Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Revolting Pharmacists

By Lynne Varner, TomPaine.com. Posted May 8, 2006.


As the conservative anti-abortion agenda skates dangerously close to anti-contraceptive, pharmacists say they shoudn't have to dispense Plan B.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Fixated as we all are on the war in Iraq, our nervous economy and soaring fuel prices, it is no wonder we didn't see the assault brewing on a distant flank.

Now we can't miss the signs of battle as conservatives move to criminalize abortion and restrict access to contraceptives. A colleague once told me that President George W. Bush would be stupid to pursue an anti-choice agenda when most of the country supports abortion rights. Since then, Bush appointed two people hostile to abortion rights to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The move emboldened South Dakota to institute the most-restrictive abortion law since Roe v. Wade stopped states from doing just that. A cousin to the South Dakota law is moving through the Mississippi legislature. Wars are best fought on many levels, employing many strategies.

And so it is that the Washington State Pharmacy Board finds itself holding public hearings statewide to decide whether pharmacists deserve a "conscience clause" allowing them to withhold medications in conflict with their convictions. Seventeen other states are considering "conscience clauses." Pharmacy boards in Wyoming, Nevada, North Carolina and Massachusetts did the right thing and told pharmacists they deserved no such rights.

I agree. Call me a cynic, but I'm presuming pharmacists aren't conflicted over dispensing, say, Viagra. This issue looks, smells and quacks like a politically motivated debate over emergency contraception, also known as Plan B. Peel back a few more layers of the onion and catch a whiff of the lingering fumes from RU486, the controversial pill designed to end unwanted pregnancies.

It ought not be confused with Plan B, which prevents fertilization of an egg and prevents conception. But enough of the science lesson. This war is political and pharmacists have been pulled in much as scientists were during the stem-cell debates. They ought to sit this one out. The average woman spends 23 years using contraceptives to avoid pregnancies. That's not a market share pharmacists should alienate.

With two-thirds of Americans supporting a woman's right to choose, focusing on emergency contraceptives is one way the anti-abortion movement has morphed in order to survive and fight another day. "The abortion issue is a cover for a fundamentalist anti-contraception and anti-sex movement," argues Cristina Page, author of the aptly named tome, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America.

Page is right. Opposition to abortion has broadened into an anti-contraception movement. Imagine if pharmacists were free to refuse to fill prescriptions. My fear would be standing before the strict pharmacist and enduring a lecture on the evils of birth control. Without contraception and legal abortion, sex would be fast-tracked back to the days of being for procreation only.

Pharmacists cannot be allowed to wiggle out of their professional responsibilities. My hunch is most probably don't want to. I'm thinking there are more conscientious objector bills floating around state Houses than pharmacists who want to object. This is less about morals and more about politics.

The timing of all this is no coincidence. Those with an anti-abortion agenda are emboldened by conservative appointments to key posts with the Federal Drug Administration and the federal Health and Human Services Department. They are encouraged by America's preoccupation with a protracted war.

And they are ignorant of this central fact: We're going to need contraceptives and other methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A UNICEF study put America's teen pregnancy rate -- slowly falling -- right between Thailand's and Rwanda's. Of the teen births happening in wealthy countries, two-thirds occur here.

A startling fact stands out in Cristina Page's book on the pro-choice movement: Seven in 10 American women are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant. These women are at risk of becoming pregnant should they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive or if the contraceptive failed to work.

Some of these women will end up at their neighborhood pharmacy. They ought to be assisted by pharmacists carrying out their professional duties and not the political agenda of the anti-abortion movement.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Lynne K. Varner's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Seattle Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Internet Is Being Compromised
Posted by: bodo on May 8, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last refuge of free speech is on its way out, both covertly and legislatively. Google and Yahoo can not be trusted. If we don't all come together on this one, we will permanently lose our ability to come together on anything else in the future.

AlterNet, it is your responsibility as well as that of every other aspiring free citizen of the modern world to devote focused attention to what is happening here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

revolting
Posted by: rsaxto on May 8, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to revolt against all these revolting anti-scientific spook-loving apparitions that are crawling out of the fascist fringe on the far right of USA politics. They don't believe in freedom, democracy, choice or any of the other good stuff that makes life worth living. They do believe in the Great God Money so we need to drive all these blabbering idiots to bankruptcy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WalMart is revolting Posted by: mirimac
about conscience clauses
Posted by: jcutler9 on May 8, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can a pharmacist who is against medicating ADHD kids refuse to fill a prescription for Ritalin? Can a pharmacist who is concerned about anorexia refuse to sell diet pills? Or one who thinks we should be stoic under pain refuse to dispense pain pills? Can a grocery store clerk who is vegetarian refuse to check out meat? Can a convenience store clerk who is a teetotaler refuse to check out liquor? Can a Wal-Mart clerk who is anti-gun and anti-war refuse to check out guns and ammo and GI Joes? Can a liberal clerk refuse to check out Ann Coulter books and a conservative refuse to check out Al Franken books?

jus' wond'rin'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: about conscience clauses Posted by: BiggRedd
Bullies for Christ
Posted by: feduphoosier on May 8, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to the new Fundamentalist Fascism!

We're right, and we're going to save you! You can come quietly and drink your Kool-aid like a good patriotic, flag-waving, God fearin American Christian - or we'll force it down your throat. We know what’s best for you!

(Book burnings coming soon, to a location near you!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DO YOUR JOB OR HIT THE ROAD, DUMB*SS
Posted by: xbj on May 8, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I don't do the job I was hired to do, I get fired.

Pharmacists that don't dispense the medicine that doctors prescribe NEED to be immediately fired, ON THE SPOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Then they have every right to go find a new job run by a Pharmacy owner that believes exactly as they do, will NOT sell certain medications, and will lose (and perhaps even go out of) business as a result. But at least they'll BOTH have their integrity.

But this idea that Pharmacists have a right to refuse to do their job because of religious or moral convictions is ludicrous... if your job requires you to do something against your morals or religious convictions, THEN GET ANOTHER JOB. Since when do employees decide and delineate what their job is? Wouldn't that be a wonderful world? Where do I sign up? Can I determine my salary as well?

What happens to a cocktail waitress who refuses to serve alcoholics? What happens to a stripper who refuses to strip for sex addicts or criminals? What happens to a casino dealer who refuses to deal to gambling addicts?

GET A CLUE. JOIN THE REAL WORLD. DO YOUR DAMN JOB AND/OR BE FIRED OR QUIT.

If you value your integrity so much, THAT'S FINE. You have that right. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM OR YOUR INTEGRITY ON ANYONE ELSE, genius.

Only in America...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Con-science claws
Posted by: brasilaron on May 8, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These pricks want to rip apart the fabric of American society, the right to make your own informed choices about what you do, as long as you're not infringing on someone eles's right to do the same. That's all they want to do, infringe on others' rights. These guys are traitors, to borrow a word from their extremely limited lexicon. THe rhetorical diarrhea spewing from these folks can not mask their intellectual and moral ineptitude. Their (OUR) wealth is predicated upon science and the technology generated from it, yet all they seem to want to do is overturn science so that they can achieve their perverse paradise. Lately they have taken the tactic that if they can't overturn science they'll just cook up some way to subvert it or pollute it by interjecting their patently false truthiness into any discussion. The USA was founded to free us from religious freaks like them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Con-science claws Posted by: robmikejas
ROCKING GOOD NEWS
Posted by: LMNOP on May 8, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I didn't know that I was free to exercise my conscience in the application of my trade.

I am an oncologist, a cancer doctor. What troubles my conscience? Republicans and evangelicals that want to impose their values on me and you. I have trouble with prolonging their lives, something that I thought that I was obligated to do.

So, if anti-choice activists can divert pregnant woman seeking an abortion to phony abortion clinics to usurp the mother's lawful right to make reproductive decisions for themselves in a timely way and instead, to impose their world view on those patients, then why can't I refer Christians and conservatives to phony chelation clinics? These will shorten their lives and diminish the money that they have left over to give to churches, fascist candidates and think tanks?

My conscience, remember. It offends my conscience to have to treat such people the way they wish to be treated, so I guess I am free to substitute my own agenda, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ROCKING GOOD NEWS Posted by: zoomorph
Further attack on freedom, based on the usual lies of the slavers
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on May 8, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Plan B contraception pill is exactly that: a contraception pill. It does not interrupt an already extent pregnancy. Christo-fanatic opposition to it, however, is based primarily on the falsehood that it does.

At bottom, this refusal to provide for human beings the means they need to live their own lives according to their own dictates, is just another effort to enslave women under religio-fascism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» INSIGHT-FREE Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Coathangers v. Roe Posted by: Longdream
What other good news have you brought us?
Posted by: shd1230 on May 8, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So now we have to get our medications at our PHARMACIST'S pleasure and he/she will decide whether they are compatible with his conscience. Perhaps our lifestyle is not acceptable to him/her and our prescriptions therefore cannot be filled, lest we live longer and healthier than pleases him/her. This is totally unacceptable--it is up to the pharmacist to fill prescriptions and provide us with information re. same as to contraindications and side effects. That is the function, and the only official function, of the pharmacist. Any advice relating to our moral principles is totally out of line. If the conscience of the pharmacist is offended by our use of a drug, he is free to say so but is not free to refuse to dispense it if it is a legal drug and a legitimate prescription. WE ARE NOT FREE TO IMPOSE OUR MORAL STANDARDS ON OTHER PEOPLE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drinking Pennyroyal Tea
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 8, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dependency on modern meds is a sad thing to behold.

People used to know and use herbs. And live differently.
When a woman lives under the moon, she knows when she is ripe.

...did you know that a teenage girl who gives birth and breast- feeds her baby has almost NO chance of EVER getting breast cancer? It is true.

Also...almost no chance of her baby having Downs Syndrome.
Other risks also increase with every year of a womans age.
We are meant to have our babies young.

But you never hear about this...not even from the feminists.
When forced, they say things like...we are more than our biology.

After all, we must serve the interests of our masters.

We support the very source of our slavery. It isn't our bodies that are the problem. It is that we have been turned into servants..forever dependent on doctors and pills, and living in a way that places jobs over living, and Society over the Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uh....are you making a joke? Posted by: McJulie
» RE: Drinking Pennyroyal Tea Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Drinking Pennyroyal Tea Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Drinking Pennyroyal Tea Posted by: musicalbookworm
» RE: Drinking Pennyroyal Tea Posted by: WitchyNy
» Children of young mothers Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Children of young mothers Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Children of young mothers Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Children of young mothers Posted by: Longdream
» Barf. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Barf. Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Barf. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Barf. Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Barf. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Barf. Posted by: WitchyNy
» Beware -- pseudoscience above! Posted by: doctorsquared
A Fanatic by any other name...
Posted by: AmericanPie on May 8, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is a fanatic just the same. No matter which deity they worship. Any religious group who wants to make your personal decisions for you, be they Muslim extremists or Christian fundamentalists, are dangerous fanatics who need to be reigned in. Now.

If we do not do this, we will soon find ourselves living in a Christo-Fascist police state, where strict Christian Fundamentalist control of what you read, what you think, what you see in the media, and what you do with your body and with whom, will be the order of the day. Fundamentalists already occupy two branches of government, and they're well on their way to a third. Wake the hell up, everyone, if you value your civil liberties and freedom to make your own decisions about your own life and your own body. Or they will be taken from you before you can say "James Dobson".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMG
Posted by: Moonbat on May 8, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well Duh.

This isn't exactly new. They've been sqwaking like this for decades and most of us have not been paying attention.

It's fashionable to beat up on Feminists, but it was they who achieved reproductive freedom for all.

Then we stood by passively as these thugs attacked abortion rights and any other rights they didn't agree with.

Now it's down to contraception. Great. But they didn't accomplish that without our unwitting acquiescence and refusal to defend abortion rights.

Hope yall enjoy being barefoot and pregnant.

I lived through that era. It wasn't fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gaahh!!
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 8, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have so had it with these self-righteous assholes who think they can stand in judgement of any woman. Because that's who most of this crap is aimed at, us women.

I'm a little surprised we haven't heard more from doctors on this, since the "pharmacist" is saying that he knows better than the doctor what is good for a woman.

Frankly, if these fainting little sissies can't handle th idea of giving out any form of contraception, they SHOULD get the hell out of the pharmacy biz and go home and tend their gardens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gaahh!! Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Gaahh!! Posted by: yellow
Licensed by the state
Posted by: brunowe on May 8, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I haven't heard mentioned is that you need a license from the state to practice pharmacy. This means that the state should be able to require pharmacists to dispense any legal prescription as the license requirement means that the occupation has an exclusive right that they shouldn't be permitted to abuse and only practice it with state sanction.

The other concern is proposed "anti-discrimination" laws that would bar firing a pharmacist who refused to fulfill a prescription based on his personal beliefs. This was mention in a recent American Prospect article. The key point was that, unlike racial or gender discrimination, discrimination on a refusal to do the job directly bears on the ability to do the job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maryb
Posted by: mbarthel on May 8, 2006 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very good article. I don't believe pharmacists should be allowed to be "consciencious objectors" either. Could a doctor not treat a gun shot wound because they don't believe in owning guns?
Maybe the anti-contraceptive crowd is looking at the increased teen births as a good thing. These would mostly be births into poverty, and hey, these poor sods would need those poor jobs and maybe decrease the need for immigrant labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maryb Posted by: lindalee
Another shoe's gonna drop if this becomes law
Posted by: spacecadet on May 8, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once pharmacists have a "right" to withhold contraceptives expect the ones who do fill scripts to be subjected to the same kind of harassment, death threats, etc. that the abortion providers now endure. Most pharmacies would drop contraceptives from their inventories rather than deal with that kind of hassle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good article
Posted by: vespasian01 on May 8, 2006 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see Lynne's article with its emphasis on pharmaceuticals rather than abortion. I was raised Catholic and it's always baffled me that the Church won't place reduced abortions above tradition when it comes to contraception. Morning-after meds will reduce suffering for everyone involved. Keep pushing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Catholics Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Catholics Posted by: babs
Not all of America will be threatened by conscience clauses
Posted by: lawstudent08 on May 8, 2006 4:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"My fear would be standing before the strict pharmacist and enduring a lecture on the evils of birth control. Without contraception and legal abortion, sex would be fast-tracked back to the days of being for procreation only."

I completely share your fear, Lynne, as a woman who has used birth control for nearly a decade. However--sex would not be fast-tracked back for everyone: men would be able to continue having as much sex as they want with an ability to leave any sort of situation involving pregnancy. And isn't it odd how all of these legislatures passing conscience clauses and restricting abortion are run by men, with women representatives making up a very small slice of the law-making pie? You gotta wonder if there's some sort of connection there...

(Of course not all men make their living mandating how women should live their lives. Many men are good, equality-minded people. It's just that all these laws are passed by male-majority legislatures...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dispense whatever you want, as long as I am not liable
Posted by: daa4 on May 8, 2006 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pharmacists are liable for whatever they dispense to customers and information they tell or do not tell customers on medications. If the law is changed and pharmacists are required to dispense whatever the patient comes in for the pharmacist should not be liable for that perscription's affect on the patient. If you are going to take away the pharmacists's professional judgement (which can and cannot be morally biased) then do not hold them responsible for the medication's affect, i.e. giving plan B to a patient and preventing conception. It is that simple. Furthermore, to keep people from going overboard on this Plan B debate, Plan B should be over the counter. This should have been passed federally but did not make it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundamentalist country
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 8, 2006 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow - looks like the US is well on its way to becoming a country ruled by religious fundamentalists - just like all the countries your government claims you are trying to "save" and "bring democracy" to.

Utter, utter, filthy hypocrisy. You can NOT give something to someone else if you do not have it in the first place!

If your government and your pharmacysts (spelling intended) refuse to see reality and act in a democratic fashion, the women of America should go on strike and refuse to have sex with ANY man, until the men of your country stand up and fight for their women's rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BAN MASTURBATION AND MENSTRUATION!!!!
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 8, 2006 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BILLIONS of eggs and sperm are being wasted while people go about their business leading perfectly normal lives.

NO MORE!!!!!

Stop people from doing what they do and let's all make sure that the US population is about 2 billion by 2010.

That way you might all starve to death (*) and we'll be free of your stupid governments, your evil CIA, your moronic religious loonies and everything else that is so typically American.

Land of the Free? Land of the LOST!

(*) Yes, I'm joking, deal with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conscience clause
Posted by: dkm on May 9, 2006 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the best of American traditions, the Washington State Pharmacy Board and all other state pharmacy boards should allow pharmacists to withhold whatever prescriptions would violate their conscience. In other words, don't criminalize their conscientious objections. BUT, at the same time the pharmacists would be personally liable for anything that happens to the patient as a result of exercising their conscience. In other words, they would have to put their money where their mouth is. If the pharmacist and the employer were both liable, I would bet that there would be few conscientious objectors, even fewer would be hired and any that were would soon be on the street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conscience clause Posted by: yellow
» RE: Conscience clause Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Conscience clause Posted by: BlueTigress
A Good point
Posted by: yellow on May 11, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The above poster makes a great point indeed! Traditionally, military conscientious objectors had the right to resist duty that conflicted with their religious and personal beliefs. They also paid a price. If they didn't serve time in prison they were given some kind of non-violent national service to fulfill that wouldn't conflict directly with their beliefs. If this was refused then stern punishment almost certainly followed. The pharmacists face no such penalties and risk nothing in forcing their values on unwilling people. Let's up the stakes! We shall see if when faced with real consequences these pharmacists will persist in their inappropriate meddling in others' affairs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mpdesio
Posted by: mpdesio on May 11, 2006 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple: imagine a man goes into a steakhouse, orders a steak, and is told by the server "I cannot serve you a steak because I am a vegetarian." Now, it's perfectly okay to be a vegetarian, right? But what happens next is this - the customer complains to the management, and the server is fired. If he won't do HIS JOB, he must find another.

If a person has a legal perscription from a doctor, the PHARMACIST'S JOB is to fill it, not make moral choices for the customer. If he won't do HIS JOB, he must find another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Charge pharmacists more tax!
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 11, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If pharmacists are going to insist that everyone have more children, then they should have to pay more tax in order to support the growing population.

Either that, or one year of their university course should be a compulsory year living in a caravan sharing with at least 3 other people. And they should be allowed no more than $50 - $100 per week. And told to survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't go there
Posted by: faye on May 13, 2006 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine the chaos....

The ER says I won't treat this trauma victim ...They shouldn't have been out an a rainy night.

This person with lung cancer, heart attack, clogged arteries....smoked for 40 years.

This person with diabetes should have controlled that sweet tooth.

Too bad about that broken leg....you knew you were taking a risk when you went skiing.

Either we agree to care for each other with reasonable expectations of personal responsibility or soon we will be in a place of dog eat dog, everyone for themselves. Don't come to me with your problems. We are all dependent on others at one time or another. Less judgment and more compassion are in order.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ARE ONLY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ENTITLED TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION?
Posted by: dee.halz on May 14, 2006 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What seems to be lost in all the talk about conscience clauses is that the pharmacists who want to deny contraceptives and plan B are denying a woman a choice she has a right to make based on HER OWN conscience. There IS no one point of view, religious, moral, or otherwise, on contraception. If a woman doesn't believe it's right, she won't pursue it. If she, however, believes it's wrong to bring a child into the world as the result of rape, incest, accidents, or other mishaps and that Plan B and contraception fit her ethics, then she has the right to choose, and to buy, the medication needed to prevent an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy. Denying that right is a violation of her CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to freedom of religion. If a pharmacist can't live with that, then he/she should choose a job where the rights of others aren't involved. NO ONE should be forced to make a medical decision, or be prevented from following a chosen course of medical treatment, on the basis of someone else's ethics or religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement