For Those in Kansas

I grew up in an extremely small town with no pharmacy at all. (It still has no pharmacy or grocery store to this day) It was already an inconvenience to drive to the next small town which was 6 miles away to go to the only grocery store/pharmacy. So if they refused to sell me something I need, I would have had to drive further. So people in small towns may have to drive as far as 20 miles to get birth control?
Does anyone else think this is acceptable and makes sense because I'm not seeing it...
If you decide to become a pharmacist, you know that you may have to sell medicine you don't agree with.
When you're born, you don't have a choice which sex you are.

"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" Originally Posted by kuhoplite

The constitution limits what the government can do to the people. It says that THE GOVERNMENT can't do those things. These are constitutional issues. Murder, for example, is addressed nowhere in the constitution.

Jack

I grew up in an extremely small town with no pharmacy at all. (It still has no pharmacy or grocery store to this day) It was already an inconvenience to drive to the next small town which was 6 miles away to go to the only grocery store/pharmacy. So if they refused to sell me something I need, I would have had to drive further. So people in small towns may have to drive as far as 20 miles to get birth control?
Does anyone else think this is acceptable and makes sense because I'm not seeing it...
If you decide to become a pharmacist, you know that you may have to sell medicine you don't agree with.
When you're born, you don't have a choice which sex you are. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

Ok then, since you have chosen the profession of being a provider and you think a private business should have no say in what it offers in the way of goods and services i guess that there is absolutely nothing off limits that you will provide your clients on their request as long as it won't physically harm you, right?

After all, it wouhld be a terrible inconvenience for them to have to find someone else, right? They might even have to drive ten minutes extra! We can't have that!

Jack

Ok then, since you have chosen the profession of being a provider and you think a private business should have no say in what it offers in the way of goods and services i guess that there is absolutely nothing off limits that you will provide your clients on their request as long as it won't physically harm you, right?

After all, it wouhld be a terrible inconvenience for them to have to find someone else, right? They might even have to drive ten minutes extra! We can't have that!

Jack Originally Posted by ksjack

I didn't say the actual business, we're talking about pharmacists here...
They choose their profession knowing what they could potentially be selling.
Physical harm? What? Since when is buying birth control a kick in the nuts for a pharmacist?
What was the point of this comparison? It doesn't even make sense.

I wonder if you guys would be up in arms if the pill was replaced by viagra in this situation? Oh wait, that wouldn't happen.......god forbid the men's rights be fringed upon. You guys would revolt in a heartbeat.

I wonder if you guys would be up in arms if the pill was replaced by viagra in this situation? Oh wait, that wouldn't happen.......god forbid the men's rights be fringed upon. You guys would revolt in a heartbeat. Originally Posted by MsElena

Nope. I'd just go find a pharmacy that sells it. DUH!!!!!

There's some good info about how these "Conscience Clauses" laws are playing out across the nation on the National Conference of State Legislatures website (ncsl . org). Just look under: Issues & Research >> Health >> Pharmacist Conscience Clauses Laws and Information. For example, RU-486, or the morning after pills, are not administered by pharmacists.

If I walked into a pharmacy and had a prescription for Viagra, and the pharmacist said, "I don't sell that here," I'd go to a different pharmacy. It's not that big a deal.

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 Originally Posted by ksjack

First, I am not Strawman- just so nobody thinks I have multiple handles.

You miss my point. If a pharmacy hires a pharmacist who refuses to fill a script due to his/her religious convictions, the pharmacy cannot fire them. (they could not before this law). If a UPS or FedEx worker were to refuse to deliver a package that they suspect contains material which is against their religious convictions, how could you justify firing the delivery worker. You cannot fire someone on religious grounds.

Of course this whole point is mute. If a big chain has a pharmacist who won't fill scripts, they won't fire them for that. However, they will find some way to get rid of them. They will be very careful of how they do it, but the pharamacist will eventually be let go. Big Business always finds a way around any law.

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The point is, if you don't have a vagina, you don't get it. You don't understand why we're mad and you won't understand because you don't possess the right genitalia.

Was browsing YouTube and came across this one...

George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life

Made me think of this thread for some reason.. There is a LOT of truth in what he says.

I know how this is going to sound, but does having a vagina make you special? The laws are supposed to be evenly enforced vagina or not. This is not about your vagina and never was. This is about the personal (religious) sensiblities of an individual being violated. I am sure that in the past some drug stores refused to sell condoms.

My vagina doesn't make me special, but this bill affects people with vaginas, otherwise known as women.
It doesn't affect you. It affects people like me. You aren't a woman so you don't get it. I'm not mad at you because of it, I'm just sad that you really can't understand how it affects us and why we are so upset over the bill.
If there is a bill introduced that mainly affects men, I wouldn't presume to tell men how to feel about it.
I also understand that not every pharmacist is a man either. If a woman pharmacist refuses to sell birth control to another woman, that would make a great argument.

The legislation that was passed (H Sub SB 62) is really aimed at further limiting the tort liabilities of health care providers and institutions beyond the scope of the original acts which were limited to the performance of abortions. For those that are saying "if you pharmacist is refusing to fill the script, then just go to another pharmacy", you are wrong. The act gives them the right to refuse to refer the patient to another pharmacy or to another doctor for that matter. These "conscience clauses" are popular among the health care providers because it limits their liabilities if they have moral objections to interfering with the natural progression of a pregnancy.

This legislation is about limiting the tort rights of Kansas-ans, and consequently, the reproductive rights of women.

Guys, food for thought... What if the condom breaks!