummmm Al Pacino didnt say those things about God…. The CHARACTER portrayed by Al Pacino said those things about God… Wonderful flick!! Liked it almost as much as George Burns in Oh God!! LOL

Chas,

For someone using logical fallacies as much as you have been trying to do today, I suggest you look at this one:

The slippery slope fallacy.

MartyG –

It appears that you and JR (BlueJay) are “not going to get along.” Oh NO!

Run away!!!

That should strike all the fear of . . . well . . . fear of . . . uh, well . . . Well, OK, no fear at all. Relax. He’s a legend in his own mind – and literally NOWHERE else.

Welcome. And don’t be intimidated, no matter how intimidating (or in JR’s case, annoying) the left here tries to be. They trade in contrived fear.

Blue Jay, I’ve been completely candid about myself. I definately am not being paid by anybody, nor do I serve on any board, or even hold stock in any of the products mentioned. I am a firm believer in what the NRA stands for, but speak only for myself. I am that fervant, but there is nobody standing behind me on this, or paying me in any way. Honest!

You broke up a meetup by threatening to bring a gun.

I THINK your posted intention was to “make liberals wet their pants”?

Case in point. Contrived fear. Yawn.

And Nathan, while it is a true that one thing doesn’t necessarily lead to another, i.e. the “slippery slope,” it is also true that setting one precedent necessarily makes the next step easier to take. And the next, and the next, and soon you find yourself where you once thought you couldn’t go.

So it’s not the fallacy it’s often portrayed to be. Depending on the circumstances, the “slippery slope” can be quite valid.

Remember – that is the intended path of many who advocate so-called “common sense” gun regulation.

Enough liberal-squishing for one night. Nite-nite, all. Enjoy without me – if that’s possible! ;-)

(That’s a joke, for the humor-impaired. That would be you, JR)

I could go get Nathan’s quote if you would like GMC.

I could also go get a few of yours.

Your greatest splits?

Oh and “Marty”?

I can smell a rat.

You stink of it.

I think we shall see more of this from the right.

They are as a cornered, wounded animal.

Truly I live in interesting times.

BTW Jay, we should think in terms of another lunch?? Hit the back door, and see what happens… eh??

Sorry, Nathan?

I’ve read the transcripts.

People who I respect WAY more than you planned a meetup.

You ruined it waving a gun.

But I wasn’t posting then.

Which of course makes “MartyG” a liar or an idiot when he says…

“Gee Blue Jay, I’ve seen you pull that “wet your pants” comment about Nathan for over a year.”

Probably, “Marty” is James again.

Yo “Marty”?

From late March till early September last year, I was not posting here.

My account of what Nathan said comes to me second hand and I acknowledge that.

But I have met Nathan. He is….not what I knew before he went to Iraq.

Better sharpen your darts “Marty”

I’m sharpening mine.

For the record, I am not James. My real name is Marty. I do stand to the right of you on many issues, but will not try to hide it or deceive anybody. Good night everybody.

Sure it was Nathan.

I could say more.

I know more.

I’ll be better than you and just leave it there.

“If you ever shot any of my dogs, you would disappear.

I feel sorry for the person who decides they are going to shoot any of my dogs simply because they were running loose.

Posted by: Nathan | November 28, 2007 at 01:32 PM

I feel sorry for the person who decides they are going to shoot any of my dogs simply because they were running loose.

Posted by: Nathan | November 28, 2007 at 01:32 PM
=======================================

I guess one can only shoot HUMANS if they feel threatened on their property?? Hmmm????

Pharmacies should have the same right to choose what products and services they sell just like any other business. There may or may not be a niche in the market for this type of limited service, but we should instead concentrate on forcing the Kansas School of Pharmacy to admit and graduate more pharmacists to fill the shortage.

As consumers we have allowed and supported the intentional shortage of pharmacists which has allowed the bidding for a pharmacists to become excessive while leaving a huge service shortage as well.