Judge Leighton is a moron.

Christ, if we had to rely on the whim of the pharmacist's beliefs then we might never know which pharmacy to go to for which medication.

This is just another stupid religious intrusion into secular civil governance.

.

Harry I was just thinking the same thing. This is getting crazy.

When will it end???????

agreed, couldn't have said it better myself. when does it end? it's not up to the Rx if the person wants the med.

The states shouldn't be forced to sell any kind of healthcare, especially Obamacare.

We've returned to a repressive, religion-infused dark ages. We have become the enemy we fear -- religious zealots -- who threaten to turn back civilization to a period dominated by priests who control your lives and a "government" that ensures everyone thinks as the majority does. The tyranny of the majority is the basis of all repressive regimes. Welcome to the US of morons -- a conservative tyranny.

Does anyone doubt for a minute that a Santorum or Gingrich or Palin dem(theo)cracy would impose their beliefs on everyone? Some idiot will post how liberals force their beliefs on others. Seriously? Asking a pharmacist to do their job OR QUIT is too much? Really? Asking that individuals have the right to make decisions about their medical care is too much? The hyprocrisy of the right has become too much.

I agree. I hope that people see what is happening here. It's scary stuff.

Leighton's ruling will clearly have to be overturned. He might as well have said that a fundamental christian gas station employee can refuse to sell gas to a jew based on his religious beliefs. It's not the employees rights that are important here, it's the employers. If the employee refuses to do the job as defined by the employer, the employee has no rights and is in breach of contract. Might as well have all phlebotomists staffed by 7th day adventists! Silly!

I have zero problem with this..

This country was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. IF I as a business owner do not want to sell something, the Gvmnt does not have a right to force me to sell it.

They are private businesses. They are free to carry whatever products they want. If they do not carry the products that you want, then you are free to vote with your feet and go to another one that carries the products you want.

I really hate that the government is trying to tell private companies what they have to carry or cover. If an insurance company wants to cover contraceptives, fine, if another does not, fine. You pick who you want. Just like the insurance companies offer different coverage levels, some cover pregnancy, others do not. This should all be left up to the market forces. If an insurance plan does not cover contraceptives, and a bunch of people want them, then they will go elsewhere and the insurance company will decide if they want to change and cover them to not lose customers. If a pharmacy wants to carry plan B, then fine, if not then if there is enough of a demand and they start losing money, then maybe they will start covering it. Does every pharmacy carry every possible drug available? I think not. When my wife needed some specialized drugs, I went to several that said they did not carry it. They pointed me to another one that would probably carry it.

Now if a pharmacy carried Plan B and the pharmacist refused to dispense it, that would be another issue. And the pharmacy should can the pharmacist because that is part of the job and if they cannot do the job, then they need to find another job.

What's pathetic is that these same pharmacists sell normal contraceptives - they are hypocrites to the very core.

I agree, this ruling SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.

However, the SCOTUS SHOULD OVERTURN ObamaCare since the Federal Government is MANDATING I purchase something.

But Leighton said Wednesday that the state allows all sorts of business exemptions to that rule. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.

If the state allows exemptions for non-religious reasons, he said, it must also allow them for religious or moral ones, he said.

So, a pharmacist does not have to carry a drug if its too much paperwork and you liberals are okay with that but despise a pharmacist who doesn't want to carry a drub over religious views. You can either allow exemptions in all cases or none at all. Since when can the government force any citizen in this country to do something it finds morally wrong?

Should be the pharmacy that decides what they carry, not the pharmacist. Unless of course the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, then it is one in the same.

I have no problem with plan B and other contraceptives. Personal choice and all.

I can see their point though because it is not like other contraceptives. Other contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized. In the case of plan B, it works after the egg has been fertilized, by preventing it from implanting in the uterus. So almost like an early abortion. Of course most fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus anyway, so who knows if it would have or not to begin with.

Scott: what do you have against accountants that you want all the GOP nuts to become accountants ?

As to this Judge, I predict this ruling will be overturned by the 9th Circuit as quickly as the appeal can be filed. I also expect the 9th Circuit to put language into their ruling which makes it very clear how they feel about a judge who fails to follow their previous ruling. The court of appeals can issue contempt citations too.

So, it's back to the 9th then?

BTW - robeson - not the same issue unless the gas station owner would not sell to ANYONE. Perhaps IF the situation were to be refusal to sell diesel to red-neck truckers... This is a case of the pharmacist refusing to sell a certain medication (product) to someone because that sale somehow violates their religious principles. The situation gets a wee bit out of hand when the supply is very limited and since time is the essence of the medication, it's a bad ruling. I can say, though, that IF I had en employee take that attitude with ME, they would be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

Scott says

"Time for pharmacies to start asking religious questions on applications. I am sure these idiots will love the government inferring when that happens, and it will. We don't need people who know nothing of science making medical decisions for the rest of us."

Do you have any idea of the scientific training that a pharmacist has? Doctors and patients both trust them to make sure we are taking the right stuff and there is no bad interaction between drugs. These people are the experts about drugs.

This will never stand on appeal...this is ludicrous. What's next? Your pharmacist decides you don't need that heart medicine on grounds you're fooling with mother nature??

Jim in Auburn

They are private businesses. They are free to carry whatever products they want. If they do not carry the products that you want, then you are free to vote with your feet and go to another one that carries the products you want.

Not true in that this isn't about the pharmacies. This is about people working at them, would you like a grocery store clerk deciding you get no beef because he/she is Hindi ? No difference, the product is there and the gatekeepers religious non-sense is the only one telling you no.

Plan B in Texas at least is behind the counter, so while you don't need a permission slip from your doctor, it still not available unless a pharmacist does there job.

Your point is only valid if the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, which is rare. So now if one decides that you aren't worthy, they can slap their stupid religious belief sticker on it and you don't get the medicine your doctors states you need. And i assume, as I mentioned above, you are down with a religious litmus test at employment so pharmacies don't have to deal with this non-sense.

A better idea would be for these idiots to get into a different line of work that doesn't involve putting their 2000 year old beliefs up against mine or yours. Because today it's Christians, and tomorrow it Muslims or Hindus or Spaghetti Monster believers. Either way, their beliefs should not dictate my health.

Clearly this will be overturned, it the time being, if the pharmacist says not at a chain, call the manager, they will get it since you don't need a prescription.

What is pathetic is that people believe they have the right to dictate to individuals what they must sell.

Food is necessary to life. Do you believe you have the right to tell restaurants what food they must sell? Should all grocery stores be required to sell the same foods?

I recommend that you return to the Constitution and read the 1st Amendment again. Particularly the part where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Just because you desire that the pharmacy accommodate your wants does not obligate them to do so.

Uh, for all you progressives: did you ever see a sign on a business door reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Private business....private pharmacy, same principle.....protected by the Constitution! I don't know where you libbies got the idea that the rest of us have to do something simply because you think we ought to.

As a store owner you have the right to choose which products to sell.

The Federal government should not be allowed to require that a Tobacco Store sell automobiles.

when dealing with prescriptions, it's not the PERSON that gets refused - it's either the medication or the prescription itself. As was noted, some pharms in high crime areas can refuse to carry narcotic drugs as a safety issue of the employees.

At least the RWNJ's are consistent on this one, they don't want the government dictating medical treatment. The fact that this may allow pharmacists to pick and choose which LEGAL medications they decide to dispense (and to who) is entirely the point of why they want to do this.

Any kind of "moral or religious" exception to the rules undercuts the very point of having the rule. What if they decide that they don't want to dispense emergency asthma medication to children under the age of 5 because "God wants to bring his babies home." And the next exception would be to dispensing any medication to anyone except married men for their family.

The reason for the state's rule is so that any person can go into any pharmacy and get any legal medication at any time. The exceptions made for not having any legal perscription on stock are for logistical reasons.

jrl-281852
Do you have any idea of the scientific training that a pharmacist has? Doctors and patients both trust them to make sure we are taking the right stuff and there is no bad interaction between drugs. These people are the experts about drugs.

I don't, but I know that no pharmacist has had issues with birth control pills. Which are the same chemical and do the exact same thing as Plan B, just at a higher dose. And I learnid that all be meself on das internets... Which means that their objection is hypocritical and not based on science.

I also know the state doesn't trust them or I wouldn't need a permission slip from a physician to get what they dispense. They count pills and look at a computer, which in case you use a big chain, is what actually determines if medicine should not be combined. But dat wood meen sum of dem sons o beatches do nofing but count pills.

There is nothing a pharmacist knows that can't be found on the internet in 2 mins, while at the pharmacy using my phone. That is a fact.

As a store owner you have the right to choose which products to sell.

And when you find a pharmacist that owns the pharmacy, call me. this is about the pharmacist deciding. pretty sure you would not be down with a Hindu checker telling you 'No Beef' at the grocery store.

SUCH BS!!! What is going on with the republican/anti-choice/anti-women campaign?

VOTER ALERT..........vote all these hypocrites out of office asap!!! You may agree with some of these asinine decisions but beware one day those rights that are removed will affect you!

dirp101

As to this Judge, I predict this ruling will be overturned by the 9th Circuit as quickly as the appeal can be filed. I also expect the 9th Circuit to put language into their ruling which makes it very clear how they feel about a judge who fails to follow their previous ruling. The court of appeals can issue contempt citations too.

You have a lot of faith in the 9th circut.. THE MOST overturned court in the country.

That entire court needs to go back to law school.

Vooda

SUCH BS!!! What is going on with the republican/anti-choice/anti-women campaign?

This has nothing to do with being Anti-woman... and everything about the Gvmnt not being able to say what a private business can and cannot sell.

This has nothing to do with being Anti-woman... and everything about the Gvmnt not being able to say what a private business can and cannot sell.

Open your eyes and mind!

When were medical practices mandated for men?

What male medication can be refused by a pharmacist?

Why is Viagra covered by insurance while birth control for women is an outrage?

Why does the government/christian taliban have any right to try to control what decision a woman and her doctor make regarding her body and her life?

Remove your chauvinistic mask and put on some glasses.....you've got some learning to do!

The government should not require a pharmacy to sell it. But if the pharmacy sells it, and their employee will not fill it, then that is an issue between the employer and employee. Complain to management. If it is important enough to the pharmacy, then they should fire the pharmacist. Filling prescriptions is their job. If they will only fill certain ones, then they cannot do their job and should lose it. I do not care about their religious rights. If their religion prevents them from doing their job, then they should find a new job.

Other contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized. In the case of plan B, it works after the egg has been fertilized, by preventing it from implanting in the uterus. So almost like an early abortion.

Other contraceptives do that too... they prevent implantation, in addition to trying to prevent fertilization.

Of course most fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus anyway, so who knows if it would have or not to begin with.

This is what drives me crazy about the idiot "abortion is murder" crowd. By their definition, if abortion is murder then a miscarriage is manslaughter. Any sexually active woman will experience multiple fertilized eggs that do not implant... and if life starts at conception, then that would be considered manslaughter. By their own definition, of course.

More reason for socialized medicine. Washington should open up state pharmacies and sell drugs less than the for profits. Obama care didn't go far enough in making health care available, it should also make all medicine available by the government selling pharmaceuticals less than big name drug companies. That could easily be done because the government doesn't have to show a huge profit at the end of the year, just service.

I just love it when a judge hands down a ruling that the lefties hate. Such vile comments come out of the party of love and respect.

You lost on this one. I know you'll keep pushing your assinine agenda though. We'll see you in court again.

Vooda, how about argue the actual issue. Nobody is saying the woman can't have Plan B, only that they (the pharmacist) don't have to contribute to the process. It's not like they can't go to the one right across the street. Your (and I use this word in the plural, all of you Libs sense) rights don't trump the pharmacists' rights. You can have access to any legal drug, just don't expect everyone to have to sell it. Go to a pharmacy that agrees with your position. This ruling doesn't take any choice away from a woman but it does give a choice to the pharmacy. I say it again: this ruling doesn't affect a woman's right to choose in any way. She can legally choose to use Plan B and she can legally choose which pharmacy to go to. What you propose is actually anti-choice because it takes away the pharmacist's right to choose what he or she feels is right. And before you get all high and mighty on me, know this: I'm agnostic. I oppose this on Constitutional grounds. I have zero religious objections. I object to the freedoms being slowly but surely taken away from us.

I'm all for a woman who doesn't want to have a child being able to take Plan B but that doesn't make the government have the right to make people do things in the private sector that goes against their religion (I'm not religious by the way). This is a freedom issue the womans right to choose to take the medicine and the pharmacist right not to carry it. If it was my pharmacy I would carry it and all employees would have to dispense it or not work for me.........see that freedom thing again.

Say a large Pharmacy chain carries Plan B and you as a pharmacist don't want to dispense it due to your religious beliefs, fine with me as long as you resign your position with the company or accept the company's right to fire you. If you own the business than you can decide to sell it or not. If you are a employee do your job, quit or get fired. Could a member of Aryan Nations Church that works for Walmart as a cashier refuse to ring up a Black person's purchases? Could a member of the Westboro Baptist that works at Walmart as a cashier wear a "God hates Fags" T Shirt at work? The store manager is a member of FLDS does Walmart have to offer heath insurance to all his wives?

Devil's Son

As soon as you own the business you can tell your employees what to do. Until then it is none of your f'ing business. The same goes for our government. All of you women who don't agree with this decision should just keep an aspirin between your legs and you will never need Plan B.

Your (and I use this word in the plural, all of you Libs sense) rights don't trump the pharmacists' rights.

That's right, Jim... if a pharmacist wants to discriminate against medication for females, but still provide it for males, he has every right to. Because it's not discrimination if it is supported by your religion.

F*** it... why stop there? My religion says I don't have to sell anything to women. Sorry, but my religion believes they need to stay in the house and raise children... not go out in public. Hey, it's not discrimination, it's my religion. Your rights do not trump my religious rights. So you have to protect my religion. Isn't that right, Jim.

All of you women who don't agree with this decision should just keep an aspirin between your legs and you will never need Plan B.

JH,

How will an "aspirin between your legs" stop a pregnancy? I can think of at least five sexual positions that a women can keep her knees together, and hold an aspirin, while we do the deed. So how, exactly, will that prevent the need for Plan B?

Oh... you thought missionary was the only position? Ahhhh... how sad for you.

IndieParty

How many tolerant people do you have in your congregation? I think you just made up your religion. Please show some respect for religions that were established long before the United States of America was established.

The aspirin idea was a joke. You must not follow the far left news these days. They are busy trying to demonize a good man for mentioning that old joke. A man who is FAR better a person than some of them. Mr. Foster Friess has done an awful lot of good in his life but the far lefties will go after him because he doesn't agree with them. In this case the far lefties can STFU.

IndieParty, as sad as it is, you just don't get it. Those situations you talk about hurt someone else. If you actually read my post you would also see that I am agnostic so your little religious rant is offbase because I couldn't care less. You Libs want to take away freedoms, I want to preserve them. A pharmacist refusing to sell a drug is at worst an inconvenience. Hell, the prescribing doctor should know enough to send the patient to a pharmacy that offers the drug if a prescription is required. If not, a Google search would easily find a pharmacy that offers what the consumer wants. Again, for all of you reading-challenged useful idiots out there (not directed at any specific person), how about exercise your right to choose a different damn pharmacy?

The constitution is very specific about what it classes as discrimination. Selling or not selling a particular product has nothing to do with discrimination in this instance.

This is a case of the government requiring a business to sell a product. It doesn't matter what the product the government should not have the right to force a business to sell it! Just like the government shouldn't have the right to force a consumer to buy a particular product. By the same token if a customer does not like a business because they don't have a particular product they can and should go elsewhere.

Do we really wanting the government to have the power (other than safety)over what a business sells or doesn't sell? Remember political parties shift back and forth, so if you give power to one party just because they have similar ideas, then next may admin may decide differently.

You Libs want to take away freedoms, I want to preserve them

I know Jim, I know... damn those "Libs".

Like the "Libs" that want to take away my freedom to get into a property and inheritance contract with any individual I want. Those "Libs" want to tell me that I can only sign this contract with certain people.

And those "Libs" that want to ban contraceptives. Damn those "Libs" for trying to take away my freedom to be responsible and not have 23 kids.

And those "Libs" that want to say I am not allowed to do what I want with my own body. Like... for instance... let's say a parasite developed, as a small mass of cells, feeding on the nutrients of a woman, to grow... these damn "Libs" want to give this parasite more rights than the woman.

And those "Libs" are trying to force their "morals" on us... even though morals are subjective to each person. On top of that, they want to make this a Christian nation, pushing their religion on everyone. What about my freedom of religion?

And those "Libs" are now telling us to "keep our legs closed"... as a clever way of saying not to have sex. I'm sorry, "Libs", but I am free to make my own decisions.

And those "Libs" want to tell a person that they can die for our country, but they can not say the 3 words that reveal their sexuality. Can you believe those "Libs"? If someone is going to die for our country, they should be free to say those 3 words.

Damn those "Libs"... trying to take away our freedoms.

Why are so many people saying it is about the federal government staying out of private business? This law was passed by the state of Washington, not the federal government. It is totally within the state's rights to pass such a law. If your doctor prescribes you a medication and your pharmacist refuses to sell it to you, your pharmacist is not doing what is in your best interest. A pharmacist is just as responsible for your health as your primary physician, especially if you are a regular client.

Pharmaceuticals are a new technology, and people who believe a book written 2,000 years ago trumps scientific logic should be banned from science. In addition, why would God have allowed these drugs to be created if he didn't want them to be used for the greater good of humanity, unless he is a truly cruel, conniving, and malevolent God?

You are no longer worth my time, Indie. Your arguments are hypocrisy personified. You cannot defend "some" freedoms and not others or you're just pushing an agenda, but I would never expect an ideologue to understand that. Your assumptions about my political beliefs are erroneous and arrogant because I actually support freedom in everything I espouse. So, have a nice day, if you can, but above all, go away.

An excellent decision. An ethical judge. Not influenced or intimidated by the screaming pro-aborts.

Please show some respect for religions that were established long before the United States of America was established.

Respect for religions that were established long before the US? Respect?

Tell me, JH... which religion should I show "respect" to? The one that consistently molests children? Or perhaps the one that practices Sharia Law? Maybe the one that burned women alive because someone accused them of being a witch? Perhaps the one people use to justify whipping their children by quoting "spare the rod"? Or the one that justified owning slaves before the US was established? Maybe the one that killed millions in a "crusade" for their Lord?

Which one of those... wonderful organizations... should I "respect"?

You cannot defend "some" freedoms and not others or you're just pushing an agenda, but I would never expect an ideologue to understand that.

So it's ok when a Republican like you does it... but not when those evil "Libs" do it.

Cool... got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Keep up the hypocrisy.

So these religious zealots actually feel a private practice should be beyond regulation and the state and feds should stay out of their business. I'm sure they will feel this way should they actual band together enough fellow nutcases and take over congress and take us back to deregulation everything and someone else gets in their private order of gold plated clothes hangers and go into private practice. Bet it won't take them long to make laws to close down that private practice huh?

only that they (the pharmacist) don't have to contribute to the process.

Funny.....the last time I checked, if I didn't do what I was told to do at my job, I'd get fired. Are pharmacists above that? They don't have to do their jobs???

I'm all for a woman who doesn't want to have a child being able to take Plan B but that doesn't make the government have the right to make people do things in the private sector that goes against their religion (I'm not religious by the way).

Hmmm, let's test your theory....say you were diagnosed with meningitis and the attending physician didn't believe in antibiotics so according to you he should be able to refuse treatment. Or let's say you needed a blood transfusion and the dr. didn't believe in that soooooo you are allowed to die because we don't want to infringe on the dr.'s rights....sorry BS. A pharmacist went to school and got a job to fill prescriptions....do the damn job or get the hell out of it......go live in a monastery or nunnery.

Vooda, how about argue the actual issue. Nobody is saying the woman can't have Plan B, only that they (the pharmacist) don't have to contribute to the process.

I am arguing the actual issue.....and this is totally discriminatory against women. Open your mind. If this had anything to do with the almighty penis you'd be all over it. But since this world worships the almighty penis you can't fathom how disgraceful all these anti-women bs attacks by the repubs are pulling make a woman feel. Guess what? Any woman with a brain is not going to sit back and let this jerk off men push us back into the back ages or alleys!

There's no doubt that in the United States of America that the judge's decision is right. Heck, I'm not even sure why anyone would pretend to argue it. Since anyone who has a brain will find out who is not offering Plan B, they will promote that they are offering Plan B. Imagine that! The free market and the public will determine who survives and who doesn't. Since Plan B is in such high demand, those opposed to someone not carrying it needs to just sit back and watch it go out of business of it's own volition.

So, the state can dictate that any doctor who is licensed to perform surgery can be required to perform abortions? Seems some people think so. Can government require anyone selling BB guns to also sell AK-47s? After all, the failure to do so discriminates against those who have the need for an AK-47. And we all know that any failure to provide for all needs is discrimination. The list goes on and on. And what too many people aren't smart enough to figure out is that this is all about the power and authority of government. Once you agree government has the power then you have no right to complain when they exercise it in a way you disagree with.

Speaking of which, what is the document that determines the limits on governmental powers? In the US it is the Constitution. The left has in essence decided that the Constitution no longer applies. That being the case, it's just a matter of a leader deciding that things like the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments are archaic and no longer apply. So, cops can come to your house and hold you in jail for no reason what so ever. Hmmmm.... poses and interesting dilemma for the left if they are arrested. I'm sure that they wouldn't resort to arguing that the Constitution, that they adamantly have been denying restricts government, should prevent them from being held, could they?

Vooda... By your argument the government should step in and mandate types of care.

What about if the government mandates that someone over the age of 65, mentally handicapped, or just inferior somehow not be given life saving care or mandate high doses of medication to permanently put them to sleep? Should the doctors follow it because "the government said so", even if their moral conscience dictates otherwise?

Giving governmental authority over your medical care is like giving a blindfolded idiot a loaded gun to play with while you're in the room. Be careful what you ask for, as shifts in power through out history has led to governments doing the above!

Vooda, you don't know me. Don't presume to know my thoughts. How is this discriminatory to women? As has been said repeatedly, a woman always has the choice of another pharmacy. And to answer LS, if the pharmacy has that requirement, then that pharmacist needs to look for a new job. An employer has the right to have that requirement. The government does not. You guys only understand freedom to be everyone else giving you what you want for free. How juvenile can you be?

All I am saying is that nobody should ever be forced by the government to do what he or she thinks is wrong. If you have a problem with that then you don't understand what freedom is and frankly probably don't deserve to have it. Good day.

this problem is so simple. don't go into a career field that may someday force you to compromise your beliefs. and if you do, to damn bad, do your job or get to steppin.

So if birth control or say abortions were made illegal by law for even those who were raped, then people shouldn't become doctors because it would compromise their beliefs that women deserve freedom of choice?

Maybe it should be up to a majority in society as to what beliefs we follow? That would have prevented much of civil rights legislation in the 60's and gays would still not be allowed in the military.

Or is it just we only follow the beliefs that you specifically believe in?

....say you were diagnosed with meningitis and the attending physician didn't believe in antibiotics so according to you he should be able to refuse treatment. Or let's say you needed a blood transfusion and the dr. didn't believe in that soooooo you are allowed to die because we don't want to infringe on the dr.'s rights

Ok Vooda are you really that incapable of understanding the differences. We are talking about whether a pharmacy has to stock a particualr drug and they are basing their decision on religion. It has already by established that some pharmacies don't carry certain narcotic drugs because of theft and robbery (I guess you want to lock up all those pharmacist in low income areas.....you must hate poor people). Remember a pharmacy is still just a store they choose what they want to carry.

Now let's look at your little doctor play. So if you go to a Doctor and need a major surgical procedure and he doesn't have a surgery unit in his practice then he should be imprisioned because he didn't have exactly what you needed or wanted. Second even if he did what if he wasn't qualified to perform such a procedure then again you want him prosecuted.

Sorry but you fall short again.

How about the bus or taxi driver that refuses to drive a woman to a drug store they know sells Plan B because they are against it? Or say a restaurant that refuses to serve a woman they have discovered is using Plan B?

Change the circumstance to abortion clinic and now you are in situations that have already occurred.

Sorry, but neither the pharmacist nor any of those others folks should be allowed to discriminate based on their religion or any other social model. You are claiming the pharmacist's right are been trod on but seem to dismiss that the pharmacist is the one who is first stomping on the rights of his customer to fill a legitimate prescription.

Why should religion be allowed to trump legal rights and/or access? We've got to stop allowing religion to be unassailable.

Plan B is behind the counter but not a prescription med so a pharmacist should not be needed to "dispense" it. If a pharmacy owner chooses to carry it and they employ a pharmacist who will not hand the evil non-abortifacient to the customer, any cashier at the pharmacy should be allowed to do so and ring up the sale. I wonder if these same pharmacists refuse to ring up the sale of condoms at the pharmacy counter. If they objection to contraception on religious grounds, they should object to all artificial contraception (the objection specifically to hormonal contraception dispensed at a pharmacy is often based not on a problem with contraception itself, it's based on a claim that hormonal contraception is abortion, which it is not).

Culheath, your argument is baseless because you assume the woman's rights have been denied. They have not. She still has the right to Plan B, just not the right to say that any specific person has to give it to her. It's no different than telling a Kosher deli they MUST serve non-Kosher food. Or telling Chik-fil-A they MUST open on Sunday. The business owners deserve the right to make their own choices. If you or any other person doesn't agree you have the right to go elsewhere. Besides, every Walgreen's I've ever seen has a CVS or something similar right across the street.

It all boils down to this, for me. The Left has degenerated to the point where every position they take can be boiled down to simply this: "Give me whatever I want, whenever I want it, for free." In most cases, except for the free part, it's another extension of freedom. But when it infringes upon the belief of another person (regardless of whether you have that belief or not) then it's wrong. We're not talking about access because most cities have dozens of pharmacies. I promise you at least one would sell it.

I'll leave you with this: why is it my responsibility to make it convenient for a person to be irresponsible? Before you guys get your panties in a bunch, we're not talking about rapes, incest, etc. We're talking about someone who was just too slack to think ahead and have BC when they needed it. Yes, it takes two to tango, which means it's just as much the responsibility of the male as the female, but it changes nothing. It's neither my fault nor my choice but I now have to "pay" for it? How is that respecting my rights? It's not and you can't claim it is. Personally, I couldn't care less whether someone takes Plan B. Frankly, I wish they would give them out in Pez dispensers at all the Democrat rallies. BUT, if I want to find out whether something is fair or not I put myself in the shoes of both parties.

Pharmacist: has to do something he or she feels is wrong.

Woman: has to drive another block or two.

Yeah, that's fair.

Actually, plan B IS still a perscription medication (just checked the FDA website.)

The entire point of the law was to not allow religious or "ethical beliefs" interfere with the ability of the public to obtain legalized medications. If a pharmacist does not want to "stock" a particular medication due to valid concerns of theft, cost, ability to obtain the drug, that is acceptable.

Concerns based solely on not wanting to sell the drug are not valid. If you don't want to dispense medicine, get out of the pharmacy business.

This is no more valid than deciding not to stock or dispense drugs which help those with sickle cell anemia.

As to the 9th Circuit, yes, I do put some faith in them. As the largest Circuit Court, they do hear the largest number of cases from the most diverse population area. Just because the SCOTUS has gone wacko does not mean the 9th is always wrong.

In this case, the 9th was correct and this judge was wrong, again. He'll be slapped down by the 9th for failing to follow their previous ruling.

Dirp,

Who are you to determine the validity of a person's beliefs? When some jerk wants to wear his pants around his knees you guys always say: "Then don't look. It's a protected freedom" Well, if your favorite pharmacy doesn't sell what you want, get it somewhere else! The right to choose works both ways. If you want the right to choose to kill a zygote then a pharmacist has the right to choose not to help you. Buy it at the one across the street. Since you confirmed that it's still a prescription anyway, the doctor should have enough sense when he calls it in to send you to the right place anyway. Or hell, let the prescribing doc give it out.

Actually, if the pharmacist is in the pharmaceutical business, his religious beliefs do not give him the arbitrary right to decide what is and is not a valid, legal drug to be dispensed. The entire point of the first amendments religious protections were to prevent religion from controlling government and government from controlling religion. In allowing a persons religious beliefs to override an otherwise valid law, you are allowing religious control of our government.

I never said there beliefs were not valid. They are just irrelevant to the issue. If these people want to do a licensed activity, they need to follow the law.

If these religious nuts don't want to dispense legal drugs, they should get out of the pharmacy business.

OH, btw, I was not at all surprised to find out that this judge was appointed by George W. Bush, since he is known worldwide to be an erudite master of religious tolerance. /sarc. off.

the court held that that PARTICULAR pharmacist could refuse to supply THAT PARTICULAR drug on religious grounds. The rest of the state of Washington's pharmacists are not covered by that particular exemption. So in that case, what you said about going across the street is essentially correct.

Giving governmental authority over your medical care is like giving a blindfolded idiot a loaded gun to play with while you're in the room.

Thank you for proving the anti-choice bastards have no business trying to tell a women what pill she can't have or procedures she can't have!

How is this discriminatory to women? As has been said repeatedly, a woman always has the choice of another pharmacy

What a cavalier attitude Mr. Man! Why should she have to shop around until she can find a pharmacist to fill a legal script??!?! WHAT KIND OF HAPPY HORSE $HIT IS THAT? What if the pharmacist doesn't believe in filling medication to help a smoker breathe because the fool caused his own COPD? What if the pharmacist doesn't feel like filling cardiac meds for the obese slob that waddles up to his counter because of his lack of discipline. You see, you open this can of worms where a person can pick and choose what medications they find offensive therefore won't provide can have disastrous results. Or is this different because we are talking about a woman with loose morals?

Ok Vooda are you really that incapable of understanding the differences. We are talking about whether a pharmacy has to stock a particualr drug and they are basing their decision on religion.

No you are incapable! See you can't even imagine if someone refused service be it medications or procedures based on a different belief system. If they are so RELIGIOUS then don't make yourself vulnerable to having to compromise your personal moral/religious code.

So if you go to a Doctor and need a major surgical procedure and he doesn't have a surgery unit in his practice then he should be imprisioned because he didn't have exactly what you needed or wanted. Second even if he did what if he wasn't qualified to perform such a procedure then again you want him prosecuted.

Sorry but you fall short again.

Sorry but you fall short.....I think you just proved my point. duh!

Actually Vooda, you want the right to choose to end a life, I think the pharmacist should have the right to refuse to help. By the way, each of those situations you mention would each be freedoms that should be protected. I'm not defending those pharmacist's choices any more than I am defending a woman's choice of ending a potential human being, but I am and will always defend their right to choose. In short, people have the right to be asshats if they want, and other people have the right to vote with their wallets against those asshats. Either way, why is a woman's right to choose more important than theirs? Because she has a vagina?

Actually Vooda, you want the right to choose to end a life, I think the pharmacist should have the right to refuse to help

The whole crux of the matter......your true feelings are revealed and so explains your anti-choice agenda.....which makes me laugh when I read your next statement and then your last two

Either way, why is a woman's right to choose more important than theirs? Because she has a vagina?

you seem a little confused.

A woman's right is more important because she is a living breathing human being and not an unwilling incubator to a potential person.

Until men can figure out how to grown a vagina then yes it is because SHE has a vagina.

Vooda Sampling the stock too much???? There's an AA meeting around the corner.

Inappropriate and childish.....reported!

Vooda: You're McDonalds. You sell meat. I want prime rib rare. Are you going to sell it to me? If not, why not? Should the government have the right to order you to sell it to me? If you refuse, should you be put out of business? Just wondering. Using your logic it is obvious that if you go into a business you should do what ever the government tells you to do, or what ever a customer wants you to do. I realize that it is not within your scope of reasoning, but wouldn't make a lot more sense to say, well if you don't like what I'm selling, go some place that sells what you want? That's really the issue here. It isn't a matter of anyone being denied what they want, just a matter of where they can buy it. Why are you upset if someone doesn't want to sell it? Can the state demand McD's sell plan b?

Vooda.. You selectively replied. Just like I support the government staying out of women's birth control I also support them staying out of forcing a business to sell or not sell a particular birth control item.

You can't pick and choose what you want the government involved in forcing people to do or not do, otherwise it will one day choose against you as well.

@JimP1969 & Chester12 - you guys seem to think that this isn't about a pharmacist dispensing drugs for an abortion, this is about contraception. I certainly hope that, they would similarly refuse to sell a man condoms since their religion is against "unnatural" contraception.

As for the pharmacy owners who don't stock or sell prescription contraceptives due to their religious beliefs against contraception, they sure as hell better not stock and sell condoms at their stores.

Vooda: You're McDonalds. You sell meat. I want prime rib rare

This analogy doesn't work because - McD's doesn't sell prime rib. Pharmacies carry the very drug the pharmacist chooses, based on his/her personal belief system, not to fill the dr.'s script.

Chester, how old are you? Your extreme immature responses lead me to believe you are very young or at very least extremely emotionally young. I refuse to engage in your nonsensical diatribe.

You can't pick and choose what you want the government involved in forcing people to do or not do, otherwise it will one day choose against you as well.

Our country picks and chooses government involvement in a lot of our.. have to, force to activities and requirements. My question to you is why should a pharmacist have the right to avoid filling a script written by a doctor for an absolutely legal substance? I am sorry if you can't see the problem with this.....but I see this as another injustice for women. If someone has such strong religious convictions in this area they should not be in this profession.

The analogies that most people have given don't fit. The closest analogy would be if an electric company decided it would not provide electricity to a doctor's office which provided women's health service because their faith didn't condone abortion or contraception. THAT is what is really happening.

Should an electricity provider be able to decide not to sell to a doctors office ?

saics, this is about choice. To me, this is no different than shooting a conscientous objector on the battlefield because he won't fight.

Vooda & Dirp101 Try this... What if a company made an at home blood test that could detect if your unborn child was gay. Should a pharmacist knowing that a mother plans to abort the child if gay be forced to sell the test?

Or what if a mother could take a pill that would make her child not gay, should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to sell it on moral grounds?

I do agree that if you are a pharmacist and the drug store you work at sells XYZ then you should fill that prescription or they have the right to fire you. I just do not agree that the government has a right to step in on moral issues when it's not a matter of public safety. Administrations and ideas of morality change, if you let one administration force their moral beliefs on others then the next administration can do the same, even if their beliefs are opposite.

As far as electricity, it's a bad analogy as you can't change electric companies.

Absolutely. If you don't want to fill prescriptions do something different than working at a pharmacy. I am way past done with one group feeling they get to rule how everyone else lives. You don't like Plan B don't use it, but if you are a pharmacist you dispense what is prescribed.

I agree...I'll be making sure my pharmacy doesn't choose what I should get to buy.

What's next?

I don't agree with GAY so it's against my religion to provide drugs to eliminate STD's or AIDS drugs?

I don't agree with medicine because I'm 7th day adventist, so I won't sell any prescriptions???

This is asinine to it's ultimate degree.

ram-762581

Absolutely. If you don't want to fill prescriptions do something different than working at a pharmacy. I am way past done with one group feeling they get to rule how everyone else lives. You don't like Plan B don't use it, but if you are a pharmacist you dispense what is prescribed.

ahh the hypocrisy in this post.

You do not want to have people tell you how to live, yet you are right there in line telling someone who believes something different then you do how to live their life.

Your first question:
Just WHERE do all these damned exemptions end?
I think there is no way to tell how many exemptions we're going to have. Start with "How many exemptions has the president granted to Obama Care?"
Most of those exemptions went to groups that actively campaigned for the program, then begged off when the rubber hit the road.

As to your next statements, modify it just a bit and see if you missed a broader public interest:
You want to be a bartender? Fill the drink order and STFU about wanting to protect the public. OR
You want to be a pharmicist? Fill the marijuana perscription and STFU.

As for the logic imbedded in the rule itself (by the State), try applying the same logic to car dealers. Similar logic and legislation, taken to an extreme, might require Ford dealers to sell brand new GM products. (And you suddely see how dangerous the logic and legislation can become once the precedent is established).

But was this a case of the pharmacist not wanting to fill the prescription, or the pharmacy not carrying the drug?

This was a case of two specific pharmacists not wanting to fill the prescription and suing to force their employers as well as their customers to live by their religious zealotry.

Jim,

It was the case of a privately owned, single man operated pharmacy that didnt' carry the drug and was told he would be forced to carry the drug and sell it. In cases where the pharmacy carries the drug, a pharmacist that doesn't want to fill the prescription can have another pharmacist fill it.

If he did not own the pharmacy, then he should have to fill it if the pharmacy carries it. If they had other pharmacists, then it would be up to the pharmacy to have the policy of either having him fill it, or find a new job, or having another pharmacist fill it. Really it is between the pharmacy and the pharmacist. If the pharmacy carries the drug, and the pharmacist will not fill it, then they should ax the pharmacist. But if the pharmacy does not want to carry the drug, then the government should not be able to do anything about it.

Jim,

I agree with you completely. But the issue here is when the pharmacy doesn't carry the drug. I do no think it should be forced to and should get an exemption based on religious grounds. The problem is that the left doesn't want to allow any religious tolerance at all and wants to force people with strong religious convictions to be ashamed of their beliefs and be forced to directly do something that contradicts it. It's fairly evident by the comments posted on this thread by the left.

As a store owner you have the right to choose which products to sell.

The Federal government should not be allowed to require that a Tobacco Store sell automobiles.

The store owner has a right to carry what he wants to sell, just as any other business. Next, will you unprogressives determine what a grocery store stocks? Let the customer and the store owner take care of the problem, and leave the government out of it. If a pharmacist doesn't want to sell certain drugs, then it should be left up to the store owner whether he works there or not.Would you up with the government deciding which brand name drugs a pharmacy must carry. Damn, there are drugstores on every corner, catty-kornered with a new bank. btw, would it please the ninth circuit court if a bank decided not to stock twenty dollar bills? That's the same thing, far too much gummit interference.

Pharmacists are not doctors. They are just highly educated store clerks. They are required to know about drugs and interactions, much like the clerk at the computer store knows about computers and the clerk at the stereo shop knows about stereos.

If they were doctors, then you could just go there and get a prescription directly from them. I am not saying they are the same as people in computer stores or stereo stores, they are actually highly educated, but the premise is the same.

If there was a witch doctor that was using bat ear and eye of newt instead of Lipitor, I would just go to another pharmacy, not force the witch doctor to also carry Lipitor.

I have never met a "hypothetical store owner", what TH is that?. You sound just like the 1984 novel, by George Orwell of an all encompassing government rule. Would you require a priest to perform an abortion, even if he was "a hypothetical priest"?

One either is a store owner, or he isn't. That is what deeds are about, you know "property rights". Get your head around that, please, Mr Orwell..

Far from being the Christian Righty in Auburn, being that I am not much of a Christian and would carry the drug if I owned a pharmacy, and would prescribe it if I was a doctor, and would fill it if I was a pharmacist and would have no problem with a girlfriend taking it. The far right scare me much as the far left do. I'm much more of a centrist. And if push came to shove, I would support gay marriage. Pretty sure that all disqualifies me for being the Christian Righty in Auburn.

I just do not believe in the government sticking their nose in where it does not belong. They should not be able to require any private business to sell any product, whether it be a certain coverage in an insurance policy, a drug at a pharmacy, or a certain color of car.

The problem is that the left doesn't want to allow any religious tolerance at all and wants to force people with strong religious convictions to be ashamed of their beliefs and be forced to directly do something that contradicts it.

Think about it this way: If you're a pacifist and you voluntarily join the military as a career, should you be allowed to be exempt from going to war? Should you take responsibility for choosing that career path and either suck it up or quit? Common sense dictates that if you object to aspects of a career you shouldn't choose that career path. Why should you be treated special because you're an idiot for selecting a job that you have zero intention of fulfilling every task you're hired to do?

Where does it end? Should a vegan clerk be allowed to not sell you meat?

If it is alright for the store owner who wants to sell meat, then I am sure the store owner would make the decision whether the vegan is working there or not. The government doesn't belong in the decision. I think the vegan would be looking for another job very quickly.

So some pharmacist that has been a pharmacist for 40 years should have to quit being a pharmacist because a single drug has been created that is against their beliefs?

My answer to that would be that if they will not prescribe it and the pharmacy carries it, then it is up to the pharmacy as to whether that will be a problem, or if they want to work around the religious beliefs of the pharmacist.
But it is none of the governments business if the pharmacy carries a certain drug or not.

The store owner is not irrelevant. It is their choice on what drugs they carry, not the governments. It is their choice if they want to allow the pharmacist to refuse to fill it, or fire their butts, not the governments.

Nobody has a constitutional right to get plan b or any other drug. I have a right to buy twinkies. But the health food store will not carry them. So the government should force them to sell them? Now if the store carries them, and a clerk for whatever reason refuses to sell them, then it is up to the store to either fire the clerk, or arrange for some other clerk to sell the twinkies.

Actually, I believe the law says they need to make reasonable allowances for them. So if they have other pharmacists there, then they probably would not be able to fire them, but if they are the only one then they could probably fire them easier.

That being said, they would not be getting fired for their religious beliefs, they would be getting fired for not filling prescriptions, which is their job.

They had some Muslim guys get fired a while back, not because their were Muslims, but because they were always away doing prayers. And then it was not because they were doing prayers, but because they were away from the job too much.

Nobody has a constitutional right to get plan b or any other drug. I have a right to buy twinkies. But the health food store will not carry them. So the government should force them to sell them?

I think there's two things at play. Reasonable expectation of stock and the fact that it is for emergencies. You'd be confused as heck if you went into your local convenient store and they did not stock Twinkies. You have an expectation of them being there. Every convenient store I'm aware of carries them. And nobody ever had a life changing event due to the availability or unavailability of Twinkies.

That said, my doctor calls in prescriptions to the pharmacy. If something isn't available at that pharmacy, he'll call it into another one. I don't think we'd ever have a situation where a person goes to the pharmacy and is denied the drug on the spot. If so, somebody needs to get fired and quick.

Jim,

This is a public health issue. Public health issues should never be compromised over religious or person beliefs. What if a religion dictates that heart medication and antibiotics are morally wrong because because we should let nature run its course? Do we suddenly start allowing thousands of pharmacies, some in rural areas where people may not have easy access to the next nearest pharmacy, to exercise their pharmacists's personal beliefs at the expense of people who need these medications? I'm not sure if you've heard, but Plan B needs to be taken as soon as possible.

There's a line where your personal beliefs are no longer sacrosanct, and that line is public health.

So if there is only one doctor in a town, he should be forced to do abortions? Afterall, it is a public health issue and might be too far for the person to go to someplace else that offers abortions?

Jim, medical procedures like abortions can wait 24 hours. Better yet, they're scheduled in advance so patients can be treated on the specified date. Unfortunately, nobody knows when they'll need Plan B (hence the name Plan B), but when they do need it they have to get it asap. The efficacy of Plan B drops exponentially the longer you wait. If you want to use a doctor analogy, think of the only ER doctor in town who won't treat a stroke victim because it goes against his conscience.

Hospitals have pharmacies. If it is such an emergency, they could just call an ambulance and go to the emergency room to get their plan b.

Jeremy (and others) you just don't get it: it is the responsibility of each state to make sure that pharmaceutical medications are available for medical needs across each state. As such, the licensing body has instructed the pharmacists that they must carry all of the expected medications unless there is a valid exception for not carrying the drug. "I don't want to." is not a valid reason, period.

The judge found that this exemption for this particular pharmacist NOT to sell Plan B (as an owner operator of the pharmacy) was permitted. NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS WERE ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION. read the dammed OPINION DAMMIT. I don't care actually (I'm about as atheist as they come, but on a case by case basis IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!!)

but chester - it REALLY isn't YOUR CALL!

EXPLAIN what POSSIBLE difference can it make to YOU who has a civil contract with whom. No matter what you think - marriage is a religious concept and homosexual joining is certainly not religious (nor can they be forced to perform the ceremony)

chester12: what I don't understand is why you want to deny to someone else all of the rights and priveledges that you have. If civil unions were the equivalent of marriages, then eliminate all marriages and only allow civil unions. That they are not equivalent and it is only the decision to remove rights to certain persons that points that out.

The other point is how is restoring marriage rights to homosexual couples removing anything from heterosexual couples? I really don't understand any of the arguments in favor of removing rights from any person. Why do you and other hate filled people want to do that ?

Well said and I will be checking this out to make sure. if they wouldn't then I will move my family's prescriptions.

So you want to boycott the pharmacy because they impose their religious will on you. Instead, you want to force your religious will on the pharmacy? That is better? How about they do not carry it, you do not shop there and instead shop somewhere else that does carry it. That way, they do not impose their religious will on you, and you do not impose it on them. win-win.

what I do shouldn't be a concern of YOU - I shop where I want. IF I choose to not shot at a particular pharmacy, that's MY choice, NOT YOURS. IF I convince others not to shop there, too, that's THEIR choice, NOT YOURS

To Jim:

this is a pharmacy we are talking about, I should not shop around for medicine that is legal drugs, that is what I expect when I go to pharmacy, otherwise they should call it something else. It's like you go to hospital or to emergency room and you should expect to be treated and not to shop around in case the hospital rejects to treat you because the treatment of your conditions contradict their religious or other views, your concept of shopping should apply like to cars, shoes , pharmacy should sell the legal and approved medicine or they should call it "Bible dispenser"

Jim: NOT being subjected to religious zealotry is "imposing" religious beliefs?? WHAT???? What if its the only pharmacy in town genius. Wait until they don't carry something YOU want...then suddenly you'll understand what a religious zealot is. Thankfully, this particular piece of idiocy will be overturned quickly enough.

As a store owner you have the right to choose which products to sell.

The Federal government should not be allowed to require that a Tobacco Store sell automobiles.

Dave - you're kind of a goofball huh? As a military man, do I have the right to refuse my orders and just defend people I like (on religious grounds)? nd

you said that before dave

lanaohio, do you think every hospital should be required to perform every test and every procedure that any other hospital does?

If these procedures are legal and FDA approved, they should be performed at every hospital, even religious ones. I thought there is a separation between religion and state in this country and one should not go to another part of USA to have a medical treatment. Particular when the time is of the essence.

Dave - so you support a Christian Scientist opening a 'pharmacy' that does not sell any drugs, but instead mandates that you pray to god for healing? At what point is a pharmacy not a pharmacy? When it does not sell due to religious bias? How about when it does not sell due to sexual orientation? Or sex (fundamentalist Muslims do not believe that women should be allowed out of a house or handle money) - so it is ok to discriminate against women due to religous belief? Or is it only ok to practice religious beliefs that you support?

An undertaker who employs a Muslim or a fundamentalist jew can refuse to imbalm a dead person? And this would be acceptable to you?

Yup - the American Taliban party is growing in strength.

The undertaker owner would fire anyone that ruined his business when customers go elsewhere. The problem would take care of itself, leave the government out of it. If a drug store does not sell drugs it is not a drugstore, so why would you go there to get drugs? Do you really want the government to put you to bed, and wake you up? I have a policy, if I don't like any kind of store for any kind of reason, I don't go there, that is the essence of freedom.My God, what has this country come to, with some of the posters here?

Interested...

There is a difference here. The pharmacy does not sell it to anyone. So they are not discriminating against anyone. But in your example they are discriminating against people due to sexual orientation or gender. If a Christian Scientist opened up and did not sell any drugs, then it would not stay in business very long, unless there were enough Christian Scientists in the area.

Do you want to force a health food store to sell prescriptions?

A store has the right to sell what they want. Period. If they do not sell what you want, you can go elsewhere.

I have tried to get prescriptions filled for my wife many times, and the store does not carry the drug. I have to go elsewhere. Should I sue because they do not carry every single drug that is made?

I suppose they might have ordered it if I had asked them, but they did not offer, that is why I had to go to several of them to find one that carried it.

We needed it right then, not a week later. Finally one said that they did not carry it, but that a pharmacy up the street probably did, and even called them for me to verify that they did carry it.

All I am saying is that if you go to a pharmacy, and they do not carry the drug for whatever reason, then go to another one. I now shop at the pharmacy that carries the bigger selection of drugs so that I know that they are going to have what I need. If the other stores want my business, then they will need to start carrying the drugs that I want. I don't want the government to go in and force them to carry the drug that I want, it is up to them.

lanaohio, you have obviously not thought this through very well. If every hospital were required to perform every procedure and administer every test, then the vast majority of hospitals would have to close, as this is an impossible standard. Which small town hospitals near you would you like to see shuttered?

Why not just ask the doctor that gave the prescription to you where it can be filled at the time it is given? My doctor has an inhouse pharmacy so the drugs he prescribes isn't and issue.

ahh - so that accounts for your issue. I don't desire any action with someone plumbed in the same manner as I am. Why do you make such an issue of it?

izandro, that is so far off the issue, it is laughable. Grow up!

Dasvet–

Actually it's exactly on point. If the ruling is people don't have to provide services because they have religious objections, my paying taxes is the "service" I provide the government. So any objections I have with what is done with my money are just as valid.

That makes two people totally off the issue. My point is that no government has the right to tell any store what they must provide in their product line. The reason does not matter, it is the store's choice. If the government is allowed to dictate what a drug store must sell, then , constitutionally, they would be required to dictate what all companies must sell. The store is a private enterprise, how is that so hard to get your head around?

There is no constitutional basis to tell any merchant/store owner what he must sell. Would you require the store owner to stay open twenty four hours because some people work night shifts?

A pharmacy is, by its very definition, dealing with "controlled substances." So, yes, the goverment absolutely does have the right to say what a pharmacy can and must sell. That is the whole point. It is supposed to be a PHARMACY, not a "what-not-shop" (thank you beverly hillbillies) which sells some drugs, sometimes.

The legal licensing and authority to dispense controlled substances is controlled by the state. If you want to be in that business, you do have to follow the rules.

The decision as to whether or not a drug will be dispensed by pharmacists is not to be made by the pharmacist. It is made by the FDA after years of experimentation, clinical trials, hearings and opinion. We, as a country, decided a long time ago that our drug manufacturers needed to be regulated in order to insure the safety and effectiveness of our pharmacueticals.

At the same time, we decided that the retail distribution of certain drugs would only be availble by licensed doctors or by perscription issued by licensed doctors and filled by licensed pharmacists.

These clowns are nothing less than religious fanatics seeking publicity for their pharmacy. I hope they lose their customers and eventually lose their licenses.

Actually Cheser, it is you who is confused. Actually it is a combination of state and federal law which regulates pharmacueticals, pharmacies and pharmacists. The requirement to have a perscription for a drug is under federal law. You have to have a Federal permit/license to issue or fill a perscription and you have to have a state license to open a pharmacy or be a pharmacist. I'm sure there are also other state, county/parish, and village/city health and business license requirements as well as liquor licensing if the pharmacy sells alcohal.

The entire point behind this law was so that religious fanatics could not decide which LEGAL medications would and would not be dispensed. As I said earlier, this really is no different than if an electric company would decide not to provide electricity to muslims, jews, people who are in favor of contraception, blacks or abortionists, hispanics or for any reason which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the providing of the service.

I agree, but that's not the point here. The point here is that an employee can refuse his employers instructions based on his religious beliefs. That just can't work anywhere, anyhow.

Easy to say if you happen to live in a place with several pharmacies. Not everyone does.

That's right... Cause it is hard to start up a browser and get on the internet.. Which by the way you will probably find it cheaper.

Plan B needs to be taken within 72 hours. So that means express shipment, not sure that would be cheaper.

fine - so just require that the Pharms have a POSTED NOTICE ON THE DOOR and/or an alternative dispensing agent on duty or on call within 30 minutes

OTHERWISE provide directions to the nearest Pharm that WILL dispense as written.

THIS IS A MEDICAL ISSUE - not a goddamm RELIGIOUS issue.

If it was indeed just a single pharmacist, then the pharmacy should can him. Their job is to dispense all the drugs that the pharmacy carries. If they cannot do that, then they need to find another job.

supposedly it was a "single pharmacist owned pharmacy". What do you do then?

As a store owner you have the right to choose which products to sell.

The Federal government should not be allowed to require that a Tobacco Store sell automobiles.

shut him down is what you do.

3rd time dave - you really want to get a "spamming" complaint?

AP, that's absolutely brilliant! Now nobody gets any drugs they need. Quite the logical coup you have pulled off.

rrobeson, a pharmacist/owner will take care of the problem himself. Very, very few places have no competitors available. You can use the phone and get your prescriptions delivered to you. We have enough of our freedoms taken away from us already, by government.

If it was a pharmacy that was owned by the pharmacist, then as the store owner it is his choice as to what he carries.

If it was some corporate pharmacy and a single pharmacist decided that he was not going to fill the prescription, then he should be canned. But that is up to the pharmacy. If they have multiple pharmacists, and someone else can fill it, that is up to them.

But if they only have one pharmacist, then something has to happen. The store wants to carry it, and the pharmacist does not want to fill it. So they should either stop carrying it, if the pharmacist is more important to them, or fire the pharmacist and get another one.

My suggestion is this: Ladies, if you think that you may need the Plan B pill and your state or area is one where it can be hard to come by in an emergency...go on the internet NOW and purchase one to keep in the cabinet. You don't have to wait until you actually need it to buy it.

Just like the fire extinguisher in my kitchen...I may never need it but I like knowing it's available if I do.

Its always a good idea to plan ahead for a rape.

What a maroon.

You can go to another drug store for any reason you wish.

Not if you are in a rural area and this pharmacist is the only one.

Pharmacists should not have the absolute right to refuse a Dr's prescription because of their personal beliefs. Period.

So all pharmacists are now slaves and forced to follow your beliefs? How would you feel if it was the other way and you were forced to sell Bibles? Both could be considered "needs" by each opinion and belief.

pharmacists are a conduit between what the doctor ORDERS and what the patient RECEIVES.

IF the pharmacy carries the medication, SOMEONE should be REQUIRED to sell it. Not that the pharmacy should be required to CARRY it, but IF they do carry it, then they should SELL IT. Not all medications are required to be stocked by all pharmacies

A pharmacist has the right to carry what he chooses to carry for any reason. I was p----off when they took the soda fountain out of the hometown drugstore years ago. But somehow I was able, somehow, to get a milkshake from other sources. We didn't even call for a boycott of the store, or call for the FBI to force the store to continue selling milkshakes. Do you people realize what you are doing? George Orwell was writing about a lot of the posters here today on this issue.

We are talking about two different things here. The pharmacy and the pharmacist. No one should be able to require a pharmacy to carry any drug. If the pharmacy carries the drug, then it is up to them if they want to require their pharmacists to fill the prescription. If they have other pharmacists that can fill the prescription, then they might allow someone else to do it. If not, they might choose to not dispense it while that person is on duty, or they might choose to fire the pharmacist and hire another one. All of it is the choice and right of the pharmacy and the government should stay out of it.

And as a dislaimer: If I owned a pharmacy, I would carry it, and if my pharmacist would not fill it, then they would no longer be my employee.

It's the difference between a vegan supermarket and a vegan supermarket clerk. One won't carry meat because of their beliefs. The other won't sell you meat because of their beliefs. One will find out how powerful the free market is come July 4th. The other will be looking for a new job after 10 minutes.

Every business should be told what they must sell? Are you insane?

Kevin, its the Jehovah's witnesses who refuse transfusions, not the Seventh Day Adventists. If you're going to ridicule a group, make sure its the right one. As a SDA, the only medications I refuse are pig-based, meaning some insulins and when they had it-the alternative blood products, it would be the same restrictions as a Muslim or Jew. I have a moral objection to the morning after pills, so I chose not to use them. I'm a nurse and if someone refuses a life saving measure, I'm obligated to stand by their decision-EVEN IF I OBJECT and even if it pertains to a minor.

The pharmacist in question owns his own pharmacy, if he chooses not to stock the medicine, then he chooses not to stock it. The judge is right, if the pharmacist can choose not to carry a medication because it requires filling out too much paperwork, then why can he choose not to carry this medication in the pharmacy he OWNS?

I would bet that any one of you people who are objecting to this ruling would not be up in arms if the medication in question was Percocet, Lipitor, Viagra, or any other medication on the books. How about Risperdal? What if a pharmacy didn't carry that one? Where would the outcry be? After all, that one's only given to patients with mental illness.

Jen: that is just the point. The pharmacy owner and pharmacists refused to carry or dispense this drug because of their "moral and ethical beliefs" (euphamisms for religious fantanticism) not for any logical reason. If the same reason was given for refusing to carry Riperdal because their religion equated mental illness with satanic possession, even more people would be up in arms over them attacking the mentally disabled.

If you don't want to dispense legal medications, get out of the pharmacy business. If you have problems with blood, you probably should not be a flobotamist. If you have religious issues with making sure that your check book is balanced, you don't become an accountant. This ain't that hard to figure out, its just the religious nut jobs that make it appear that way.

actually they should, i know from this point on im going to ask any pharmacist i see about plan b, if they dont say it im going to tell his/her stupid ass off and walk with my business. @!$%# them.

This instance isn't for that reason and you and they know it. It is to push their own religious agenda on others. And if there is no other pharmacy available? Guess that doesn't matter to you.

Since a pharmacist has to get certified by the government, not his local church, and the citizenry are led to believe that the pharmacist has some skill (certified by an academic institution and the government) to not kill them when they mix the ingredients, plus their shcooling is no doubt subsidized by taxpayers, then they should take an oath to do their job and fill medical doctors prescriptions and not force their religion on others. If they wanted to go to church they would. They are going to a dang drug store for goodness sake. Bought and paid for by the customer, the doctor, and the government. Ask their religion next time to pay for their education and certifications.

Shawn, that is exactly what you should do, just walk out. That is the essence of free enterprise. The problem would take care of itself, without the FBI enforcing rules on the drugstore inventory. You should not have the right to tell any store what they must sell. Next, you would require the drugstore to stay open all night for your convenience? You probably would.

@FastGMC: Totally LOL! Why wouldn't this work? They have pot dispensing vending machines, so why not have vending machines that carry certain types of drugs that the "Oh I can't fill this for you, it's against my religious beliefs" people haul out of their closets when it suits their needs. This is the best idea yet! I say it is a win-win. I would love to see some ex pharmacist reduced to flippin burgers!

What does "it is nose" mean? Do you mean "its nose"?

Yes, "its nose," my bad.

I'm reasonably certain that we could figure out the intent without intervention of the "spelling police".

How about executing the guy that knocks her up?

cg, unborn children have no human rights until they are born, as defined by law. Your argument is a fallacy.

Geowil, no matter what your belief is, it is killing a human being, whatever your religion or lack thereof says. It is a beating heart very early in the prenatal stage.

You gonna raise all them babies? You pro-lifers should put your money where your mouth is.

I am raising some of them. We didn't kill them in the womb, or thereafter. That has nothing to do with my religion, I just believe it is a morality issue.

Dasvet,

Until the law changes what a baby is biologically does not matter until it is born. Until a baby is born, or can be delivered and survive on it's own, it is just a parasite feeding off of a host. Any time up to 22 weeks a mother can have an abortion under law because until that time babies cannot be delivered and be expected to survive. Even then at 22 weeks the survival rate is only 50%, a coin flip.

You pro-lifers do not understand the law. Abortions are not murder, they are not unlawful because laws that act upon us only apply to those that are considered to have human rights under the law, unborn babies do not have rights till they are born, as I have stated many times.

Religions idealism does not supersede the law neither do moral ones. Law is objective not emotional or moral; objectively babies are not humans until they are born in the way they operate biologically. The 22 week stipulation was added to throw a bone to your pro-lifers. I do not see why we need to give you any more bones, that should be enough.

Besides you do not own their uterus', you cannot force a women to do something this wants to because it break your own moral code. You cannot do this because it is your own moral code and not the moral code of others and women have the right to do what they will with their own bodies.

No where else in the world is Abortion as big an issue as it is here in America. And now the same is true about contraception. While you guys flail around crying about stuff that you have absolutely no damn right to be involved in, most of the world, us included, are laughing at you.

Killing a beating heart in the womb may not be illegal, but it remains killing a viable human being. Please do not try to lie , and make it a moral thing to do. My babies were born, it was not a good time to bring them into the world, financially, but we struggled mightily and were able to give them a reasonably good life. There was never a thought to kill the children, in the womb or after their birth. I look at the grandchildren that came from our children and marvel every day at my great fortune. You call it a fetus, I call it a human being. I have no problem with anyone using contraception, but a dagger to the brain stem just should not be legal.

fine then dasvet - don't DO IT THEN - but don't make decisions for EVERY WOMAN IN THE PROCESS. A fetus is in the same category as a parasite - it lives off the mother until it is capable of surviving outside that developmental chamber. Now as a parasite, there are 2 categories - "welcome" and "unwelcome". Until the magical point called "viability" and then at some point backed off about a month, the WOMAN is free to terminate that pregnancy. YOU might not LIKE it but it IS LEGAL (like it or not)

I don't, and I haven't killed a human being. Parasites are the baby factories on welfare.

Exactly, Zuck, government telling any store owner what he must sell is pure ayatollah-ish. To use your words. Wouldn't that be the same as government telling you what you MUST buy, and at which store to buy it?

Exactly. I wonder how many Rite Aid's would be willing to have sign, visible from the road (and in braille for the visually impaired) that "Due to the religious exemption requests from the pharmacists at this store, we do not sell contraceptives and ask that you purchase them from Walgreens 2 miles east."

If you want to have the ability to deny people legal prescriptions because of personal religious beliefs, then it should be posted right out front so they don't even have to get out of the car.

Filing a prescription doesn't mean you condone the use of the prescription. It means you took a job and you're doing it. Like someone else said, how about a handful of Monks joining the military and then denying to go into combat?

What's next? A pharmacist not filling diabetes medication because of religious reasons?

Just make Plan B OTC and be done with it.

And - require that a LARGE sign be placed, visible from outside the store, stating the medicines which are NOT AVAILABLE based on a religious exemption and directions to the close pharmacy which does have the medication. We wouldn't want unpleasant confrontations.

This would never happen. At least my doc calls in prescriptions to the pharmacy. If a drug is unavailable for any reason, they tell him and he calls it in somewhere else. "Somewhere else" might be really inconvenient if you live in the sticks, but some will argue that is a personal choice. I personally have access to 9 different pharmacies within a half hour's drive and I live in a semi-rural town.

Some stores keep cigarettes, if they sell them, locked up until the age is established. It could be done on that basis by a non-pharmacist if the regular pharmacist has a problem with it. So somewhere between OTC and pharmacist dispensed - since it does have an age restriction.

Simplest solution, if the pharmacy doesn't sell the medicine, go somewhere else. We do that with practically every other consumer good sold in the drug store.

a prescription is not an OTC item

canary, what difference does it make if it is OTC or not, it remains the store owner right to decide his wares. Matter of fact, I suppose you would have the government force him to remain in business , if he decided to hell with it,also?

Your view of religion is humanistic & idealistic. As practiced, the 3 great monotheistic religions that came out of the Mideast – Judaism, Christianity, & Islam – are all deeply patriarchal. Keeping women barefoot & pregnant is an intrinsic part of the beliefs of the fundamentalists of each. From those 3, we get the world's 2 great evangelistic faiths, Christianity & Islam, whose true believers truly believe it is a religious obligation to convert everyone else to their belief system or kill them trying. Islamists seem to be more into killing themselves, too, than Christians – martyrdom used to more popular with Christians than it is today. It is no coincidence that rightwing fundamentalist Christianity & rightwing fundamentalist Islam have so much in common & are at war with each other, & that rightwing fundamentalists in the U.S. are so hot to wage war against Islamic countries. If you liked the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, you’re going to love the one against Iran. It's going to be a corker.

Word.

FIRST AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT I

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.

You tell it, Jeff! Rachel Rocks! Love Ed, too!

Jeff-2785690.....You are so misinformed about the "Founding Fathers" you write about. And this is a secular nation???

There are plenty of original manuscripts, letters, etc. written by our founding fathers which you can read for yourself on LOC.com (Library of Congress), and references to God are abundant throughout. If you choose to believe otherwise, then you are just either deluding yourself or on a vendetta against God. We were founded and grew as a nation on Judao-Christian principles, so get over it. Nobody is forcing YOU to believe in God. But as regards the early beginnings of our nation, you really need to do some reading of those early texts.....not just the rantings of your peers who seek to rewrite and reinterpret history.

FIRST AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT I

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.

Beangrinder, Jeff is 100%. While the Founders had religious beliefs themselves, they understood it was a PERSONAL ISSUE, and purposefully limited the role religion could play in government. They talked and wrote a lot about their faith, but at the end of the day they knew that keeping faith and government at an arms length was best for all.

Ironically, Mohamatans (Muslims) were a direct citation as the need for religious separation from government, and not because there was too much overlap in other countries, but to make sure that Christianity wasn't the only game in town.

Brad.........I would dearly love to go back in time and ask the founding fathers about this part of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I would ask the following:

Did you guys mean that we can't pray in school?
Did you guys mean that we can't pray before a school football game?
Did you guys mean that we can't have a Christmas tree in govt bldgs?
Did you guys mean that we can't post the 10 Commandments at the Courthouse?
Did you guys mean I can't wear a crucifix to public school?
Did you guys mean that we can't even discuss the Bible in school?
Did you guys mean we can't have "Christmas" parties, just Holiday parties?

to specifically answer your clap trap -

Did you guys mean that we can't pray in school? No - YOU can do whatever YOU want - the PUBLIC school can't endorse it or mandate it

Did you guys mean that we can't pray before a school football game? From what I've seen of some football games, you might as well - whether it does any GOOD, though is "no". The PUBLIC school can't organize the activity.

Did you guys mean that we can't have a Christmas tree in govt bldgs? Sure you can - you just can't call them "christmas trees".

Did you guys mean that we can't post the 10 Commandments at the Courthouse? True - public property - violation of the establishment clause

Did you guys mean I can't wear a crucifix to public school? nope - what you wear is up to you unless there is a dress code. in some circles that is a gang symbol

Did you guys mean that we can't even discuss the Bible in school? Depends - not as a textbook (generally - there are a few exceptions) but IF you mean can you talk with your friends - that's always permitted - just not as a mandated classroom exercise

Did you guys mean we can't have "Christmas" parties, just Holiday parties? Pretty much - change the word and the end result is still the same isn't it?

Why boycott. So you want the pharmacy to close down and sell nothing just because they don't sell Plan B. That's dumb.

Trust me ... non-owner pharmacists do NOT want to sell beer and cigs. Owner pharmacists will ... as they tend to care more about keeping the doors open than ethics.

As for Plan B ... I don't think the law should require a pharmacy to carry it, but if the pharmacy DOES decide to carry it .... it SHOULD dispense it when appropriate. It's a matter between the patient and doctor at that point.

Probably! Probably right next to the condoms!