It seems I was mistaken

[jseal]

... but I must wait until October (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/338964_planb09.html) to be certain.

[PantyFanatic]

:faint:

[Rhiannon]

OMG how ridiculous is this.. So if a woman has been raped. She has to just wait an see if she is pregnant instead of getting the morning after pill as it might upset her pharmacist.

[gekkogecko]

Thank you, judge for your hate-filled ILLEGAL endorsement of religion in the name of the state.

And areguments to the contraty are pure shit.

[jseal]

Thank you, judge for your hate-filled ILLEGAL endorsement of religion in the name of the state.

And areguments to the contraty are pure shit.
I am unsure where the hate you refer to might be, but that opinion, shit though you think it may be, is a legal ruling upholding an individual’s civil rights over those of the State.

Much can happen between now and October – if people behave sensibly. For example Illinois has settled a similar lawsuit with a compromise which enables the prescription to be filled without infringing on anyone’s first amendment rights (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19185).

[Oldfart]

When the rights of the pharmacist not to dispense something they are licensed to (moral qualms) are seen to be stronger than the rights of a woman to not be pregnant, someone needs the gift of Solomon. There are no winners.

[Lilith]

I wonder how this would play out if there were pharmacists who refused to dispense "dick up" drugs?

[Loulabelle]

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but surely, if a pharmacist refuses to dispense the morning after pill, the woman in question can go elsewhere to a pharmacist who will?

The woman still gets her pill and the pharmacist has a choice as to what he dispenses based on his personal beliefs.

[jseal]

Loulabelle,

No Mam, you are not missing the point. You are quite correct; the issue does not involve being able to get medication, that was never in question. The issue is if the State can compel these citizens to act in a way that violates their principles.

Further, the compromise Illinois secured squares the circle, even if only approximately.

[Oldfart]

lou,

It is the point where the pharmacist is the only supplier.

Principles vs harm.

[jseal]

Those who follow the link in the first post will be able to read:

"U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma issued a preliminary injunction saying that pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another, nearby source."

The issue does not involve being able to get medication, that was never in question.

[Lilith]

define "nearby"

If I have no means of transportation and live 45 miles away from the next pharmacy does that mean I am SOL?

[jseal]

Lilith,

How did you get to the pharmacy? :rofl:

[Lilith]

Walked. Obviously you've never lived in a very small town. You can walk into your town but 45 miles to the next pharmacy is a bit much.

[jseal]

As and when the criticism becomes serious, so will my response.

[Lilith]

Do you think anyone would be upset if you did not respond?

[jseal]

No. How about you? :rofl:

[Loulabelle]

I hadn't thought of that Lil. Small towns miles from anywhere else are few and far between in the UK - it simply didn't occur to me.

I wonder how many pharmacists in the US would fall into this category. If you're not comfortable 'playing God' I wouldn't have thought that you'd go into a profession like pharmacy, just as you probably wouldn't go into medicine. I'm sure there are pharmacists out there who are anti-morning-after pill, I'm just wondering if in reality it's going to be a widespread problem.

Also, can I ask where the law stands in relation to doctors providing prescriptions for the morning-after pill or making referrals for women who want abortions? Would seem unfair for the pharmacists and doctors to be bound by different laws.

[Lilith]

I was watching the Republican debate recently Lou especially to find out how the different candidates feel about women's health care issues. One politician mentioned that in the effort to end abortions it is the doctors who should be held criminally accountable. Knowing that many of the Religious Right are also against the morning after pill, it frightens me that if certain people are put in a position of power they may try to make it a crime for a doctor to prescribe this medication.

Lou, I spent my youth in a very large city but as a young teen was thrust into a very rural life in a small town with only 1000 citizens, a blinking yellow light, 3 jiffy stores, eventually 1 pharmacy and 2 restaurants. More of my female classmates had children prior to graduation than I could even believe. Lack of information, contraceptives, and medical care can often = unwanted pregnancies = low birthweight babies = developmental disabilities = me never being out of a job. I just think we can do better.

[Jude30]

You don't think the response of no means of transportation and the next pharmacy being 45 miles away isn't serious Jseal? I agree with Lilith it's pretty obvious you've never lived in a small town in the middle of the country. My parents live in a town with only one pharmacy* and the nearest one besides that, is 32 miles away. There are a lot of people in that small town without the means to easily travel that 32 miles. I guess that's OK with you though that people in that small town would be denied the medication they need or want.

If you want I can provide you a map of Kansas and anyplace west of Manhatten, easily falls into the category of one or no pharmacy in any given town with a few notable exceptions. Hell most counties out west will be lucky to have more than one pharmacy. This says nothing of small towns in the Dakotas, Montana, Utah etc.




*That one pharmacy is owned and operated by a Catholic.

[Jude30]

I was watching the Republican debate recently Lou especially to find out how the different candidates feel about women's health care issues. One politician mentioned that in the effort to end abortions it is the doctors who should be held criminally accountable. Knowing that many of the Religious Right are also against the morning after pill, it frightens me that if certain people are put in a position of power they may try to make it a crime for a doctor to prescribe this medication.

Lou, I spent my youth in a very large city but as a young teen was thrust into a very rural life in a small town with only 1000 citizens, a blinking yellow light, 3 jiffy stores, eventually 1 pharmacy and 2 restaurants. More of my female classmates had children prior to graduation than I could even believe. Lack of information, contraceptives, and medical care can often = unwanted pregnancies = low birthweight babies = developmental disabilities = me never being out of a job. I just think we can do better.


The town I mentioned in my previous post didn't even get a stop light until about five years ago.

The sad thing about this is that so few people even have a clue how Plan B works. If Plan B is made illegal the next logical step is to outlaw all birth control pill, since all Plan B is, is a higher dosage of the same hormones. Since the argument that will be used is that Plan B inhibits implantation of a fertalized egg, and in some cases the birth control pill does the same thing it's not a huge leap of imagination to see this coming.

[jseal]

Jude30,

Yes. That criticism is not serious. Under those conditions it is obvious that there is no nearby pharmacy, therefore the state has a compelling interest, and therefore the pharmacist will be required to dispense the medication. QED.

... and no, the religion of the pharmacy owner would not matter.

[Jude30]

Jude30,

Yes. That criticism is not serious. Under those conditions it is obvious that there is no nearby pharmacy, therefore the state has a compelling interest, and therefore the pharmacist will be required to dispense the medication. QED.

... and no, the religion of the pharmacy owner would not matter.


What exactly is your stance then? Quit being vague and coy just come out and say it.

[Rhiannon]

not afraid to stand up
I am pro-choice and proud..


*keep the government out of my private parts

[jseal]

What exactly is your stance then? Quit being vague and coy just come out and say it.
Jude30,

A reasonable question. I shall attempt to provide a reasonable reply.

[Rhiannon]

Here is my stance and proud

Pro-Choice and proud of it.


*keep the government out of my privates

[jseal]

Jude30,

The Bill or Rights, drafted by James Madison, came into effect on December 15, 1791, The First Amendment – the “Establishment clause”, addresses freedom of religion, speech, and press, peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In particular, Judge Leighton had to weigh the merits of extending the availability of a useful medication against the demerits of the compulsion needed to achieve that goal. The state has an obvious interest in promoting the welfare of its citizens, but not an absolute interest. If a citizen can demonstrate that the coercive power of the state, in this instance manifest in the regulation requiring that a pharmacist dispense a particular pharmaceutical, has infringed upon the citizen’s First Amendment rights, the state, not the citizen, must yield. Neither does a citizen have absolute rights; my right to free speech as specified in the First Amendment does not entitle me to shout “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium. Recognizing the real conflict between the two positions (by accepting that the plaintiffs had standing), estimating the social value gained by the compulsion (greater availability of the medication), and also assessing the cost (prohibiting the free exercise of the plaintiffs religious beliefs), his injunction indicates that he thinks that the plaintiffs have a persuasive case.

Initially, I thought that Washington State would be successful on the basis of the state’s right to regulate commerce, but as the citizen’s rights as specified in the First Amendment preempt that, I was mistaken. At least that is how I understand the case. The trial in October will settle the issue, qualified of course by the inevitable appeals.

In general, this site, Literotica, and sites like these exist on the sufferance of the Federal Government because of the First amendment. They are – we are – subversive. Do not deceive yourself; were it not for the shackles the Bill of Rights puts on Washington, we would be shut down in the twinkling of an eye. Our clan / tribe / group, and I do include myself even though I am on occasion at odds with one or another of us, can only converse, help, and support each other, show our bodies to each other, tell each other our fantasies, sometimes gross each other out, and on occasion come to love one another, because of the First Amendment.

One of the more entertaining features of the WWW is reading posts denigrating the first Amendment, which in its absence would never have been posted in the first place – witness the censorship in the PRC and Saudi Arabia and the persecution of their bloggers. The towering conceit of the posters who believe that they can somehow raise up better impediments to the coercive power of the state that may be found in the Bill of Rights is, to be polite, breathtaking. After seeing the slaughter which unbridled power can wreck upon helpless victims – remember what happened in Rangoon on June? - liberals such as I are constantly reminded how important it is, if I may use Rhiannon’s words, to “keep the government out of my private parts”.

So, yes, it is regrettable that the ideal of extending the benefits of this medication has been limited. If my reading of Judge Leighton’s ruling (http://www.nwwlc.org/publications/Stormans_ORDER_11-08.pdf) [PDF] is correct, it would be more damaging to a much higher ideal were it not.

Only fools think they can get something for nothing.

[Jude30]

Like I thought you couldn't say it plain and simple and say what your position is.

Let me dumb it down for you to a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think pharmacist should have the right to deny needed medications to a patient?

I've read your second to last sentence three times and I think I know what you're saying but you try to bury things in words that have no need to be buried.

You have also confused the states rights with the patients. As you said your freedom of speech is not absolute so I fail to see why freedom of religion should be absolute. This is not about the state this is about individuals being denied the medicine/drugs they need to continue their lives as they know it.

[Oldfart]

Jude30,

Freedom of religion is not absolute.

A religion which sacrificed humans at the altar or who prejudicially refuses to accept the right to existance of any other faith could not be allowed.

[Lilith]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/05/teen.births.ap/index.html

[Jude30]

Another success story for Abstinence Only birth control education.

[jseal]

Jude30,

I posted that I thought the State would succeed in enforcing the regulation requiring that the pharmacists dispense the prescriptions.

That seemed reasonable, as legal theory (commerce clause) permits the State to regulate commerce. I assumed that the regulations satisfied other necessary law.

Judge Leighton granted the injunction based upon both legal theory and the facts – the real world data – of the case.

Having read what Judge Leighton wrote, I understand now that my original position, based only on theory, was too simplistic. It seems I was mistaken. How about you?