9th Circuit: pharmacists must dispense morning-after pill
posted at 10:15 am on July 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the Supreme Court to consider — and likely soon. The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills, which causes the abortion of an embryo in the early days of a pregnancy. The pharmacy owners had objected, claiming that the law violated their religious practice:
Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the “morning after” contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.
Family-owned Ralph’s Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.
Ralph’s owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.
There have been two different issues in the legal fight over Plan B. In one group, pharmacists not working for themselves — for instance, at chain pharmacies — objected to dispensing the pill and wanted job protection despite their refusal. Those cases hardly stand up to scrutiny. The owner of the pharmacy has the right to decide on his own inventory and what to sell, and the employees of that pharmacy either should follow that policy or find a job somewhere else if it offends them. It falls into the same category as a cashier who refuses to handle meat at the checkout counter because he’s a vegetarian.
However, this is something else. The owners of the pharmacy do not want to stock the pills for their own reasons. Even apart from religious grounds, that still seems to be their decision in the marketplace. If they don’t want to sell aspirin, or Ginsu knives, or inflatable life vests for swimming pools, that should be their decision, too. If their customers object to their policies, they will find other pharmacies to patronize. The government has a public interest in telling retailers what they cannot sell for safety reasons (like dynamite, as an example), but should not force business owners to sell something they do not want to sell.
I’ll be interested in the appeal to this decision. I suspect we’ll get another 5-4 decision. I just hope that the decision will support the rights of business owners to determine for themselves the products and services they will offer.
Update: Gabriel Malor wants to emphasize that this ruling overturned the temporary injunction sought by the pharmacy, and is not a ruling on the case itself, which proceeds in district court. I believe the ruling can be appealed to attempt to reinstate the injunction, and I hope it is.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »
That’s why ann is the enemy, and not just an opposing view. She wishes to use the power of the gov’t to impose her opinions on you.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM
JiangxiDad, it sounds like the Commerce Clause allows the government to take away people’s livelihoods for any reason they want.
How that squares with our FOUNDING document – the Declaration of Independence – I don’t know.
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Yup and I’m not sure if we will ever get back to what it stood for. I think it has really been folded, spindled and mutilated to provide “rights” that just do not exist and which would never get enough votes for an amendment.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I know enough to see that it is ok for a judge to tell you what your rights are. I’m not.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
+ 1,000,000
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I’m well aware of this. I should have been specific about referring to the fedgov. Mea culpa.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM
No, I do not. There are, what my professor used to call” “islands of State sovereignty” where the Fed can’t step into in spite of its plenary authority over Commerce. Unfortunately, an argument along these lines can also be made to strengthen Washington’s arguments about its pharmacies.
NorthernCross on July 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM
WTF? Since when is the judiciary the arbiter of rights? To you, the concept of liberty must seem like a hobby….
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Yes. that’s becoming more apparent every day. I’m beginning to come to the realization that we were promised nothing more by our founders that the opportunity and wherewithal to defend the constitution and our freedoms. Nobody said we wouldn’t have to. In fact, I believe they warned us we would. So instead of bellyaching (not you, but me sometimes), we should step up to the plate.
Someone once said here on a diff. topic that the singular, but enormous difference for jews in America, as opposed to elsewhere, is the 2nd amendment. Applies to a lot of us.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
??? I’m not the brightest bulb here but I think we agree based on my statement.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Morning after pills…. here is an idea…. keep your pants on. The only problem I could see with this is, lets say theres 3 pharmacist in town; 2 of them refuse to carry the Plan B pill and the 3rd one jacks the price up to like 300 bucks. Yet I do not see that happening, being that all “health clinics” have morning afters. as so gynos and hospitals.
Point 2- Some say its not an abortion its just a contraceptive… can it not be both? We know sperm can live in a woman for up to 5-6 days (meaning even if your on your period you can get pregnant 5 days later blah bah )
But teenage sperm are strong swimmers… like Micheal Phelps fast (unless you do weed, then your impotent) it is not beyond possible that you could have a fertilized egg within 12 hours of sex…. so in that case it is 100% abortion. (morning after pill must be used between 1-3 days after sex so yes 3 day point it is an abortion)
Donut on July 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Neither in the blog post nor in any of the comments has anyone used the word “poison.” As long as the Americans continue to speak of this “Plan B” as a “medicine” or “pill,” I think it will continue to gain acceptance.
Kralizec on July 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Any pharmacy owner should be allowed the right not to sell friggin’ aspirin if it’s his choice. Religion or not, a valid reason would only need to be that it’s his business and he doesn’t feel like it. Would it be bad for business? Of course, but the government has no business telling him what to stock. The fact that they are lumping the employee cases with this is an attempt to discredit this case along with those.
BakerAllie on July 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I think defining it as religious is wrong as a person can think abortion is morally wrong outside of religion. In other words not all atheists believe abortion is right and I’m betting not all religions find it wrong. Although I’m not really sure about the last, but as I’m playing a liberal today I’m allowed to pull facts out of my a……..
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You think that it is OK for a judge to tell you what your rights are, yes?
I do not agree with that.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
No sir. I was responding to jmarcure and the power of judges to write your rights down for you, which I am 110% against.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I think that’s an exaggeration, since the Commerce Clause cannot take away out rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights. Here, pharmacists in the Ninth Circuit aren’t losing any of those rights, since they can always try to find other jobs to suit their beliefs.
NorthernCross on July 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
tks. I fell for Ann’s propaganda that the only way to oppose abortion is based upon religious views. That woman is a menace.She’s Typhoid_AnneinCA.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM
I think the distinction is that the morning-after pill does not directly kill the fertilized ovum. It meddles with the landscape so as to encourage a miscarriage or failed implantation – a process that is part of the normal crap-shoot of life.
Of course, the further argument is that it is wrong to meddle in such a process…
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
sounds like, and I hate to use this word, they just need to get “organized”. Or at least collectively share their opinions with each other so they can decide if they all want to disobey the ruling.
VTWaldrup on July 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Clearly I made a thread-context error, and missed something along the way.
I apologize.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
But the courts didn’t declare that one has a right to aspirin. They did declare that a select group of people has a right to an abortion. Deigning to sell a legal drug for a legal procedure may be view by some as deigning that court declared right and apparently the 9th circuit sees it that way.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM
None needed. It wouldn’t be the first time the keyboard ended up in my mouth sideways.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I think defining it as religious is wrong as a person can think abortion is morally wrong outside of religion. In other words not all atheists believe abortion is right and I’m betting not all religions find it wrong. Although I’m not really sure about the last, but as I’m playing a liberal today I’m allowed to pull facts out of my a……..
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Number 1: That was meant for AnninCa.
Number 2: I would think that all religions would find the slaughter of innocent life as wrong. I know I wouldn’t want to be a part of a religion that thought it was okay to rip off arms and legs and stick scissors in the back of an infants head and suck the brains out.
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
These pharmacists really should man-up and refuse to comply. The judiciary has no authority to dictate the sales policy of private business.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Well they would. That’s the kind of ruling they were selected for. It tells you little though of the law. Either way this ends up, people will increasingly do whatever they want,as their own morals/values, or lack thereof, substitutes for respect for the law.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I’m out the door but just have to say, quick, that we have our strategy shown to us right here – a way to get these unconstitutional morons to recognize the need for REAL limits on what the government can do.
Remember how the Cap and Trade bill had a space-holder in it, so content could be added later? All we need to do is put in a bill that never gets read a phrase banning the sale of abortion. It would be constitutional because of the Commerce Clause. It would get passed because Congress doesn’t even know what it’s passing.
Voila! Immediately a lot of leftists would be saying that government can’t do that. To which we respond, “The Commerce Clause allows us to regulate what is bought and sold.”
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM
These pharmacists really should man-up and refuse to comply. The judiciary has no authority to dictate the sales policy of private business.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Unfortunately under Obamanomics the government has the right to seize companies and fire CEO’s and tell a car company to sell the kind of cars that they want them too. There is no such thing as private rights under a radical liberal administration. We are living in some scary times.
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
The pharmacist’s freedoms are not being restricted. He’s free to become anything he wishes, including a librarian.
AnninCA on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Jesus F. Christ. Don’t attack me the messenger. People keep making analogies that this is akin to a store that refuses to sell lumber. Anyway, there is no shortage of doctors to perform abortions. Therefore, no interest in the state to require doctors to perform abortions. Also, requiring an OB to expand their practice to a sub specialty, that also requires special equipment, a procedure room, nurses, additional training, and the cost of doing it all — is not equivalent to requiring a pharmacy/pharmacist to dispense a drug or have their license revoked. And I’m not interested in arguing with you about it. This is the rationale, if you and others don’t like it, continue to make stupid ineffective arguments. It’s no skin off my nose.
Blake on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
And we have the right to send gubmint thugs home in body bags.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The way to get around it is for the legislature to pass a law protecting the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies.
Blake on July 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Blake on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Obama to away the “Conscience Clause” which allowed doctors and religious hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I need to learn to preview. Obama took away.
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The way to get around it is to ratify a photocopy of my middle finger as the 28th Amendment.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Stupid argument. One has a property interest in their license.
Blake on July 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
You’re free to do what you like, if we approve.
Cretinous lib.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Judge: “Ann must immediately burn all her computer equipment.”
Ann: ***strikes a Bic and gets to work***
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I’m still headed out the door (darn kids)….. lol.
Blake, don’t answer if you don’t want to, but are you a lawyer? I’m curious because I’d really like to figure out a way to actually limit government, and would appreciate a lawyer’s insight as to how it could be done.
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
You don’t really have a firm grasp on the concept of private business, do you?
DarkCurrent on July 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
The pharmacist’s freedoms are not being restricted. He’s free to become anything he wishes, including a librarian.
AnninCA on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Why should the government have the right to force someone to go against their core values. Just because you have no problem with infanticide doesn’t mean that people with strong beliefs should be forced to do something that they find sinful. If people who like killing babies want an abortion or a certain medication, they can get up off their a@# and find someone willing to perform that particular service.
TXMomof3 on July 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
The Anns of the world think it is OK for a judge to force you to act but it is not OK for a judge to force them to act.
I know…I’m stating the obvious again.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
dumber. librarians will get fired for refusing to purchase books with certain topics. Heather has 3 Moms.
Hisherit’s life story, by C. Bono.JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Do you feel the same way about doctors and nurses who refuse to aid in abortions? They have “monopolies” too….
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Multiple problems with the above statement.
Firstly, though the courts did “declare that a select group has a right to” abortion. That does not mean that anyone has the right to force businesses to help them abort their children if the business does not want to.
Secondly, the courts did not say that businesses shouldn’t do things that some may view as “deigning that court declared right”. That would be crazy. For example:’You raised the price too high on this abortion product. That may make me think that you are trying to deny a court declared right.’
JakeRightThought on July 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Yes, beware of Typhoid-AnninCA. Seems innocuous, but is really lethal.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Most things in life come as a package of one sort or another. Abortion is a right in America, and that includes any package that may come with that right.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Oh, and doctors and nurse practitioners issue prescriptions — pharmacists fill prescriptions.
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Not all doctors and medical professionals provide abortions.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Interesting — what was originally envisioned as a private right for some (or as a means of decreasing undesired populations by certain others [Ginsberg]), now becomes an intrusive right which must be satisfied even by those who have moral/ethical positions in opposition.
This is as if freedom of the press required that press manufacturers sell to anyone who comes to the door, or that freedom of religion required that churches can take over private property for their services, or that abortions must be performed upon demand by any doctor qualified to do so.
Slippery slope thinking at its worst is going on in 9th Circuit land….
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I want to have both my arms and legs cut off, eyes poked out, and eardrums pierced. I can’t find a doctor who will comply. Can someone point me to a judge that will force these religious zealot doctors to perform their duty?
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Ah, if you were a policeman in Nazi Germany, and you disagreed with the Nazis but your Nazi commander told you to round up Jews, would your freedom be restricted? After all, there are many other things you can become other than a policeman…
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM
You can get all of the above done at Sir Robin’s Tattoo Mania over by 4th Street and Main.
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Of course, at the heart of these kinds of issues is the profoundly warped understanding of exactly what a ‘right’ is…
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I just hope that the decision will support the rights of business owners to determine for themselves the products and services they will offer.
I would also hope the courts would uphold the rights of business owners, but this case and the AnninCA folks would rather see morals defined by the courts and not the individuals.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Thanks. Just found it on GoggleEarth. Yellow Cab on the way….
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
You have the right not to carry whatever you don’t want to carry. I think alongside that right is the obligation to state immediately and unequivocally when asked that you don’t carry the product.
There are tales where pharmacies have strung women along until it was too late to take Plan B successfully—and that’s just as problematic as using the state to force pharmacists to stock it.
When asked whether or not you stock a product or perform a service, you should as soon as possible convey unequivocally that you do not perform that service or stock the product, you object to the practice, and hand back any property and money already given in anticipation of the service (such as the prescription).
Sekhmet on July 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Do I have the right to say FU (long version)?
Anyone?
Ann? jmarcure? NorthernCross?
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I think something missing here is the difference between omission, and commission.
It’s one thing for the coercive power of the state to be used to prevent a person from doing something, that society has determined as wrong and harmful to society, and therefor is prohibiting through the government.
Almost all restrictions on people are handled through this preventive method.
It’s quite another thing to use the coercive power of the state to force people to do something.
Such an action is far, far more intrusive, and therefor requires a more extreme justification.
This is particularly true when it comes to religious liberty. It’s one thing to deny a person the right to engage in behavior that their religion requires. It’s a quite another to force someone to engage in acts forbidden as evil by their religion.
Sackett on July 11, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Ann will always push the pro-abortion line. It makes her feel better about the deaths of her own unborn
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:28 PM
And I’m very glad to hear that, but it doesn’t change the principle of the right. The problem arises when not everyone agrees with said right. There will be dissent, and whomsoever holds the power gets to decide the issue. That’s what I meant by “package” – it may include controversial elements.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
If you say it to a black or a homo you’re a ‘hate criminal’.
Yeah. That wouldn’t stop me either ;)
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I suspect there is fundamental disagreement as to whether abortion is something that can be defined in terms of a ‘right’.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
The evil of those like Ann is truly scary
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Just wondering because if I walk through WalGreens repeating FU over and over I don’t want the business owner to have the right to refuse service.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I still think the 9th Circus will likely be overidden. This is too far an overreach of government power into private business.
Sekhmet on July 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
LOL I see your angle now.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I have the Constitution-guaranteed right to go to a retailer and purchase a handgun. So should I sue Walgreen’s for not stocking guns?
Sekhmet on July 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Terrible argument.
At almost any major intersection here there are 2-3 drug stores. Play on. You argue like a child and cannot think for yourself. And yes I know the numbers of Pharmacists are limited but they have far from a monopoly.
You pro-aborts just love lies and distortions. You do know Roe V Wade was based on a lie right? In fact Roe fights for the rights of the unborn. Lie on.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Of course it is! That’s why, in this day and age, some things do not sit well together.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Absolutely! I, personally, have much difficulty with some of the “rights” granted these days – including abortion. However, as long as it’s legal, I lose the right to object – on any grounds.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Actually, I’d argue that the gubmint has no authority to establish such cartel monopolies in the first place.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I get what you’re saying. You are explaining that the abortion “right” generates other issues be definition. Fine. But we can fight the other issues, the right, the providers, the media, the pols–we can fight from any angle and direction. Ultimately, we’ll get back to the fundamental issue.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Again, the far more Constitutional, and far less intrusive answer is to say that those who choose to use the conscience clause are obligated to convey that fact unequivocally to someone asking for the prescription, and return all property and money handed over to you in anticipation of the services you are refusing to perform.
Sekhmet on July 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
That’s where the rot sets in – the belief that rights are ‘granted’.
That’s a statist slave mentality right there. It has no place in America.
Free people always have the right to object, the law be damned.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Just plain silliness.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Yep just shut up Old English. Damn dim there boy
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Well I guess if you don’t cross any of the many hate crime laws. Just remember that I may be gay, black, non-white, female, Muslim or some other protected minority so be careful.
Only kidding. I’m your typical overweight, balding, white male, gun carrying conservative christian. So you can go for it.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Out of curiousity, do these pharmacist also carry the birth control pill? If they do, they really don’t have a leg to stand on, since plan B is a pair of Birth Control Pills, and a gravol
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on July 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Well, it cuts the other way, too. I heard a caller on talk radio yesterday ranting on about how women who have abortions should get the death penalty – or, at the very least, life without parole.
Very divisive issue. Should have been left to the states.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Just claim Tourette’s Syndrome and threaten to sue. It’s the American way.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The pharmacy involved in this case is owned by a conservative politically active family and is quite unlikely to throw in the towel.
As far as the legislature doing anything to help individuals, well it is obvious that you are unaware of the State of Washington’s reputation for libtardness.
We are the state that took Dino Rossi’s election victory away from him and gave it to former Attorney General Queen Christine Gregoire. This is the same AG who trashed one of her deputies because someone forgot to appeal a $17 million dollar judgment against the state. The deputy sued and won several million dollars for defamation.
Don’t get me started on the Growth Management Act.
Our state does not help conservatives, or Christians, or any other liberty minded people. Put down the cup and step back from the punchbowl.
platypus on July 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM
The only ‘leg’ they need is the liberty to run a private enterprise. They can stock tylenol, but not advil. Vibrators, but not butt plugs. Birth control, but not morning-after.
You can whine about inconsistency/hypocrisy all you like, it’s irrelevant. It may even encourage them to remove the birth control pills.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM
A distinctly minority view, I should think. Ann, on the other hand, arguably represents a majority view, and therefore it’s not fair to say it cuts both ways and use this as ur example.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
If it can be proved that she murdered her unborn child, she certainly should get the death penalty.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Leaving up to the states has nothing to do with your point
Very little evil on the side of life. The Anns and those like yourself will not stand up for the most innocent . The pro-abort type of evil is far more dangerous than one person calling for such a punishment. I think you overstate your case on purpose. In fact you know it.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Might be a stretch. Many would agree that you have a right to bear arms but there really is nothing in there about purchasing them where you want. If that were the case we the people of Mass would be able to buy them mail order and we can not. Heck, we can’t even buy some guns because Mass restricts a great many of them.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Perhaps we are thinking along different lines. What I read you as saying is that you have the right to protest against another right – as in showing your opposition to said right. I have no problem there – I do it often, but I have no right to object to the passing of the law/right, as that is also a slippery slope that may find my rights being objected to.
Unfortunately, any government that is gathered under popular vote will have these anomalies. As an aside, the Constitution, as written, did not allow for a popular vote – it defined a particular lifestyle.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Exactly. Just like many would argue that you have a ‘right’ to abortion/morning-after, but there really is nothing in there about obtaining either wherever you want.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
What an amazing world we live in . Up is down and down is up.
Life is not life. The spin is amazing and we have useful idiots right here right now that deny truth and pretend that they cannot stand up to such evil as it is law. We have others that willingly overstate in order to spin their point.
We have those that live their life always looking to justify their own past sins rather than admit the truth and fight for the rights of the unborn.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
You’re taking a lot of heat for this, but I think I get what you’re saying. The 2nd Amendment expresses our right to bear arms. And that’s that. There’s no right to object on any grounds.
The question is are the laws/rights in existence at any particular time unchangeable? Of course not. By const. amendment,we can nullify the 2nd amendment. So I’d argue that laws are constantly challenged, and in need of protection and enforcement. If/when the tide changes sufficiently, they’re changed.
Same with abortion. There’s every right and expectation to challenge it at all levels, even tho it’s the “law.”
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Comming soon…
RalphyBoy on July 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Gosh darn it. I figured I could get a dozen comments before anyone picked up on that. You sir, madam or unknown are truly paying attention. You must not be a liberal I guess.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I simply do not understand conservatives who understand the tyranny of Federal government control, but do not see abortion as a state’s rights issue.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM
American government isn’t/shouldn’t be subject to ‘popular vote’. We are a republic, not a democracy.
Rights are not granted by government and/or its laws.
Utter crap. The Constitution has nothing to say about the ‘popular vote’ – how we implement elections is entirely up to us. It certainly didn’t define a lifestyle either, WTF are you talking about? It defines one thing only – the form of our system of government.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
When Benjamin reportedly quipped, “a Republic, if you can keep it,” I always assumed he meant “if you don’t screw it up.” Maybe he meant, “not likely”, given the unpredictability of the future. I wonder how far ahead they looked, 20 years, 100 years? Where did they think future Americans would come from? Maybe he meant “fat chance.”
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I’m most emphatically not anything.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
So what you are saying is that this thread represents the richness and diversity of opinion in America. Cool.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Just tell them that you are out of stock.
Johan Klaus on July 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »