For Those in Kansas

So what? If they can't get the pharmacy to sell the prescriptions they want, use their pocketbooks and don't patronize the pharmacy. If enough pressure is applied, eventually, the pharmacy will go out of business or will begin selling the prescriptions. If not, too bad. That's the way the free market works. Originally Posted by fritz3552

I can see you have never lived in a small town,there are many here who depend on the "old folks" bus to get them to the grocery,pharmacy,library,docto r.ect. they have no cars to travel to another town.,and I have never seen a pharmacy go out of business there is too much mark up in drugs.

Be easier to beat the living shit out of the pharmacist. IJS.

I can see you have never lived in a small town,there are many here who depend on the "old folks" bus to get them to the grocery,pharmacy,library,docto r.ect. they have no cars to travel to another town.,and I have never seen a pharmacy go out of business there is too much mark up in drugs. Originally Posted by ekim008

How many elderly people need birth control?

And Bartman. Get real. Of course a gun shop should be able to decide who and who not to sell a gun to, or which guns they will sell.

A county fair vendor can choose not to sell a deep fried Snickers.

WalMart can refuse to stock Kroger items.

It has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with freedom. Why should a pharmacist have to sell something s/he doesn't want to? Why do you want to force people to do what YOU think is right, rather than letting the individual do what THEY think is right? If a pharmacist refuses to sell a particular product, another pharmacist will. And I am tired of hearing about these poor people in small towns. When I lived in Dodge City, people of all ages were driving to Wichita every weekend. And there is mail order. There are many ways to get your prescription filled without forcing someone to do something they think is wrong.

God, you people are power hungry control freaks.

Ahhhh, the era of entitlement rears it's ugly head again.

Isn't this "I can decide who I want to serve" argument the same one the anti-civil rights folks made about minorities in the 1950's and 60's? If it was a bad idea then, what all of sudden makes it a good idea now?

Oh, that's right. It's YOUR baseless, misguided prejudice it supports this time.

Just tell the pharmacist "we'll just have to have anal sex then".... I am sure that will make him sleep well at night, wonder what his god has to say about that.

It is not about who is being served, it is about what you are serving. So lets get that right. You could make a case that a drug has to sell contraceptives to anyone but what we were discussing, and this is what the law is about, is that the drug store can choose not to sell contraceptives to anyone.

Some retailers have already decided not to sell guns (of a certain sort), or CDs that they object to. See Walmart. They have decided not to sell handguns anymore, Target never sold them at all.

Any gun store owner or manager reserves the right to not sell a product. I have yet to see someone sue a gun store owner for not selling a gun. So why is that different for birth control. Someone pointed out that certain OTC drugs have some pretty bad side effects. Would you sue a drug store owner if he (or she) decided that a 14 year old girl didn't have enough sense to understand this.

A gun store story; I was in San Fransisco at a gun store. I eventually bought a Israeli army Mauser K98. Anyway, this guy walked into the store and he really didn't belong in a gun store. He was barely holding onto reality. He asked the gun shop owner about a pistol, a pistol that could hypothetically kill a cat but would not damage the cat's eyes... The owner ask what the cat did and the potential patron denied having any evil designs on a cat but asked again about what kind of gun should he buy. He mentioned the 9mm and asked what it would do to the eyes. The gun shop owner told him a .22 would do that job. The patron asked "what job"?. On the cat... Oh, I don't have a cat but my neighbor does. Well if you shot your neighbors cat you would get arrested. I'm not shooting any cats, I love animals but I was thinking if a cat were to be killed could the eyes be used for something else. The gun shop owner finally told him that he didn't think he could help him out. We all had a good laugh after he left as we had all stopped what we were doing and listened.
You see, you can turn away a customer.

A gun or a CD is something people can live without. As I said in a previous post, the pill isn't just for birth control and some people do depend on that pill.

This is just another form of the government trying to tell us women once again what we can do, where we can do it and who we can get it from.

I just adore watching/listening to men trying to play the role of master with women's lives. I'm sure if they were trying to do this in a different facet that affected men's lives, omg the horror...you would be up in arms.

Its all good until it affects your life huh?

[quote=CuteOldGuy;2709748]How many elderly people need birth control

just you there others not as fortunate as you that need it they are younger and do not drive.

That's fine. It can always be settled the way most things in small towns get settled. Up close and personal.

If that type of communication fails then the pharmacist could look forward to the third or fourth person he does this to having a equally unbalanced husband or father, and one or both of them will end up on a slab.

You don't fuck with peoples access to medications. It'll get people to start taking shots at your car while you're in it. Nothing like a bullet hole in the window next to your head to get you to change your mind. I've seen it happen. For as little as being called out at third base. Small towns... where minds get changed and snipers don't get caught.

The point COG...and I guess you missed this...surprisingly... because you are not usually obtuse. The point of this law is not to protect the pharmacist. It's purpose is to control women through indirect means, in the impossible hope that somehow they can stuff the genie of women's sexual freedom (and all of that power it holds over men) back in the bottle, and make women back into mere vessels for a fetus. This law is just one of many trying to take this country back to those days. They have been designed by people with views such as yours. People who don't mind jamming their views down my throat, because they and you are the power hungry sumbitches that have to have things their way.

And Fritz...If you don't wanna sell pills that do things you don't like...then don't become a pharmacist. Or to directly answer your retort..YOU sell the pharmacy, then move to Saudi where women are still chattel and quit trying to get between my daughter and her doctor.

By the way,I was trying to draw a metaphor, not point out that a gun store owner can sell to who he wants. He can't by the way decline to sell to someone based on gender, race or ethnicity, or religious beliefs or he will be sued and lose.

Bart, I realize this law is grandstanding by the Gov. But I still don't think it is right for government to tell people what they must sell. 99% of pharmacists will not limit what they sell, so it really is a non-issue, which is why the Gov chose this to make points with the religious right. Nevertheless, if a pharmacist doesn't want to sell a particular product, government ought not force him to do so. This isn't about controlling women, (although the Gov's intended audience will take it that way, and like it) because the women can get their birth control elsewhere, quite easily, as shown by prior posts.

The individual rights of pharmacist are voluntarily given up and become secondary to the oath they take. See below. The first bullet of the oath would appear to me to make their personal beliefs a "non-consideration" when they are handed an Rx written by a doctor whom (the pharmacist must presume) wrote it for the welfare of the person presenting the Rx thus rendering the filling of the Rx as their "primary concern", not their personal beliefs. If they don't like the responsibilty they have accepted by their oath, get out of the business.

OATH OF A PHARMACIST

"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of
pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:

• I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my PRIMARY CONCERNS. (emphasis added).
• I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
• I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
• I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
• I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct.
• I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
• I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”

Nevermind.

To follow up:
The current state of the law is that the pharmacist, due to the oath s/he took, must fill the Rx (written by a doctor) even if it is against his/her personal belief system. It is the religious right that now wants the government to pass a law relieving certain of its members (religious pharmacist)from the responsibility of their oath. I should think those who dislike government intrusion upon the populus (right wingers) would be against the law, not for it. Anybody see any irony here?