For Those in Kansas

I know this is indirectly related to this issue, but an interesting article from the Politico regarding a recent Gallup poll, about the number of people identifying themselves as "Pro-Choice" are going down, while those who are "Pro-Life" are going up. It can't be because all of these people are religious nuts, but that is why laws like this are gaining popularity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76660.html Originally Posted by fritz3552

Given that the article says over 70% polled still believe in keeping abortion legal to some degree, I'd say the changing tide has much to do w/ anti-abortion advocates succeeding at making pro-choice a dirty word, a la atheist or liberal, and reinforcing their label as pro-life rather than anti-abortion.

Nice work BigMike. Thanks.

Hey Fritz, I have always consider it Republican leaning...but in interest of fair and balance posting.. ).... I wickipedia the Magazine. Not saying it is Fox News, but based upon description I found there....I would say it is definitely more right leaning.

As far as Gallup being no friend of GOP, to be honest I'll need to do alittle research on that one. And as with all polls, how the question was asked would be very interesting to see.

And when you say the Poll reveal more going "pro-life", what were the figures....was pro-choice still the majority. And it would be interesting to see who the target poll was given to, in terms of age, part of the Country, religious-affliation, etc. What was that term they used in Stat classes in college...the characteritics of the target universe tested (errr something like that, I just hated Stats).

Do you have a link on it, by chance????

BTW BigMkie....right on as well!!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pr...20-%20Politics

The following link has data going back to 1975. Opinions haven't changed much re legal under any circumstances, legal under certain circumstances, illegal in all circumstances.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/Mo...irst-Time.aspx

Thanks kuhoplite....heading out door to have lunch w/ fellow Eccie dawg, but will definitely check out you links...thanks again

Just a final thought, sometimes what the majority wants, is not the best measure of what should be law...there was a time, not that long ago, that majority of folks felt women did not have the right to vote. Not talking Mid-East, but here in US!!!

Anyone on this site, want to make an argument for that today??//

Of course just kidding on above, but seriously, here was another case of a law being forced down another groups rights....so as enlighted society, majority should not always be a good barometer to justify laws.

Link, please? And is this really germane to the discussion topic of this thread? Originally Posted by fritz3552

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...ational-polls/

Not really pertinent to this discussion, but just wanted to show polls are just that - polls. Just a statistical sampling and mean nothing unless those polled show up at the ballot box.

Ever been to western Kansas? Some of those towns are 40 miles apart. Put yourself in that position. You have a house and an investment in property and now this happens. In this case the women in those small towns could literally have to travel 80 miles there and back because of someone else's mostly religious beliefs. Are you saying I should sell my house and move to Cali? Because my pharmacist has a problem with a drug I need. Talk about Sharia Law.
Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I live in Western Ks and have all my life.

You're full of shit.

There are so few local pharmacies (thank you walgreens and walmart) that most everyone has their scripts mailed to them anyway. And to top that off, you're assuming that all of these mom and pops are going to say "nope, not gonna sell it." You're full of shit there too.

How hard is it to understand that to force ANY private business or individual to do ANYTHING against their moral conscience is a violation of their personal freedom? I don't care if that's wanting to fuck for bucks or sell scripts you have a moral issue about providing, both are wrong to say they can't do or have to do when the govt. does it at the point of a gun.

Jack

Also, there are other medications that cause infertility and sterility. Do pharmacists now have the right to deny common medications to people? It's a slippery slope.
One day women might not even be allowed into a pharmacy at all. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

It's a fact for you, Allie, it's a moral question for them. You don't like it, shop somewhere else. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a walmart pharmacy or a walgreens.

You're right about one thing, it is a slippery slope. When the government can FORCE anyone to do things that directly contradict their religious beliefs that is a slippery slope.

Jack

So a pharmacist does not have to distribute birth control due to religious objections. So what if I work for the Post Office or UPS and deliver birth control through the mail? I might unwittingly distribute birth control against my religious principles, therefore violating my religious rights?

There are laws that restrict the religious rights already, they just aren't what many consider Chrisitan rights. For instance, the government does not allow pologamy. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Strawman.

UPS or FedEx is not the government. You accept the position with the understanding that if it's their policy that they will deliver certain materials then you will deliver them. Or not work there. Your freedom to choose. Nobody's going to file charges against you for deciding to work there or not.

This already goes on, there are a number of things that UPS and/or FedEx will not deliver. You abide by their policies or you quit.

Jack

I've heard a lot of arguements from people saying that the government should not be able to tell people what to do. Here is language from the bill:

"No person shall be required to perform

, refer for, or participate in
medical procedures or in the prescription or administration of any device
or drug which result in the termination of a pregnancy or an effect of
which the person reasonably believes may result in the termination of a
pregnancy, and the refusal of any person to perform, refer for, or
participate in those medical procedures, prescription or administration

shall not be a basis for civil liability to any person. No hospital, hospital

health care facility, health care facility

administrator or governing board of
any hospital health care facility shall terminate the employment of, prevent
or impair the practice or occupation of or impose any other sanction on
any person because of such person's refusal to perform or participate in the
termination of any human pregnancy exercise of rights protected by this

section."

So, you own a business and hire a pharmacist - of course you can't ask what their religious beliefs are in the interview - said pharmacist refuses to supply the "morning after pill", which you as a business owner want to supply to you customers. You lose money and customers, but too bad, the government is interfering with your business by saying you can't fire said pharmacist.

However, since Kansas is an at will state - meaning you can fire an employee without cause - you still can't fire someone for their religious beliefs.

So what is the point of this law? You can make many arguements, but all aspects of this bill are already covered under existing laws.

This law was nothing but political pandering.
Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

And finally, we have a winner. The law was intended to insure that people could stay within their religious convictions. As usually happens, they fucked it all up.

BUSINESSES have policies that their EMPLOYEES have to abide by all the time. Some place contraceptives behind the counter because THEIR POLICY is that you have to be of a certain age to buy them and they (the business, not the government) requires anyone purchasing said materials be carded. If you can't live with that, then don't work there or don't buy there.

(personally, I think it's silly, but I do defend their right to do business as THEY SEE FIT)

In trying to push a moral and political agenda under the guise of personal freedom they screwed the pooch. The entire concept of even thinking that any person or business should be REQUIRED BY LAW to sell any fucking thing is ludicrous and in direct opposition to the Constitution (and yes, MsAlena, I'm well aware of your thoughts on that document, but feel free to share them anyway! )

Jack

"How hard is it to understand that to force ANY private business or individual to do ANYTHING against their moral conscience is a violation of their personal freedom?"

Personal freedom is a nonsense term w/ no meaning. We have civil liberties.

"The entire concept of even thinking that any person or business should be REQUIRED BY LAW to sell any fucking thing is ludicrous and in direct opposition to the Constitution"

It isn't in direct opposition to the Constitution. You have the 1st and 5th amendments butting heads. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty (there's one), or property (another, the prescription), without due process of law"

I live in Western Ks and have all my life.

Jack Originally Posted by ksjack

You have my deepest sympathies! Out where the men are men and the cows and sheep are nervous!

Brilliant arguments Twink. Brilliant.

You're all over the place and wrong in every place you land. Your lack of coherent ideas, and constant self contradiction tell me all I need to know about you. In other words you are a moron and you need to put your helmet back on and go back to hitting your head against the walls of your cell. Leave the politics to people who can argue intelligently.

It's a fact for you, Allie, it's a moral question for them. You don't like it, shop somewhere else. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a walmart pharmacy or a walgreens.

You're right about one thing, it is a slippery slope. When the government can FORCE anyone to do things that directly contradict their religious beliefs that is a slippery slope.

Jack Originally Posted by ksjack

SO...Since I'm a woman, I have to go somewhere else to shop for things that I should be able to buy, BUT
the pharmacist can just stay there and work? They don't have to go somewhere else to work if they disagree with a product the place of their employment stocks and sells?
How is that fair?
And I'm sure some pharmacies will be firing employees over their refusal to sell certain products, they'll just give them a different reason.

Pretty soon Republicans will be passing bills that say people can refuse to service Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Women, Pols, based on religious convictions. Backhanded way to circumvent civil rights laws.