For Those in Kansas

This is not about religious freedom at all....it is about one group of individuals' morality being stuffed down the throats of another groups rights

Whatever happen to the separation of government and religion....oh that's right, it's Kansas, that does not apparently apply here

And I agree with BigMike....there is so much concern about the baby b4 birth....and then all the BS stuff about not allowing an individual to chose the right to die at the end of his/her life.

In between...way too much emphasis on donating every Sunday/Saturday

I found this question the other day:
"Isn't it interesting that a country founded to allow freedom from religious persecution is now using religion to persecute freedoms?"

Doesn't it seem like the libs clamour for tolerance, yet are the most intolerant when someone does something to which they object? I guess tolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Originally Posted by fritz3552

You're conflating tolerance w/ unfettered permissiveness. When a parent has nutty religious beliefs that deny a child lifesaving medical care, it's time to put the person w/ nutty religious beliefs in their place. Same situation here. Welcome to the 21st century. As was said earlier, this is all just political horsesh!t. I doubt Brownback wants to see birth rates similar to the Philippines and the crushing weight it puts on society.

Some small towns only have ONE pharmacy. You're going to suggest that they drive into a different town to obtain what they need? Ridiculous. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

Actually, Allie, this is exactly what the recent bill is designed for. Many small towns in Kansas are sole proprietorships, and many of those are owned by the pharmacist. This law is designed so that pharmacist does not have to carry any prescription he does not want to carry. So, yes, if they have to go to a larger town or a chain, then that's what they'll have to do. You may think it's ridiculous, but that's what freedom of choice is all about - both for those who want the prescriptions and those who are to fill them.

I don't think this will affect the large chain pharmacies, since most have more than one pharmacist on staff and not all are going to be religious fanatics. So access to prescriptions will not be limited, per se. But those that refuse to carry certain medications are going to probably be identified by those that object to the bill and you'll see boycotts of those pharmacies. It may or may not have an affect on those businesses.

If I were a pharmacist, I would not object to filling either contraceptive prescriptions nor to filling prescriptions for RU-486, but I would not want to tell someone that they MUST fill those prescriptions.

This law is designed so that pharmacist does not have to carry any prescription he does not want to carry. So, yes, if they have to go to a larger town or a chain, then that's what they'll have to do. Originally Posted by fritz3552

I understand if they don't keep it in stock and it's the actual person that owns the pharmacy being a stubborn a-hole and not selling birth control. But if it's an individual employees decision not to sell what a store already keeps in stock, then I would think they would get fired for not doing their job correctly.
Also, not everyone has a car, so for some, it may difficult to just mosey on down to the next pharmacy that sells what they need.

You can add Women's health to the long list of things that Sam hates, so far I have:

1. The Arts, not the religious kind with paintings of Mary and the baby Jesus, but all that gay kind, you know, plays and singing;

2. Taxes, but not the good kind, like you could levy on abortions;

3.Schools and teachers, except Christian private and the home schooled;

4.People that make less than $25K/y, he wants them to pay more;

5.Twitter and teen girls;

6. SurveyUSA;

I expect he hates puppies also, but I don't have any direct evidence.

And when are they going to start taxing churches? It's only fair.

Actually, Allie, this is exactly what the recent bill is designed for. Many small towns in Kansas are sole proprietorships, and many of those are owned by the pharmacist. This law is designed so that pharmacist does not have to carry any prescription he does not want to carry. So, yes, if they have to go to a larger town or a chain, then that's what they'll have to do. You may think it's ridiculous, but that's what freedom of choice is all about - both for those who want the prescriptions and those who are to fill them.

I don't think this will affect the large chain pharmacies, since most have more than one pharmacist on staff and not all are going to be religious fanatics. So access to prescriptions will not be limited, per se. But those that refuse to carry certain medications are going to probably be identified by those that object to the bill and you'll see boycotts of those pharmacies. It may or may not have an affect on those businesses.

If I were a pharmacist, I would not object to filling either contraceptive prescriptions nor to filling prescriptions for RU-486, but I would not want to tell someone that they MUST fill those prescriptions. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Actually, it goes a bit further than that. Although you are correct, the bill could also be viewed as legal protection of the pharmacies against lawsuit if they do not happen to carry everything that someone asks for. This is an impossible situation, I have even had CVS and Walgreens out of stock for some medications.

But, if they say they do not carry something like this, it could be a lawsuit.

Many years ago, I had some graduate courses that were the introduction to the legal aspects of prescription drugs, regulated chemicals and biologicals. The regulations of drugs, chemicals, biologicals, food, health food, water supplies, explosives, etc. (Should I go on?) is unbelievable. For the most part many of these regulations are necessary, even if they are a pain.

The complications are many. One will still be able to obtain what is needed, just not from the store you may want.

JR

You can add Women's health to the long list of things that Sam hates, so far I have:

1. The Arts, not the religious kind with paintings of Mary and the baby Jesus, but all that gay kind, you know, plays and singing; Actually, the arts should pay for themselves, just like sports and any other entertainment.

2. Taxes, but not the good kind, like you could levy on abortions;Who's not against taxes - the lower the better.

3.Schools and teachers, except Christian private and the home schooled; When schools stop wasting money on bureaucrats and start spending it on essential programs (like math, science, English, social studies and foreign language), then there wouldn't be a problem in funding school districts.

4.People that make less than $25K/y, he wants them to pay more; Yes, they should pay their fair share - those earning more than 50K/y are already paying 96% of the taxes.

5.Twitter and teen girls; Only those that call him an asshole. Of course that would be most of the people in this thread.

6. SurveyUSA;

I expect he hates puppies also, but I don't have any direct evidence. Originally Posted by SeaRayPilot

You forgot, he also hates you.

You forgot, he also hates you. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Thank you, that would be the greatest compliment I have ever received!

If an employee of a chain pharmacy does not do what the employer tells him/her to do, that is different. But if a sole pharmacist doesn't want to carry a certain drug, it's up to them. That's freedom. Sorry you don't like it.

I'm not opposed to birth control, or a woman's right to choose, but the pharmacist has a right to choose as well. Why not cut them the same slack you want?

And then I'm called intolerant. Go figure.

COG,

Not all matters are so cut and dry.

What if the birth control a lady takes is helping her for other reasons than to make sure she doesn't get pregnant? Is it still the pharmacists right to not sell the pills to her?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...-take-the-pill

Ladies can we knock off the name calling. It is unbecoming of a lady. This is about freedom and freedom cuts both ways. You want the freedom to buy contraceptives at any place you want to buy them but you will have to deny the right of an owner not to sell certain items for whatever reason. In this case it is about the religion of morals of the owner. Why are your rights better than their rights?
I used the example earlier of a government entity forcing you to take clients that you don't want to take. Their rights are better than your rights. How about the employee who refuses to sell chocolate bars to someone who is grossly obese and the clerk happens to know that they are extremely diabetic. Does the clerk have the right? Does the owner have the right? We prevent 18 year olds from buying liquor even though it is legal in some states for them to have it. Even if that 18 year old is in military uniform. Do you think a store should have the right to refuse to sell birth control to a 14 year old boy or girl? How about 12 years old? Is this right absolute or does it have a limit.
You need to move away from the argument that your own ox is being gored. Think about the other side and their motivations.

COG,

Not all matters are so cut and dry.

What if the birth control a lady takes is helping her for other reasons than to make sure she doesn't get pregnant? Is it still the pharmacists right to not sell the pills to her?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...-take-the-pill Originally Posted by MsElena

Heaven knows if I ever get to Omaha, I'd love to meet you, so I am not trying to piss you off. That really isn't the question. If the pharmacist doesn't want to sell codeine, or even aspirin, it's his or her business. They should have the right to sell what they want, and refuse to sell whatever they want. If their choices cause their business to decrease or even fail, it's their problem. It's their business. They are putting up the money, they are taking the risk, they should be able to decide what they sell.

There will be very few pharmacists who will refuse to sell birth control, so like I said, it's mainly grandstanding by Brownback. But nonetheless, the pharmacist, and any other business person, should not be forced to provide a product or service they don't want to.

The governor needs you all to have as many children as possible. Not that he will fund health care for them, or education... but those that survive the gauntlet to reach the age of consent will be strong, indoctrinated with his fundamentalist anti-intellectual worldview, and prepared to join his crusade against the "other."