Judge rules state can't force pharmacists to sell 'Plan B' contraception

bikerlady51 said on February 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I am a woman AND I believe contraception is my business not fanatical women who by their rediculous need to make everyone believe they have the right to have sex anytime anywhere and by GOD their better be a pharmicist around to clean up after my inability to act responsibly in the fisrt place. All Stone is to me is a frustrated woman who cannt accept the fact that not all of us believe in birth contral. Thats what Ive learned over the years, these women NEED to be validated in their inability to keep their legs together.

koolaiddrinker said on February 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM

You mean you can"t force someone to help kill a baby . What a concept.

Redeemed said on February 24, 2012 at 4:58 PM

@bikejumpr9, Please open a medical book and look up conception...for your idea about when life begins does not equate to what medical professionals teach... When conception takes place, the sperm will penetrate an egg and create a single set of 46 chromosomes called a zygote - the basis for a new human being If this helps... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

Redeemed said on February 24, 2012 at 4:58 PM

@bikejumpr9, A person in a coma can't look at you nor respond either, that does not make them any less a human being.

bikejumpr9 said on February 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I do know it is available in more than just pharmacies. I will come back to this... I believe the current Plan B law in Washington requires a prescription if to be used by someone under the age of 17. And again, you called it murder. How can one murder that which is not living? Ever squashed a mosquito? A mosquito has for more intelligence and life than a group of cells. That said, I am all for having Minors got to a hospital (as required by current law, unless you are 17) and declare a crime has happened. However, remember that an assailant has the right to be tried in front of the accused. This is, in my opinion, one of the larger reasons rape goes unreported: The victim wants to get it behind them as quick as possible. Going to trials for months would not be an example of getting this being them quickly. I am not condoning rape, or trying to assist criminals in any way. I just support womens reproductive rights, and would like to see fair and equal access for all.

Redeemed said on February 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM

@val75, Can hide what is plain to see...

Redeemed said on February 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

. I personally believe it is best for women’s personal welfare to be protected from sexual predators that may want access to plan B to hide the results of their assault on underage women. Therefore if sold over the counter a pharmacy that chooses to offer this convenience for not planning ahead with plan A, I am okay with it be it to woman over 18 only. We should not subvert parental notification unless good cause has demonstrated and proper authorities notified.

Redeemed said on February 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM

@bikejumpr9, You act as if Plan B is not available anywhere but a pharmacy. You know some colleges actually have it in a vending machine. Other than rape, plan B is a drug of convenience, for any rape victim should be at a hospital where they can receive it not a pharmacy. Had one planned ahead plan A Birth Control does not require plan B. Therefore any minor our daughters and sisters they should go not planned murder which aides and abets child molester by not reporting underage pregnancies. Instead any minor should be by law automatically referred to a hospital whereas the proper authorities can protect her and assist her in serving justice to her assailant, unless of course she provide information that another minor is involved and by minors parents by law should be notified and informed unless parent guardian is involved.

bikejumpr9 said on February 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Merely using it as an example. What about the whole distance and availability side of the issue? @S10maniac: I don't care if you are pro-choice or pro-life the government can't force companies to carry certain things. - Really? You cannot think of anything the government forces stores to carry? You should probably take a closer look at the medical industry. And did you really try to compare a grocery store to a pharmacy? By your same logic I could compare an ice cream shop to a tire outlet. They both sell stuff..... what a ridiculous argument... As I said earlier, I am personally on the fence as to whether or not the govt should be stepping in, but I cannot get on the "but my religion says I cant do this" bandwagon. I'm sorry, but nothing has killed more people than religion.

Val75 said on February 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM

@LaughMore - Not intending to be condescending but it seems you're missing the point that what you're fearful of (forced compliance against your beliefs) is exactly whats happening here. It's not an issue for you it seems because you agree with the side making the policy. Switch the sides and then tell me how fair it is. Total control by either/any side (dictatorship) goes against the principles of freedom - freedom to choose what's being asked and in the end is at the core of this and other recent *policy* decisions.

s10maniac said on February 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

What is next? Are Hispanics going to sue grocery stores for not having the ingredients required for a traditional Hispanic dish? That is the same thing as forcing pharmacies to stock the morning after pill. They are a private enterprise and therefore the government should keep its nose out. I don't care if you are pro-choice or pro-life the government can't force companies to carry certain things. @bikejumpr9 When would you ever be taking regular birth control and the morning after pill? If your regular birth control doesn't work you certainly won't know that until way after the 72 hour window.

Val75 said on February 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM

@Redeemed: you have successfully recast the discussion to reflect the true issue - freedom vs convenience. Well done!

bikejumpr9 said on February 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

@Redeemed: Really? In America we do not make citizens violate their conscious? What if I were to tell you there is a pharmacy close to me (less than 10 miles) and they do not carry Plan B because of their religious beliefs. What if the closest one was 100 miles away? What if I also did not have a car, and traveling that 100 miles is not as easy for me as it is you? Is that still convenience, or insuring all parties have equal access? And again, how is a 72 hour old group of cells a human being? Can it look at me? Can it speak or make any audible noises? Does it have a consciousness (measurable, that is)? If you can answer yes, scientifically backed, then I will retract my statements.

bikejumpr9 said on February 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Keeping in mind than Plan B, the whole thing that started this discussion, is to be used in the first 72 hours. Are you really trying to tell me that a grouping of cells, sure, it has DNA, but so does Cancer cells, justifies it being called a life? I am not advocating people be irresponsible and not take birth control, but remember that birth control is only 99.9% effective. Not 100%. Neither is Plan B, but adding the 99.9% for Birth Control, and the 90 % that Plan B is, and it raises the odds even further. Does it really show my ignorance, or a true understanding of what LIFE really is?

Redeemed said on February 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

@bikejumpr9, In America we do not make citizens violate their conscious for the convenience of others. Perhaps a little planning ahead like purchasing and using birth control would work better than at the last minute finding someone who wants to conspire and condone taking an innocent life because you couldn't find time to buy and use birth control. For a hospital will not refuse a rape victim of this medication, but because you’re inconvenienced to look to another pharmacy it is okay in your opinion to force them to give you medicine that will kill a human being. Thank God in America we have a constitution that protects its citizens from your demagoguery.

Redeemed said on February 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM

@bikejumpr9, What you call a group of cells and try to say same as cancerous growth shows your ignorance. This group of cells is a unique viable person with its own DNA. It is not a tumor but a human being. Perhaps you would want to be treated like a tumor and eradicated.

bikejumpr9 said on February 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM

JavaJoe: Right, because a group of cells constitutes killing the unborn. The same could be said of cancer at that level. So by your argument, you are advocating we do not treat cancer patients? I am personally on the fence as to whether there should be legislation... But let's look at it from the other side, using the same argument as the pharmacists. I have FREEDOM FROM YOUR RELIGION, just as much as you have the freedom OF religion. Lest we forget.... Using religion as an argument against carrying the pill is ridiculous. As soon as they come up with a MEDICAL reason, not religious, for not selling Plan B, I will agree with them.

k8r2u said on February 23, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Freedom Frank, Java Joe and Slappywag! Amen! If you want to do what you do go to the store that carries what you need to take care of it. If you are upset get over it and be responsible. Protect yourself prior and if he/or she won't then he/she is not who you need to be with in the first place. If I own a business who are you to tell me what I can stock on my shelves? That is like me coming to your house and demanding you have all my favorites and I do not even know you! Open up a store and store everything everybody is demanding and it will be big as a state. Can't please everyone! Call your MD and put them on speed dial if your behavior is so bad you have to have a morning after pill! Gee's people grow up! Stop using the wrong head!

freedomfrank said on February 23, 2012 at 6:24 AM

The analogies are hysterical here,, The "I got drunk and pregnant" pill is nothing like fighting a fire or administering morphine in the hospital. It is just what it is, no different that booze or cigarettes. If a rape victim needs one which is very understandable then the hospital will give her one. Every corner drug store doesn't need to carry these things so you pro choice people feel that you have control of your birthing options. Not every doctor is required to perform an abortion and not every pharmacist needs to fill every prescription in the world.

javajoe said on February 23, 2012 at 3:11 AM

The Hippocratic oath clearly states "Do No Harm". Lest we forget, the sole purpose of the morning after pill is to kill the unborn. This is hardly a religious issue!

slappywag said on February 23, 2012 at 12:01 AM

You know what? Good. I WILL find it somewhere else if necessary. Don't carry it. I don't care. Someone will. They get the money. Not you.

LaughMore said on February 22, 2012 at 11:48 PM

@Val75 - no need to be condescending to get your point across. Limiting access to needed medication should not be lawful, especially when solely based on religious reasons. Pharmacists have a responsibility and if they are not willing to meet it, they have a CHOICE to find another job. If a hospital "chose" not to carry morphine or any pain killing drugs, because the chief of medicine believed it was the devil's tears, would that be ok? Let's not kid ourselves. This isn't about religious "freedom", it's about forcing religion down every one else's throats.

Val75 said on February 22, 2012 at 11:05 PM

@LaughMore - So let me say it again....s l o w l y... How is fighting the *mandate* to provide services 'telling' you what to do? This isn't denying the availability (just imagine the fight you'd put up if the shoe were on the other foot - governments *banning* abortions, *banning* contraceptives, etc). If you don't like the fact that a pharmacy doesn't provide Plan B, then don't shop there. You have the freedom to choose and fought so hard for *choice*, so choose!

LaughMore said on February 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM

I'm so tired of hearing about the poor persecuted religious right and how their "right" to tell the rest of us what to do is being threatened. If a police officer felt that his duties conflicted with his religious beliefs, would we allow him not to arrest criminals based on those beliefs? No. If a firefighter refused to stop a "sinner's" home from burning because he felt it was a punishment from God, would that be ok? No. If you don't like Plan B, don't take it. If you don't like the duties involved in being a pharmacist, quit and find a new line of work.

Val75 said on February 22, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I'm getting tired of these *mandate* policies (religious orgs forced to provide contraceptives, pharmacists forced to sell specific drugs) being pitched as women's rights issues....because they're not. No one is saying women are not entitled to these services. No one is saying that contraception or morning after pills are illegal. An *no one* from the churches/pharmacists have advocated their ban. These are truly woman's rights issues. Instead, this is an individual rights and religious freedom issues where individuals are being told they do not have individual rights, and they are *forced* to act against their beliefs. 'Separation of church/state' has been used to drive any/all religous symbols from government/public property....so why is that same government now dictating rules/policies/law for religous institutions?! THIS is what the people are fighting...not any issue regarding women's health or wellness...

invalid said on February 22, 2012 at 9:47 PM

"And your beliefs or a pharmacists beliefs, does not enter into my health care." ME ME ME ME ME. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!

biff777 said on February 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Have any of you who agree with the judge's ruling ever been denied help in a hospital because of belief or religious belief? I have. Hamites, noble savages, and 'other people' know what I am talking about. Remember the eugenics programs that we knew about mostly ended in the late 60's in the U.S... 20 years after the Nazi's.

freedomfrank said on February 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Good to hear,,, its called land of the free for a reason.

Sir_Real said on February 22, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Those pills up there looks look like burgers on the grill. Add a little Freedom Fries from collentine1, and we'll have a Mission Accomplished BBQ for state licensed professional self-proclaimed rights!

reimiraa said on February 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Here is a thought: if one lives in a rural area and the only place within an hours drive will refuse, then since plan B is just a more concentrated birth control pill one could just refill another month prescription and take a large dose... granted plan B is 1.5 mg of the hormone and some BC pills are just .15mg of the same ingredient.. that would take a lot of pills to get the same effect. about 10 if my math is right..... loop holes are fun. They can't deny you BC and you can always refill an extra month in case the current one is misplaced. Or next time when at a place that does sell plan B stock up. If you don't like the service then go elsewhere. It is simple but then there could come a problem of what if many pharmacies in an area decide to not sell. This is a gray area ruling.

hologram5 said on February 22, 2012 at 7:14 PM

@andiamotodd: I see you talking a whole lot about carrying a child but you state you're a man. Where do you come off telling a store what they can and cannot sell like this? If I remember correctly and I do, we are still in America as well as WA state and as such, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. With that said, well, you know the rest. You can't force this on anyone period and thanks to the judge for confirming that we still live in a free country... for now.

collentine1 said on February 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Thank you Judge Leighton!

collentine1 said on February 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Good news! Finally, a win for conservatives, and freedom!

dakotanative said on February 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Win for rights.

Sir_Real said on February 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Well with this said, time for me, a private business owner, state licensed pharmacist to sell cocaine out of my pharmacy!

andiamotodd said on February 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM

@bfailing21667331 - Do you have kids? Have you carried a baby to term in your womb? If not, how do you know enough about the experience to make an informed decision? If you can offer a logical argument to the contrary I'd love to hear it.

bfailing21667331 said on February 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM

todd you are in denial you have no choice in the matter

bfailing21667331 said on February 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM

what a joke

andiamotodd said on February 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM

@Redeemed - Regardless how close a man's experience of pregnancy is to a woman's it is simply not the same and, as such, a man's cannot understand what it's like. It's no different than the impossibility of knowing the experience of being a different ethnicity from your own. My point about vasectomies is that any man who gets one has a choice and women should as well. You don't HAVE to listen to your wife but it's often less trouble when you do! @snakepliskin - That's a perfect solution when you live close enough to multiple pharmacies. What about the areas of the state where there aren't other options?

snakepliskin said on February 22, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Quit whining about how much more important your rights are than those of a pharmacist and go find a different pharmacy.

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 5:22 PM

@aniamotodd, "There's no comparison between helping a pregnant woman and carrying a child" There is no comparison to helping a pregnant woman and carrying a child. Sure there are plenty of comparisons, they are not the same but it is a close as a man will ever get and believe me any man that has cared for his pregnant wife can tell you it is a close a man can get without having the baby literally in his body. Anyone can tell you a man goes through some of the very same symptoms a pregnant female has during the pregnancy. With the exception of course passing a bowling bowl through a cavity 10s of time smaller than the bowling ball.. Trust me I know many of men who had that surgery at their wives request!

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

@andiamotodd,, On contrary I do have a right for part of me is in that womb. That womb may belong to you, but not all of the contents belong to you. Therefore it does not give you right to destroy the contents of your womb when they do not fully belong to you but a shared custody. If you were not up to sharing your womb perhaps you should keep your legs closed!

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM

@intrepid1, Using your logic then medical doctors should refuse to perform abortions.. From the Hippocratic oath ... I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

andiamotodd said on February 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

@Redeemed - As my first post was removed I'll try again. I am a father so understand biology and again argue that you have no womb so you have no right to say what a person with a womb does with it. There's no comparison between helping a pregnant woman and carrying a child. Do you think a woman should be able to decide whether you or I get a vasectomy?

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM

@laughmore, there is no shortage of plan b at planned murder shops across the nation. It may be a little inconstant to leave the suburbs for the city to get it. So it shouldn't be no big deal for it probably would of been more convenient just to go the the local Safeway open 24 7 to buy condoms, spermicidal jelly, but hey I know us tax payers should be making it more convenient to deal with the consequences after then before because that is whom we become. Kinda fits our spend now pay later doctrine of economics.

intrepid1 said on February 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM

American Association of College Pharmacy: Oath of A Pharmacist: "I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow: • I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns. • I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients. • I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me. • I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence. • I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct. • I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care. • I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists. I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public."

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

@laughmore, Lack of teaching people to be responsible for their actions will lead to more abortions. Planned Parenthood has all the free anti conception products produce for free for anyone that wants them at my tax dollars expense. So it is not good enough to take my taxes to abort life you want me to hand them out as well. Look us Christians realize in this imperfect fallen world that folks will take the lives of others for their convence and argue health issues when percentage wise of the 350,000 babies murdered this year only 1/10 of 1 percent fall into the argument of women's health and I believe that should be between a woman and her doctor when it is clearly a health issue. But for 99% it is not, the means does not justify the end.

intrepid1 said on February 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM

What a crock of sh*t. Where's the line? Could a pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for pain medication because s/he believes that suffering is essential to spiritual growth as a core believe of his/her religion? What about any number of medications to treat AIDS since a pharmacists religious belief could associate such disease with amoral behavior? First and foremost, a pharmacist is someone who seeks to provide a service to the community to facilitate health care needs -- regardless of the beliefs of those s/he serves at the direction of a doctor and regardless of their own personal beliefs. If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription because it conflicts with his/her moral/religious beliefs, maybe s/he should just stop being a pharmacist and go into another line of work...

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

@andiamotodd, By your standard have you given birth to a live baby? Do you not remember how the baby got created in the first place. It takes an egg and sperm to make a baby. So you can't tell me a father that I don't understand what it is like to carry a baby, if you never have I can tell you I have more experience than you about what it take to care for a baby in womb. Who takes care of the expectant mother, a joyful father to to be that is who. What gives you the right to kill off half the DNA I supplied and what gives you the right to undermine what is involved in the father’s part of taking care of the expectant mother? You don't want to host a baby and nurture it because it would mean your lifestyle would have to change, how about removing your ovaries before you take it out on innocent babies.

LaughMore said on February 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM

So those of you who are against Plan B, are you also against the daily contraceptive pill? There's not much of a difference. It is not abortion. However, lack of access to Plan B will lead to more abortions.

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

@ non believers I find it ironic the same people that speak of tolerance have no tolerance when others peoples view do not mesh with theirs. Why do you rile so much against Christianity as to any other faith? What is it about Christians you are so intolerant of their beliefs but so advocate the reading of Korans in our classrooms but throw the bible out? Could it be your position is a hypocritical one? Another form of this is hypocritical the advocacy of taking the life of an innocent a pre-born baby, but on the same hand you will protest the capital punishment of a person who has been found guilty by his peers of committing atrocities that warrant such punishment to serve justice to their victims. Does this not merit the judgment of hypocrisy?

andiamotodd said on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Unless you can birth a child, you simply don't understand what it means to do so or not. As such, if you cannot birth a child, you have zero standing in this debate. If you feel so strongly, keep it in your pants and you won't have to address the issue. Otherwise you're imposing your religious views on others just as you argue is being done to the pharmacists.

kramseyer said on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

"War on women"? Please quit acting like you are speaking for all of us women. Because many of us women are fighting the war called abortion. And WhoMe, Freedom of Religion is set in place so the government cannot violate the rights of those with moral convictions. No one is trying to force their religion upon you. In fact, it's the opposite. The government is trying to impose upon religious institutions...like the issue with the HHS Mandate.

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

@whome, Where does one begin with you.. :). I would suggest those who "throw their babies to the curb" are not practicing the golden rule to begin with and more importantly I would suggest they are just giving lip service as far as love goes. Second life scientifically begins at conception ask any unbiased scientist that when a sperm fertilizes an egg about life beginning. So it is not a religious belief as it is a scientific fact. If you saw this occur on MARS you would claim there is life on MARS. If you don't believe in the gravity I suggest jumping of the space needle to see how that works. And I agree not everything done in the name of Christianity throughout history reflects the values of life and love as God has demonstrated to us through the life of the only savior that rose from the grave and changed world history! Your right to have your worldview which is a religion unto itself I am happy to oblige and not fight to take away from you.

coyotebmw said on February 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Actually, Redeemed has made a very good point, this judgement is about the 1st Amendment. Think about in relationship to the recently passed "Marriage" bill. That will eventually run up against the same issue, due to the requirement that "businesses can not refuse to provide services to gay couple who want to get 'married' because of the religious convictions of the business owners". It is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, just as this issue is.

WhoMe said on February 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

What is pathetic is how all you right wing religious zealots care so much about so called pre born babies but as soon as they are born you throw them to the curb. I dont believe life starts at conception like you zealots believe. And frankly they are your religous beliefs and you continually try to force them down others throats. No one like abortion but it is a womens personal choice not yours. And there is no FREE enterprise all have regulations and should. And its your creator not mine. In my book Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in the same god they just can't agree on the savior so for the past 2000 years they have put the world through hell. Thats the real war the religious war. The history of Christians isn't anything to be proud of and the current crop are trying to bring us back to the dark ages. Stand up to these religous zealots and fight for freedom from religion.

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

@javajunkie, I've got a suggestion for you to simplify this for you. Just follow the constitution, amendment 1... 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. Pretty simple don't pass laws forcing its citizens to violate their conscious find a citizen that is in agreement with taking an innocent life...

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

@LaughMore, Seriously war on women? What about the real WAR on 350,000 pre-born babies that will be murdered for convenience of choice in the US alone this year? Would you want to be one of these victims? The real war is taking innocence human life, but your probably okay with sparing the life of a convicted serial murder or rapist as long you don't have to see the taking of innocent life and it can be done behind with white sterile? So you would rather force someone to do something against there conscious, then to go out a find a like minded licensed drug dealer to provide you your baby killing drugs? How pathetic!

Redeemed said on February 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

@myopinion, Seriously, only 1/10 of 1 percent of pregnancies are from rape. Your ridiculous argument is the same baseless one the advocates of killing of pre-born babies use as well. @Scott_Bellevue, Christian doctrine is why you have rights in this country you will not find in a Muslim country. You think it's bad here move to Iran already where you can see the results of a government that did not evolve from Christian values. And yes as FREE enterprise you have the right to refuse service to anyone you want. What is at stake here is not a constitutional right to abortion pills, but the rights endowed by OUR CREATOR to practice ones faith without government mandating how to do so. Why is you liberal are all so sensitive Muslim faith and practice or any faith or world view than christian to ensure their rights are infringed upon, but when it comes to Christianity there is such hostility? So again God's word rings true, how the wicked rile against Him.

LaughMore said on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I wonder if there will be a list of pharmacies who choose not to carry this type of medication. If they feel they are making a moral choice, I would hope they would understand my moral choice in not doing business with them. This war on women is becoming more and more frightening.

scott_bellevue said on February 22, 2012 at 9:15 AM

I'm so tired of Christian religious dogma. My god get over yourselves already. I'm opposed to Christians, does that mean I can turn them away from my business? No. What an absurd concept.

jhjohnson said on February 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The State should not have the right to tell a private company they have to sell a specific product period. Other businesses will take up the slack if the product is wanted. Why do some think that they have the right to tell others what to do and think? Live and let live and take your business elsewhere.

dakotanative said on February 22, 2012 at 8:04 AM

No pharmacy has every drug in the market. The state cannot, and will not require every pharmacy to carry it. They may say you have to dispense if you have it, so an easy fix is to get rid of it.

javajunkie said on February 22, 2012 at 7:45 AM

A pharmacists job is to dispense pharmaceuticals not religious ideologies. ihateking5, you say that religious freedom must be respected. Should we support ALL religious ideologies in the workplace? Or just "Christian" ones? There are many, many, many religious ideologies out there. Or is your idea of religious freedom exclusive only to "Christianity?"

myopinion said on February 22, 2012 at 6:28 AM

ihateking5-Not everybody chooses to have sex and get pregnant. Sometimes they are forced and it happens without choice

ihateking5 said on February 22, 2012 at 6:19 AM

The other salient point is that allowing for conscientious objection for pharmacists does not prevent women from getting abortive drugs in any other place: it just allows that one pharmacist the freedom to choose her own course. If you say 'well she should have considered that before becoming a pharmacist", one might as easily say "well, you should have considered the likelihood of pregnancy before having sex." Not to mention that this law was enacted long after many pharmicists had been educated, certified and serving for decades. Logic doesn't respect stupid PC conventions: it bulldozes its way through short sighted liberal philosophy and confronts it with hard facts. The state should NEVER force a free citizen to choose between an act they consider homicide, or the loss of their livelihood. One might as well round up all the Occupy protesters and drop them into a firefight in Afghanistan against their will. Conscience and religious freedom must be respected.

ihateking5 said on February 22, 2012 at 6:10 AM

This is different from filing a flight plan in this way: a flight plan is an intent to keep all persons involved alive. Distributing after-the-fact abortificents can logically be considered aiding in the taking of a human life. While we can require by law that you keep humans alive, we shouldn't require that you kill them. What this law does is force ALL pharmacists who have compunctions against killing humans out of the position. In a few years what's left will be dispensing meds to your nursing home. Feeling uncomfortable yet? If not, then you're not thinking.

Sir_Real said on February 22, 2012 at 1:19 AM

This is simple, if you want the certification of "pharmacist" then you have a duty to follow the guidelines of what that job requires. Just ask the "some certified airline pilots" how far they would get with the FAA if they didn't feel like filing flight plans.