Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule (for health services)

Post Reply New Topic

Without statistics, it doesn't matter how hard you laugh, that's still just an unsupported anecdote.



Which populations would those be exactly? Since we've already ruled out any categories involving race, religion, etc. or for that matter any form of discrimination period that involves the consumer, since you can go to the judge and prove that the pharmacist sells the product to other people and viola, it's discrimination irrespective of who you happen to be. Give me an example of an affected population and then maybe you've got a case, but as of yet you really haven't given me that.

That's only true if they prevent you from getting what you need or want, which isn't happening here, so therefore, it's not being imposed. Should we go to the dictionary for a definition of the word "impose" now? You can't go to a general store and say "god damn you for imposing your will on me, because you don't carry fertilizer! You don't want me to plant anything, so you're preventing me, by not carrying fertilizer for me!" You can go to another store. Whether or not the choice to not carry fertilizer was a religious one is irrelevant.

That's just flatly wrong. That would mean that a kosher deli who doesn't sell pork is imposing their religious beliefs on non-Jews. Another person's will is not imposed on you when their actions "affect" you. Their will is imposed on you when the result of their actions FORCES you to do or not do something, regardless of your desire. A vendor who doesn't provide a service (to anyone) isn't imposing their will on anyone.

But lets say hypothetically that there is some rash of women who can't get the morning after pill because of this ruling... there's nothing preventing someone else from starting a business, a non-profit or even an informal social network specifically to provide access to it for these women.

Last edited by ike on 25 Dec 2008, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

From mirriam webster online dictionary --
impose:
1 a: to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b: to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies — C. H. Plimpton>

They don't have authority over you and can't dictate your actions. They can't force you to do anything. So, no, they haven't imposed anything on you.

You're also either assuming that someone would get a job, most aspects of which would be morally repugnant to him, or else asssuming that moral distaste for one small aspect of a job makes someone completely and utterly unfit for that job at all.

It is if the pharmacist refused to fill or release your birth control scrip.

You didn't provide any stats either, Ike.



Unmarried people. If you had been reading any of the links I have posted, you would notice that a lot of pharmacists feel that it is against their religion to dispense birth control to unmarried women, regardless of whether or not their doctor thinks it's justifiable. Not only do they refuse to fill the scrip, but they will neither release it nor refer the patient to another pharmacist, and they often give the patient a lecture on what a 'tramp' they are to need birth control anyway (note that birth control is sometimes prescribed to sexually inactive women to control the blood flow in their periods).

You are not paying attention, Ike. Sometimes there's only one game in town. Sometimes people don't have ready transportation. Sometimes people can't get new scrips for days. In any of these cases, the pharmacist *is* preventing the patient from getting what their doctor prescribed for them.

In fact, such social networking has been established in many areas. That works fine for EC, but it doesn't work for contraception, which is not one-size-fits-all. Different women need different hormone levels for it to work properly without driving them nuts. That's one of the main reasons that birth control pills are not sold off-the-shelf.

Force can also be used in preventing someone from doing what they would otherwise do. Blocking someone's egress, for example, is just as much assault as is forcing them to go somewhere else.

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:
impose:
1. to lay or set on as something to be borne, endured, obeyed, fulfilled, paid, etc.
{The pharmacist imposed celibacy on the unmarried woman by denying her birth control.}
2. to put or set by or as if by authority: to impose one's personal preference on others.
{The pharmacist imposed his religious views on the patients he was supposed to serve.}
4. to pass or palm off fraudulently or deceptively.
{The pharmacist imposed his incomplete services on the medical community.}
10. To obtrude oneself or one's requirements on others.
11. to presume, as upon patience or good nature.
{see: imposter.}

(items in brackets {} added by me).



there are special 'christian' pharmacies that are not full-service, and advertise as such. They are the equivalent of the kosher deli mentioned above. For a fundie pharmacist to deliberately choose to work in a pharmacy that advertises itself as a normal, full service medical facility and then attempt to change it into something else is the equivalent of an observant jew getting a job in a regular deli and then refusing to handle non-kosher items. Or a vegetarian choosing to work in that same deli and refusing to handle meat - and not only refusing to handle meat, but berating and belittling anyone who orders a meat sandwich as a 'murderer.'
Most delis would fire someone who did something like that. Bush's law makes it illegal to fire a pharmacist who does the same.

As is the statement that I was laughing at.



Maybe we can start with transgendered people then? Please cite me the location in federal law where gender identity is a protected category.

Umm .... yes it is. The whole debate is if it is within their power to do something (ie, they have the meds there for anyone to buy, assuming a script) and their religion prevents them from selling it to you. It gets further compounded when it is pretty much impossible not to go elsewhere (although even though the crossing the street is imposing will as you have now made that person perform an action they would not have otherwise).

Ummm... then you chose to have sex before getting birth control (including condoms) from that pharmacy or from some other pharmacy... still not the pharmacist's fault. I don't think there's going to be a rash of pharmacies refusing to carry birth control either -- the morning after pill is another story, but are there a glut of Catholic run small-town pharmacies here in the US?

Given that the majority of the arguments on the other side have been either completely wrong or just plain excuses, I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me here. As I mentioned before.



Then you've just solved that problem yourself. Tell the pharmacist that the doctor prescribed it for your period. It's not legal for the pharmacist to ask the dr. about the purpose of the prescription as far as I know (patient confidentiality), and even if it is, it would likely still fall under the category of illegal discrimination on the basis of the person rather than on the basis of the product in question. The law allows them to object to birth control as a whole - as far as I can tell it doesn't allow them to legally decide who they think should have it. However - even if they do - as I've already pointed out before - call the doctor who prescribed it, tell him the pharmacist is being a jerk and have him write a new prescription or call it in to a different pharmacy. And if a pharmacist gives you a lecture, tell him he's an as*hole.

Umm... no, I've paid attention to all the things you've described... they've all either been extremely uncommon or just plain excuses (an inconvenience). None of them have been both common and more than an inconvenience. Taking a few days to get a scrip for birth control is not more than an inconvenience -- so... you don't have sex for a week or you use condoms... or better yet, you make sure you get the new prescription a week or so in advance of when you need it.

The only circumstance that has even come close is the possibility of there being a common occurrence in which a woman in a small town needs the morning after pill due to a rape or date rape scenario and is unable to get it from anyone in spite of the emergency situation because every single one of her friends, family, neighbors and even strangers (emergency hotlines) are complete jerks to her and refuse to help her at all. This is common? It doesn't sound common.

Every single other scenario you've provided is an inconvenience.

But if you'd like to talk about something that actually is imposed, we could talk about the fact that it's illegal for me to be poor. Been going on 8 years now with continual threats of imprisonment... Would you like to compare that to a 40 minute walk to a pharmacist or the difficulty involved in doctor shopping? Hmm... jail... 40 minute walk... jail... 40 minute walk...

Well that will never hold up in court. For the same reason that I can't get any kind of compensation for having been fired by jerks that I worked for. They can just claim there was some other reason for firing the person. Even excuses that are outrageously ridiculous are generally not followed up on (or they don't make it to court to begin with because the attorneys don't expect to beat them), but they could give any even simple excuse they want. Though I would prefer that portion of the law be repealed.

Yes, but the burden of proof is really on you, since most of the arguments on your side have been proven flatly wrong.



As I read it, the law doesn't offer them an opportunity to discriminate against a person period, whether or not they belong to any special federally protected groups. Assuming that they try to do that anyway, I would assume it would fall under the heading of general gender discrimination. There are precedents. http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/BornHermaphrodite/ The absence of specific federal statutes protecting people from a specific kind of discrimination is not the same thing as carte blanche to discriminate.