9th Circuit: pharmacists must dispense morning-after pill
posted at 10:15 am on July 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 5 6 Next »
1 + 1= 2 but two is the wrong answer— so says guntoting
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Nothing convoluted about it. Any court that ignores the 1oth Amendment can impose any bizarre policy it chooses.
But then, I doubt you’ve ever read the 10th Amendment, so I’m just casting pearls before swine.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Why is it that on most issues, disagreemment among conservatives can be discussed in civilized terms, but when it comes to abortion, any dissent from the most stringent pro-life orthodoxy attracts seething hatred?
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Where was the seething hatred? I have not seen any hatred, I find some of the courts desicions as far more bizzare than the question I posed to you? I predicated my question in the future to see if you were libertarian in all cases or only in the cases you feel comfortable with. I also do not want interference with privale enterprise but see the erosion of morals in the 9th. court.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Dave it was sarcasm. Your post was idiotic and you were called on it …but I suspect you know it. 1 + 1 is 2 right? but still wrong? …just like pointing out the pure logic of my post yet claiming I am not logical. You are a mess my boy.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I liked the question, but don’t think it should have been asked of you. You have already said you think states should do as they please, independently of each other. But there would be others here who defend the courts action in this case, who might not be so fast to defend it if it involved one of their sacred beliefs–the normality of homosexuality for example. I think his intent was to point out that we all support laws/decisions we support, and are against the ones we don’t believe in. In other words, we’re biased and hypocritical. That’s why I think one side has to win and one has to lose. It’s like a marriage where both parties have reached the end of the line, and there are no more issues left to discuss, and everyone’s point of view is well established. After that, if there’s still no common ground, what’s the point of going on together. The question we have is whether we still share some common ground. Perhaps an external event will unite us again. Perhaps not.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Morals and values are the bedrock of society, true.
But having any branch of government involved in deciding which morals and values will prevail is a loooong step on the road to tyranny.
You or I might see laws against rape or murder or burglary as moral issues. But in truth, from a standpoint of governance, they are issues of rights…protection by the state from a private person taking away one’s rights to personal safety or private property
Once we make the state the arbiter of “morals”, we open ourselves to the double-edged sword. The Right might wish to enforce moral values in the instances of gay marriage or abortion. The Left might wish to enforce moral values in the instances of “hate speech” or “discrimination against gays”.
For the umpteenth time, I would say, keep the Federal government – all 3 branches – out of such issues, as the 10th Amendment intended. Then let the states individually legislate “morality” if they wish. Then, if you live in a state that thinks “hate speech” is the highest moral value issue, you can try to influence your legislature – or you can move to a state that says all speech is protected.
Paraprhasing Lady Margaret Thatcher, any government that is big enough to impose “moral values” upon its citizens is big enough to impose “moral values” you will hate.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I would like to apologize for asking the question, it was bizzare. I could not think of an analogous question and in no way was I trying to imply moral superiority. I find the courts to often siding on what I believe to immoral.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM
No, don’t include me in your “we all”. The only laws and decisions I “support” are those which comply with the Constitution. If a law or decision is distasteful to me, but in accordance with the Constitution, so be it.
Perhaps the most commonplace example of what I’m talking about is flag-burning. I detest that practice and would be sorely tempted to do violence to anyone I caught in the act. But when courts upheld it as a free-speech issue, I recognized that to be a proper decision.
My only recourse, then, would be to advocate a Constitutional amendment to ban the practice of flag-burning. Which I would not do, because I do not believe that I am as wise as the Founding Fathers and I’ve seen too many faddish amendments that have done irreparable damage to their vision.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Quote: “No, the right to CHOOSE abortion is declared by the court. The right to force someone else to sell an abortion is not declared”
This.
The Ronin Edge on July 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Very noble of you, fourdeucer. Apology accepted.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Apology accepted.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Thank-you
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I’m not sure I believe that. Take Roe v. Wade, for example, and the justification the court used for ruling the way it did. It’s easy to argue it’s not in “accordance” with the Constitution. Yet it’s the law. And previously, you said you supported each state having the right to decide for itself.
So which is it? Do you support Roe v.Wade or not(on the federalism aspect, I mean.)
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Ed,
You are wrong
We have religious protection. Owner has to accommodate a religious employee as best he can. One barely used pill isn’t a hardship
PrezHussein on July 11, 2009 at 3:41 PM
And my main point is that people here will argue in favor of the correctness of the decision, merely because they agree with the outcome. I’m not saying you will, but some who support abortion rights also now support the right to force a storeowner to carry and sell what the gov’t tells him to. They could care less about the ethics or const. legality of the issue.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Actually, Roe v Wade is not ‘law’ per se….it is established judicial precedent. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘case law’, but this is actually a misleading misnomer.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Hey Obama. How about your family requests for female circumcisions. Will you force docs to do them against their moral convictions? Just a little freedom of choice to have female genital mutilation.
seven on July 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I stand corrected, and won’t make that mistake again.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM
You’ve still got to wear the pointy hat and stand in the corner ;)
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Actually, Roe v Wade is not ‘law’ per se….it is established judicial precedent.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 3:45 PM
That is the crux of the problem, the judiciary is making up law as they go and 9 out of 10 times it favors on the side of promoting immorality. Where are the legislators demanding the courts to quit making laws?
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I thought you were smarter than this. Of course I don’t support Roe v. Wade, which took abortion out of the hands of the states. Jus because I do not think their is any Constitutional sanction against abortion doesn’t mean I support Roe v. Wade.
And Rov v. Wade is not “the law”. It is a court decision. Courts do not make laws, the legislature does. Don’t ever, ever, ever give an inch on that principle.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Time to go to mass, prayers for the judges.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Well…as I mentioned above to JD, they’re not making law at all. They are establishing corrupt and incorrect judicial precedent that will take a brave court to overturn. Thankfully, we don’t have the British system of subordinate courts, whereby the superior court judgements are binding on inferior courts. Although convention is to ‘follow the leader’, there is nothing to Constitutinoally prevent a local court from disagreeing with and overriding a SCOTUS decision.
Of course, part of the problem is that an ignorant legal profession and public treat such decisions as law, which only helps the fascists.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Understood.
Your other point I don’t get. I already know you don’t support Roe because it takes the decision away from the states. But you also said you support any decision or law which complies with the Const. Roe is a decision which complies with the constitution. So why not support it?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I think not. Just because some black-robed feckers say so, don’t make it so.
The reasoning behind Roe is pathetic. No originalist can say otherwise with a straight face. It should be overturned as its influence is toxic.
The invocation of the 9th/10th should have kicked the abortion issue to the several states.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Are you drinking today? Because usually you seem so smart and lucid.
Roe in no way “complies” with the Constitution. It violates the 10th Amendment and relied upon totally-fabricated “penumbras” in order to shoe-horn it into the shelter of the 14th Amendment.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM
How can Ginsberg and her Jewish friends on the court ever expect to see a reduction in the numbers of undesireables if Plan B isn’t readily available?
Spartacus on July 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Sometimes it feels like a curse to actually understand the Constitution, doesn’t it?
Wouldn’t you and I be so much more comfortable if we could just ignore that anachronistic document and go with our…feelings?
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Wait. I didn’t go thru all the pages of comments, but this stuck out for me:
Plan B does no such thing. It prevents fertilization before it ever happens. If fertilzation has already occured, the pill does nothing. This has nothing to do with abortion. Plan B is basically a mega-dose of the types of hormones found in regular birth control pills, and I don’t think you’d ever argue birth control pills are causing monthly abortions.
TheBlueSite on July 11, 2009 at 4:15 PM
LOL. I thought when u said complies with the Constitution, you meant whether a court said it does or doesn’t. You meant if you or I do. That’s a horse of a different color. Although I think you make my original point now–but I give up. It’s been long lost. Gonna watch some baseball. later.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM
It’s spelled “Ginsburg” actually.
Let us not forget that our oh-so-not-sexist, reaching-across-the-aisle Republican Senators piled right on, resulting in confirmation of this Marxist dope by a margin of 96 to 3. Morons.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Any court has NO RIGHT telling any business what it must sell or provide in services. I guess this is just more crap like Government Motors
Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Oh, this is too, too rich:
If You Like Putting Sterilants in Our Water and Forcing “Undesirables” to Have Abortions, Have We Got a Science Czar for You
Some of you might recall that a couple of hours earlier, I was saying that a government that can deny abortion could force abortion. And people in here said I was crazy.
Lol.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Let me amend my comment from above. Plan B almost always prevents fertilization of the egg, but if it doesn’t, it MIGHT prevent attachment of the egg to the wall of the uterus. I guess you COULD argue that’s abortion, but that’d also mean that women have several natural abortions throughout their lives, as eggs sometimes become fertilized but don’t attach properly.
TheBlueSite on July 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Yeah… part of the problem is that words meanings have morphed…
Like… a RIGHT belongs to an individual… and cannot be taken away…
Groups, and States or Goverments, have Powers, and Limitations… but not Rights…
So the term “States Rights”, while popularly used… is really kind of an oxymoron.
And because the term Right, is used for things that were not intended, it is diluted. Thus all of the sudden we have the Government using Laws, to take away or limit our Rights.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The question we have is whether we still share some common ground.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM
>>>
Astute observation. That really is the question. Right now our society is postmodern. We agree on nothing. There is no bedrock of society, no authority to look to for real answers. There are no real answers, no real right and wrong.
There can be no government that makes sense under these conditions. It’s just a matter of who is strong enough to force the others to accept their rules.
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Except that Abortion is a choice… you are talking about an imperfect natural process…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I like the document, but can think of how it could be rewritten to essentially establish the same protections, but improve both clarity and constraint.
My ‘feelings’ tell me to keep my guns ready ;)
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM
The problem of judgmental pharmacists that act like preachers can be solved with some good old capitalism.
They don’t want to be full service? Open up a full service pharmacy nearby. Crush them.
Moesart on July 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I don’t understand the merits of this case at all. If I have a private business, and I choose not to carry a particular line of products, why the he!! is it a court’s businesses to force me to do so? Particularly if that product line is conveniently available everywhere else, and that if I carry that product line, I feel that it encroaches on my religious beliefs.
Prove to me that this was the only pharmacy available to the plaintiff, and then lets talk about a lawsuit.
Otherwise, shutup. I mean I have to drive all the way across town to find my favorite blue fuzzy slippers, but you don’t see me throwing a fit about it and demanding that the store across the street carry those for me. Gee wiz!
gatorboy on July 11, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I do think you might have a case under tort law, though.
I understand that John Edwards has some time on his hands.
I can just see him now, tearing up before a hand-picked bovine jurors:
“(Sniffle) I tol’ myseff I wuddnt do this today, but jes thinkin’ about poor gatorboy…why it jes breaks mah heart. Five minutes without those fuzzy slippers and he sez, “Ahm OK” and then 10 minutes without those fuzzy slippers, he sez to himself,’my hoofies are gettin a tidge cold, but I think I can hang on.” Then 20 minutes without those life-preserving fuzzy foot-coverings, poor ol’ gatorboy was sayin’, “Jesus, my feet feel like BLOCKS OF FRIGGIN’ ICE!!”
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I’m one of those “evil” pro-choicers, and I still say this is an imposition on the private sector. This all comes out of cases where pharmacists have gone beyond saying “no” into unethical acts like “losing” the woman’s prescription, leading her on about availability until it is too late for the drug to be effective, etc.
Again, there is a much better solution that can satisfy both sides: A conscience clause that also obligates those who use it to communicate clearly and effectively that they are invoking this clause while returning any property or money given in anticipation of services that will not be performed.
That way, nobody is imposed upon.
Sekhmet on July 11, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I didn’t attack you; I simply pointed out the error in your reasoning. You’re the one who made the inept analogy, then offered up specious arguments to try and support it. Now you say you don’t want to argue about it. I can certainly understand that, as you clearly don’t have a clue.
AZCoyote on July 11, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Even for someone as rabidly pro-abortion as I am, this seems to me to be an open and shut case that the pharmacy owners get to decide what products they sell. The absolute most I can see the government requiring is that the pharmacists tell a woman that there are other pharmacies, and I even have my doubts that we want to go that far. I’m beginning to think that despite my belief that libertarians are lunatic, that I am a libertarian. And that implies, …
thuja on July 11, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Yeah, I think they made the wrong arguement…
Shouldn’t have gone religous about it… should have fought this on PROPERTY Rights.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM
So you are pro-abortion. I think that is a pretty disgusting position to admit to.
Sporty1946 on July 11, 2009 at 5:28 PM
May I ask you a question? Suppose Roe v Wade is overturned and your state bans abortion outright. What should then be done to women who have abortions in contravention of that ban?
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Roe is constitutional? Okay then, I guess I support Dredd Scott too.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 5:36 PM
You are exactly right. Any one hear about legal and detainment problems with new “enemy combatants” on the battlefield lately? Battlefield justice with just one bullet, takes care of that problem.
luvstotango on July 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Let me see if I get this straight – some fertilized eggs naturally die, so causing more to die is good?
Is that like – some infants are killed by SIDS, so it’s no big deal to smother a few more?
Your logic is wanting.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Yep, and McCain/Feingold is fine and dandy. Oh, and giving JiangxiDad’s house to a real-estate developer who can make better use of his land is okey-doke with me, too.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Let me turn it around on you – what should be done to women who throw their newborns into trash cans?
And if you reply, please explain to me the difference.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I asked you a simple question. Apparently, you like the courage of your convictions necessary to muster a straightforward response.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Um, no you didn’t. You asked someone else a question.
Simple answer though – unless their lives were threatened, they should be tried for (at least) manslaughter.
I can see there being different sentences depending on the circumstances, but the law should protect every person the same, no matter your color, creed, religion or age.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Well, thanks for straightening me out. You know how it goes when youre in posting mania.
And thanks for your honest answer. I just find that a lot of pro-life folks don’t always think things through to that conclusion. So I appreciate your honest answer.
And your response just further underlines my point that it should be a state’s rights issue. Some states would choose to incarcerate women, others would not. And the citizens of those states could work to change said laws or depart to a state more congenial to their views.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM
It blows me away that there is even disagreement on this. Of course private businesses should not be forced by law to sell things they don’t want to sell.
Just as a private employer has the right to require his employees to dispense any legal things the employer decides to sell.
I can’t believe there are people who think otherwise. It’s the issues like this that bring me closest to concluding that a lot of people are just… morons.
J.E. Dyer on July 11, 2009 at 6:18 PM
/switches to cynic mode…
Well, by definition, 1/2 of the people in America are of BELOW average intelligence.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM
So if some states make infanticide legal that’s okay with you? As long as the feds stay out of it?
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 6:42 PM
The more apt analogy would be the sale of cigarettes. I was at Shaw’s Supermarket this morning when I noticed the locked display near the check out line that used to hold cartons of cigarettes was empty. There was a sign on it but I didn’t bother to read it. They don’t sell my brand so I never bought them there, anyway.
I can just imagine what the sign said.
Jaynie59 on July 11, 2009 at 6:48 PM
I’m not a mathematician or up on statistics rules, but I think there’s a big difference between “average” and “mean”.
Stupid people account for a hell of a lot more than half. Religious people alone are more than half. Then you’ve got all the liberals.
Jaynie59 on July 11, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Who said anything about infanticide? Calm down, breathe deeply.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I want the Feds to require my local supermarket to sell the purple Easter Peeps. They only sell the yellow and orange ones, so I have to drive at least a half mile to get the purple ones and that is a clear violation of my Rights.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 7:08 PM
You didn’t answer ANY questions at all. You just threw out lame straw-man arguments.
You implied that you didn’t care what any individual state’s laws on abortion were. As long as the feds had nothing to do with it. I asked a follow-up question, and you dodged it.
Instead of assuming I’m some sort of frenetic fanatic, how about answering a simple question? If Connecticut decides it’s okay to drown an infant is it okay as long as the Federal Government had nothing to do with it?
This is not only a valid question, your answer will go a long way to defining how much courage you have in your convictions.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Complete dodge this time, eh guntotinglibertarian?
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Quite the contrary, I’m happy to engage in dialogue with you. Let’s take it one step at a time, shall we?
A “Straw man” argument is the practice of summoning up a fictitious opponent in order to then destroy “his” argument. Such as when Obama says that “Some people say…such and such,” when no one has, in fact said any such thing. I have never used a “straw man” argument. Prove otherwise.
I did not “imply” that I don’t care…I expressly stated that I don’t care. Because I don’t…I believe the constitution leaves it to the people of individual states to make their own laws. Period.
I did not “dodge” your follow up question, because it was about infanticide, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your injecting infanticide into the dialogue, dear friend, is what is known in debate as a reductio ad absurdum – taking an argument and following it all the way down to some conclusion which is ridiculous. Intelligent people do not respond to that tactic. But, just to set your little mind at ease, no, I would not support infanticide, under a true system of Federalism, in my own state. But it’s a ridiculous argument, nevertheless, because you and I both know that the chances of any state legalizing infanticide is vanishingly small. Which also applies to your question about Connecticut (though I am impresses you can spell Connecticut).
Sadly, you obviously have little knowledge of the Constitution and of the history that surrounds it. You continue to operate from a mindset of big, powerful Federal governnment. If you understood true Federalism, you would understand that the Founding Fathers intended us to have the individual states decide these issues.
You, and your fanatic “pro-life” friends are more than happy to have individual states decide such issues as sales taxes, motor vehicle laws, etc. But when it comes to the issue of abortion, nothing short of a nationwide ban will suffice.
Now, just to throw you the bone you’re slavering for: if the people of Connecticut should happen to legalize the drowning of infants, I would be appalled. But as a resident of the state of California, I would not take up arms against them.
On the other hand, if the Federal government decided to herd you into a re-education camp because they marked you as a potential pro-life terrorist, I would take up arms in your defense.
By the way, I assume you are a male, correct?
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 7:39 PM
A nation under judgement is a sobering thing.
daesleeper on July 11, 2009 at 7:57 PM
I don’t understand the logic that since a woman has a court granted right to have an abortion that translates into a right to procure a morning after pill at every pharmacy on earth.
A woman can not walk into any hospital and demand an abortion. She must locate a doctor willing to perform one. Is it so hard to walk across the street and find a pharmacy that does carry Plan B? And please don’t use the excuse of it’s a small town and there is only one pharmacy she can get to in a timely manner.
As for saying that pharmacists should just leave their business if they have objections to it – it is much easier for the woman to leave the business and find another one which will provide her what she wants.
katiejane on July 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Kate, you must have overlooked the part of the Constitution which guaranteed every person the right to any product they want at their local pharmacy. Which is why I am suing my local CVS store for not having Sham Wow in stock.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM
And I can spell “impressed” also.
And just because you know the term “reductio ad absurdum” doesn’t mean you know the meaning of it apparently (and most definitely in this case). I see infanticide as different from abortion only by the timing. After all, the term “fetus” is Latin for “small person”.
And you get this idea about me from where? Your assumptions do nothing for your arguments, especially since they happen to be wrong. I never once said that the feds should be able to ban anything. What I did was to try to draw out your beliefs with valid points. Your “assuming” shows qualities that usually belong to liberals. Calling me a fanatic for having core beliefs is very nice.
Not to mention, your assumption that I am male says a lot about YOUR beliefs (you know – paternalistic MEN forcing their beliefs on poor women – never mind that the majority of “fanatic pro-lifers” are female).
But only since I made it past infancy? Can you not see the cognitive dissonance here?
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 8:19 PM
If this administration gets its way, that will change. Conscience laws will be a thing of the past.
Squiggy on July 11, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Ah had…since “you see it” as a difference only in timing, then it must, of course, be so. Lol.
No, if you happened to be a pro-life fanatic of the age of infancy, I would take up arms in your defense, as well. Once again,
And, of course, you did not answer my question about your gender. Because you and I both know that the most hateful, fanatic pro-lifer’s are usually male. You know why? Because you won’t go to prison for having an abortion
And you totally ducked the question of whether you would prefer an all-powerful Federal government to enforce your views…because, obviously, you do – and your self-identification as a “conservative” is totally destroyed by your preference for Big Government on your one big issue.
Look, I expect to be hated by guys like you just because I don’t agree with your views on abortion. But it does sadden me to see otherwise-conservative people like you who would be totally willing to go the Big Government route in order to force their views on abortion down everyone’s throat.
You’re really not very bright. But you sure have…feeling
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Oh, by the way: have u found my “straw man” quote yet?
You remind me of a Leftist…throwing around terms you know nothing about. Straw man. Cognitive dissonance.
But ducking “reductio ad absurdem”.
Let me guess: you also believe that gay marriage will inevitably lead to people marrying their dogs, right?
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 8:37 PM
By the way, fetus, in Latin, means “unborn offspring”, not “small person”
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Just throwing a question out there, if I may. If state rights should be paramount, shouldn’t any federal law, and the Constitution, be absolutely neutral in nature?
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I don’t understand your question
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 9:10 PM
I’m waiting, Squiggy..
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Court-granted rights? That’s funny. Here I thought we got our rights in this country from the Constitution.
Send_Me on July 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM
For all you saying the pharmacist should just find a new job- this is essentially giving the government the power to seize your livelihood and reduce you to poverty if the government decides you should violate your religious beliefs.
That would make the free exercise clause meaningless.
The fundamental rights that are necessary for liberty are:
1: The right to life
2: The right to freedom
3: The right to property
If the government can take away one of those things for a specific reason, then in that specific area you are not free.
Sackett on July 11, 2009 at 9:24 PM
No, actually, according to the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given by God.
The Constitution merely encodes those rights.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Actually, it means “a young one” in Latin, which is pretty close to “small person” if one restricts things to human beings. See Lewis and Short (the best Latin dictionary — not even the Oxford is better) for the fourth declension noun fetus, -us (m.). The aforementioned meaning is II (I is “hatching of young”).
If you try for the past participle fetus, -a, -um (from feo, -ere, the old indicative verb “to carry”), you get meaning I as “pregnant, bearing”, and meaning II as “having been carried” — abstract “newly delivered”.
In both cases, the word is, or is derived, from the perfect passive participle, which is an adjective form denoting completed action in the past up to the present, as in “having been X’d” where X is a verb.
Hence, while “unborn offspring” is a good modern definition, it doesn’t do justice to the Latin concept of action in the past which attaches to the word fetus.
unclesmrgol on July 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Thanks for replying. What I meant was, if bias/preference is to be left to the people of a particular state to determine, shouldn’t federal law be limited in scope to apply no bias at all? Otherwise, federal law would likely fit in with the desires of one state, against others.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Is there another product that a retail store is required by law to carry? It seems like the investors in a retailer have multiple reasons why they might decide to stock or not stock a product. Uncle Sam should stay out of it.
dedalus on July 11, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I meant what I said in a legal sense, but yes, you are right.
Send_Me on July 11, 2009 at 10:09 PM
The vast majority of pharmacists work for major corporations like Walmart, Kroger, CVS, etc. I doubt those businesses want to take on this debate and get too heavily involved. They’ll probably keep their head down, and do what the courts tell them instead of taking the risk of offending half of their customer base. You may not agree, but it’s the economically safe thing to do — just say they’re hands are tied by the court and continue to make bank.
dcwvu on July 11, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Whatever is not voluntary is compulsory.
viking01 on July 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM
.
It does not. It prevents the fertilized egg from implanting i.e. pregnancy. Get your facts straight before you post.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
If they don’t want to dispense legal drugs, they need to find another job.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
How pro-choice of them.
JellyToast on July 11, 2009 at 10:48 PM
If they don’t want to dispense legal drugs, they need to find another job.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Would you by your pretzel logic suddenly demand (for government convenience and gummint health care budgeting and/or ridding of the undesirables, of course) that physicians start shooting patients with broken legs if laws mandating such were passed? The ovens at Auschwitz were “legal” by the way. So to speak.
viking01 on July 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
I think the 9th circuit should also compel all pharmacies to sell guns as well.
johnboy on July 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM
I am coming to the conclusion that you must be twisted to be pro-life. Comparisons to the Holocaust at every turn. Suggesting that guns be sold by pharmacies. Complete ignorance of the facts. I really wish that men stop playing unlincensed gynocologists like Ed Morrissey did here. They only end up making fulls of themselves.
Of course, pharmacists should sell ALL approved drugs. What next, the grocery stores have to keep on staff people who object to selling pork? If you can’t fulfill the job description, you need to find another job.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Freedom of Choice?
Only if that “Freedom” means the “freedom” to kill a specific segment of the Human race, based solely on their age, (pre-birth, and even after birth), their place of residence (inside mother’s womb), the level of development (prenatal, including Embryonic development – re: sexual reproduction – sperm and oocyte – from first contact to the end of the eighth week, and the Fetal developmental stage, from the ninth week, PF (post fertilization), till term, as well as twinning and in vivo and ex vivo, and also sexual and asexual beginnings for the new human being), and extreme prejudice against him or her based on already born people with the power to kill him or her, such as politicians, lawyers, judges, abortionists.
So, when you hear the term “Freedom of Choice” Know from now on that the choice is only one choice, the “Choice” to kill a human being via induced abortion and pharmaceutical abortion. In other words, “Freedom to slaughter innocent human babies via induced and pharmaceutical abortion choice.”
Another false term is “Reproductive Rights.”
Killing a new human being has nothing to do with reproduction, for the mother and father have already reproduced, hence she and he have exercised their “Reproductive rights.”
Abortion is the killing of the already reproduced human being, and hence, Termination rights, or legalized homicide rights, or legal embryocide rights, or legalized feticide rights. Legal does not make it right or just. There have been numerous cases that we frown upon today which were once legal, such as the Dred Scott v Sanford case, Plessy V Ferguson, etc.
Bottom line, the pharmacists should stick to their guns and refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacients, like RU-486, and other pharmaceutical abortifacients. They should also refuse to refer to prospective customer who wants to abort a baby to a pharmacy which will fill such a prescription.
Why?
It is no different from refusing to make a hit (a murder) on someone when requested, but sending the prospective client who wants to have someone killed, to a hit man.
William2006 on July 11, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Squiggy at 5:36
Actually, if you read the actual text of Roe v Wade, the whole decision is that the Fourteenth Amendment means “legal person” (that is, those included in Bill of Rights protections) when it says “person” – not mere “biological person”.
Using that definition, it never applied to Blacks, who were ruled in Dred Scott to be Constitutionally the legal equivalent of livestock – having no Bill of Rights protections. The only way Blacks could be anything but legal livestock is if the SCOTUS overturned Dred Scott or an amendment was passed to rule that Blacks are legal “persons”. If the Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person”, then the Fourteenth Amendment accomplished NOTHING.
Using the logic of Roe, we not only have a bunch of bullshit coming from the White House, we have a literal bull (or steer, or cow) in the White House. I’d like to ask Barack Obama and his friend, Jeremiah Wright, when Blacks ever became legal persons, since according to Roe the 14th Amendment never referred to the mere “biological” persons that Dred Scott declared Blacks to be.
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM
William2006
Plan B is birth control much like IUD. It prevents a pregnacy. A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in the womb. So why are you bringing up arbotifacents, and Dred Scott? Birth control is legal in this country. If you feel uncomfortable about dispensing birth control, you need to find another job. There is no law that forces you to be a pharmacist and you have no right to be a pharmacist. If you can’t do the job, find another one.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Chekote at 11:37
Depends on what you’re talking about aborting. Every woman who’s given birth has aborted a pregnancy. Who cares whether a pregnancy is aborted? What matters is whether the CHILD is aborted. And the child IS aborted if the mother’s body refuses to let it latch on – just as a fully-born child would die if its mother refused to feed it.
justincase on July 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM
justincase
If you actually read the Dred Scott decision you would know that it had NOTHING to do with defining blacks as non persons. This was the question before SCOTUS in the Dred Scott decision:
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.
It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
The Dred Scott case was about citizenship not whether blacks were “persons”.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Jeez next thing you know they’ll be able to tell bar and restaurant owners whether they can allow smoking in their establishments.
Wine_N_Dine on July 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM
justincase
So now giving birth is aborting? Plan B is a form of birth control i.e. it prevents pregnancy. End of story. Abortion is legal in the country. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion or assist in the procedure. So people need to find another job and start minding their own business.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »