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 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
I disagree with those laws. If an owner wants to have a smoking place they should be free to do so. Unfortunately, too many people are busy trying to impose their preferences on everybody else.
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:53 PM
That is false!
A woman is pregnant at first contact at the penetration by the sperm of the zona pellucida of the woman’s oocyte. From that point on the new human being’s life has begun. He or she will live for either a very short time, a very long number of years – say 100% years, or any time in between (5, 20, 50, 85, years, etc.) At that point the woman is already pregnant.
Implantation is NOT the beginning of pregnancy. That is a scientifically erroneous, false claim made by people who don’t know the facts, and yes, many physicians and others who make such a claim do NOT know the facts, or have not learned them, or have not thought them through. Of course, they might choose to ignore them and just claim “Pregnancy occurs at implantation.” No matter. That is false. A woman is pregnant days before implantation takes place.
Human Embryologists study this field and it is fact, known by the experts in the field, Human Embryologists, that pregnancy begins at the beginning of fertilization, days before implantation.
The new human being already exists and travels ffor several days from the fallopian tube to the wall of uterus before implantation.
I am not a pharmacist. I support pharmacists’ rights to follow their moral conscience and to not take part in the slaughter of new human beings in any way. Dispensing abortifacients kills new human beings by making the womb a hostile environment and unable to continue their development. The same pharmacist is justified in refusing to provide an IUD which helps kill a new human being for the same reason – in order to protect another person’s life, if that possibility arose.
Development is not confined to the womb. We all pass through overlapping stages of development throughout our lives, into adulthood. One cannot dehumanize another human being based on their level of development, for if they do, they are merely employing a moveable, arbitrary criteria, like moving the goal post in order to prevent the team from scoring.
The refusal of a pharmacist to fill a prescription that helps intentionally kill a new human being, i.e., an abortifacient, does NOT prevent a pharmacist from doing his or her job. They can fill prescriptions which help people quite well without helping kill new human beings via abortifacients.
William2006 on July 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Ridiculous. Why should they be forced to dispense anything? It’s their business. No respect for private property.
Libertarian Joseph on July 12, 2009 at 12:03 AM
They’re licensed as health care providers contingent on their ability to meet a minimum standard of care. If they can’t fill a doctor’s prescription or provide an ordinary treatment that a doctor would recommend, they shouldn’t have a license to sell medicine in the first place.
RightOFLeft on July 12, 2009 at 12:05 AM
William2006
So when the egg is fertilized in a petrie dish, the woman is pregnant? Do you know anything about IVF? The woman is not pregnant until the embryo implants in the uterus. I have never heard of a IVF patient announcing they were pregnant as soon as the sperm was delivered into the egg in the petrie dish. In any case, what don’t you mind your own business? That’s the problem of conservatives like you. You want to regulate the most private areas of people’s lives. Limited government indeed!
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Yep. That’s the way it should be. Welcome to the nanny state where Big Govt tells you what to sell or whether you can allow your patrons to smoke.
All your business belong to us.
BacaDog on July 12, 2009 at 12:09 AM
If they can’t fill a doctor’s prescription or provide an ordinary treatment that a doctor would recommend, they shouldn’t have a license to sell medicine in the first place.
RightOFLeft on July 12, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Exactly. This is all part of the pro-birthers plan to make it impossible for people to exercise their reproductive rights. Funny thing is that the same group of people would be the first to cry fouls the momement they are asked to help pay welfare for the kids.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Bullshit. They can stock whatever medications they want.
There is no requirement for any pharmacy to stock any medication. They have a wide variety because their customers will go elsewhere if they can’t get their prescription filled. If they don’t have a particular type of medication, tough. Go somewhere else.
Pharmacies also do not provide any type of treatment, they dispense medicine.
BacaDog on July 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM
The issue is not the pharmacies. It is the employee. A pharmacy that decides to sell Plan B should not be required to keep on staff pharmacists who object to selling it.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM
We shouldn’t require licenses to sell medicine in the first place.
Libertarian Joseph on July 12, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Yes, emphatically, we should. Just like we should require licenses to practice medicine.
RightOFLeft on July 12, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I have a friend who is a microbiologist with over 20 years experience. This person knows drug interaction inside and out. This person now spends an inordinate amount of time emailing and calling “her boss” ,a kid just out of school, correcting prescriptions that “the boss” ordered/approved for use because this person knows they won’t work.
Now, do you really want a pharmacist to “get another job” if they are the one with 20 years experience and the pharmacist willing to dispense the morning after pill is as stuck on their “book knowledge” and not listening to practical knowledge. Remember the pharmacist is the last line in defense of deadly drug interactions.
Do you really want to kill grandma because the new guy didn’t know not to mix certain medications grandma is taking just so you could have your morning after pill on the shelf?
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 12, 2009 at 12:31 AM
YES!
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Chekote at 11:46
The Dred Scott decision was that even if a Black person had been emancipated they could never have standing to sue for any Bill of Rights protections because the Bill of Rights never included them. That was based on the fact that the Constitution included the 3/5ths compromise and the provision that slavery could not be abolished until a set year. The decision was that Blacks couldn’t “count” as persons protected by the Bill of Rights.
And that’s the same iss ue that Roe v Wade addresses in this way:
At http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/#rop the decision is given, including,
IX. “A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this SUGGESTION OF PERSONHOOD (my emphasis – this is referring to BIOLOGICAL PERSONHOOD) is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “…
B…Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
The issue of biological life is thus said to be irrelevant to the issue of what the Fourteenth Amendment means when it says “person”.
Why is that? Why does “person” not mean “biological person”? The only way it could have ever applied to Blacks was if it specifically MEANT biological persons because at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed Blacks were Constitutionally excluded from legal personhood (that is, with Bill of Rights protections) because of the Dred Scott decision.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 12:43 AM
So now giving birth is aborting?
Chekote on July 11, 2009 at 11:51 PM
It aborts a pregnancy, does it not?
You keep talking about aborting a pregnancy. Who cares about whether the pregnancy continues or not? What we care about is whether the CHILD continues or not.
You talk about aborting a pregnancy, which every mother has done. We talk about aborting a CHILD.
So tell me straight – does Plan B, by preventing a conceived, different-DNA-than-the-mother human being from receiving nourishment – cause a human being’s life to be aborted (that is, to end)?
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM
The issue is not the pharmacies. It is the employee. A pharmacy that decides to sell Plan B should not be required to keep on staff pharmacists who object to selling it.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM
>>>>
That has nothing to do with this case. This case is about whether a PHARMACY has to decide to sell Plan B.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 12:49 AM
justincase
The 14th Amendment was not around at the time of the Dred Scott decision. Also, the Constitution stated that blacks were to be counted a 3/5 for seat assignment so the 14th amendment was necessary to extend the same rights to all persons born in the US. There was not question that blacks were persons. It had to do with which individuals were granted political rights under the Constitution. I really don’t understand the need for to link Roe vs. Wade to the Holocaust, slavery. Just argue the issue on its own merits. Above all. I swear. The Right wants to regulate our bedrooms. The Left was to regulate everything else. Mind your own business everyone!
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:54 AM
So when the egg is fertilized in a petrie dish, the woman is pregnant? Do you know anything about IVF? The woman is not pregnant until the embryo implants in the uterus.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM
>>>>>>
You keep switching the issue to pregnancy. This isn’t about pregnancy. This is about when a child exists. You could define “pregnancy” as existing only when the child is five years old and it would make no difference to the issue at hand, which is the abortion of a CHILD.
Our household has experienced 6 abortions of pregnancy: one pregnancy ended in stillbirth, one ended in spontaneous abortion of a dead child at 12 weeks, and 4 ended in live childbirth. Each instance ended a pregnancy. Five were induced abortion of pregnancy, none were induced abortion of a child. Two were spontaneous abortions of a child against our will and attempts to save those lives.
Whenever a medical history form is filled out, the question is asked regarding how the pregnancies ended. One aborted spontaneously with the child born dead. One was an induced abortion of pregnancy with the child born dead. Four were induced abortion of pregnancy resulting in live children.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Chekote, when was Dred Scott reversed? When were those biological persons given Bill of Rights protections?
Roe v Wade is assuming that the only persons included in the Fourteenth Amendment are those who already have Constitutional protections. With that understanding, the Fourteenth Amendment would read like this:
“All CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So when was Dred Scott reversed so that Blacks would be CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED persons?
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 1:07 AM
justincase,
You believe that a fertilized egg is a child. Others don’t. You believe that a blueprint is the same as a building. Others don’t. Current law allows both sides to practice their beliefs. I think that’s the best solution given the diversity of thought and religion in this country.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I asked a specific question, Chekote. When did Blacks become CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED persons?
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM
justincase
the 14th amendment refers to BORN or NATURALIZED, embryos, fetuses are neither. You are trying to establish a nexus between Dred Scott and the pro-life movement. There isn’t one.
Chekote on July 12, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Don’t gripe too much over this ruling, Ed. It is a very powerful tool against Muslims trying to get special perks in their jobs for the requirements of their religion. No more lawsuits over carrying blind person’s dogs in taxis. No more lawsuits demanding precise times of day, that vary from day to day, off to pray. No more law suits demanding foot baths. No more lawsuits against meat packers from Muslims forced to handle (not ingest, merely handle) pork products.
Suddenly religious requirements are off the table with regards to legitimate demands to which an employer must cater.
I don’t think the 9th Circus Court planned it that way. But that’s the way it should work out. Watch and see.
{^_^}
herself on July 12, 2009 at 1:23 AM
You’re still not answering the question, Chekote.
If the Fourteenth Amendment never refers to sheerly biological persons – apart from their status under the law – then it never applied to Blacks, unless Dred Scott was reversed sometime BEFORE the Fourteenth Amendment.
So when was that? When was Dred Scott reversed? If it wasn’t reversed, then why would the 14th Amendment apply to Blacks, since they had never had Constitutional protections?
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 1:27 AM
I always feel a need to post this on threads like this:
Just The Facts
Shy Guy on July 12, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Why? People are free to buy from whomever they see fit. Let the market regulate itself
Libertarian Joseph on July 12, 2009 at 1:51 AM
William2006 on July 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Chekote doesn’t get it.
TXMomof3 on July 12, 2009 at 2:24 AM
One thought I had:
If a female of reproductive age who has any business having sex (i.e. mental capacity) lives in a place so rinky-dink that they have only one pharmacy in town—well, I know a few of them. They tend either to have their own vehicles or catch rides with people who have vehicles. In either case they are used to having to go to the next town 50 miles away or on into the big city if something they need cannot be gotten locally.
Most females of reproductive age so completely lacking in transportation options that a pharmacist’s refusal would pose a significant inconvenience would likely live in a big city. And in a big city, the inconvenience is only the extent to which she has to pile herself back on the city bus and go a few blocks down the road to the next pharmacy.
As long as the pharmacist refusing the service is not pulling shenanigans like “losing” the prescription, it is no greater a burden to be told you need to find another pharmacy for Plan B than it is to have to find a pharmacy that has not run out of your favorite migraine medicine.
Sekhmet on July 12, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Shy Guy on July 12, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Thanks for the link.
TXMomof3 on July 12, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Unless a belief includes murder. There could a lot of death cults in this country, but, fortunately, we have a decent set of laws and cultural taboos which do inhibit much “freedom” within and without the bedroom and private residence. Do you not think that is ok? Or, should the state stay out of all issues of morality? Because, in actuality, most laws are moral positions. What is your maxim? What is the role of the state, in your opinion?
The reason why this issue refuses to go away is because it is not subjective, as, “I like mini skirts and you don’t. Don’t look if you don’t like it.” It is rather objective. You see, there really isn’t “freedom for both sides.” If pro lifers see this as an issue of human life being arbitrarily ended at any stage of development, then there is no other option but all arbitrary ending of human life to therefore stop. You cannot say with intellectual honesty that some ending of human life is ok and other lives must be spared. So, this is why the subject cannot end and compromise can never be, in honesty.
Someone mentioned muslim abuse of our laws to incrementally move toward their own legal system and more accommodation. I think that is a real concern…however…as a Christian, I know there are some things we can work with them on and many we cannot. If any person says they value human life and cannot destroy it or aid in its destruction, I stand with them.
Mommypundit on July 12, 2009 at 4:45 AM
Let me say one more thing on the “arbitrary” killing of human life at any stage: some say that in order to be consistent, pro lifers must also be against the death penalty and anti war of any kind.
This mixes two spheres: pacifism and defence of “innocent” life. The role of the state is to protect the people and to uphold proper morality (all laws are moral positions which reflect the prevailing worldview of the people, unless instituted by fiat…eh hem…like Roe.) Even the bible states that the state bears the sword for our protection, ultimately, and for the maintenance of stability. There are certainly unjust governments which abuse this, but, largely, America has gotten it right.
To fight in a war, hopefully a just war, is a necessary “evil.” Square that with abortion.
To execute a criminal is difficult for any tender heart but a societal good and a nessesary evil. Square that with abortion.
Killing an intruder in your own home is a necessary evil. Square that with abortion.
Killing your newborn after giving birth is murder. Killing a pregnant woman, taking her unborn child out to keep for yourself is a double homicide. What is abortion?
***
Also, you mentioned IV. Simple answer: yes, it’s a child. Yes, that woman/man who made that “child” would consider that their baby. No, I am against IV unless it is 1 embryo, the man and woman are married and no embryos are destroyed. Unfortunately, the science outpaced ethical restrictions. Just because something CAN be done, does not mean something MUST be done. I think most IV treatments are unethical.
Mommypundit on July 12, 2009 at 5:00 AM
If a private business owner of anything refuses to sell, dispense, carry a product; that is the perrogative of that person. It matters not his/her reasoning, nor if doing so hurts his/her business. Because a product is legal is no justification for the blatant coercion you advocate by some entity (9th circuit in this case) mandating it be sold, dispensed, and carried.
Legal does not equate mandate.
That is the only respectful recourse for the tyranny going on here.
With all due respect, who the hell are you to demand that a business sell something it refuses? If you mean should in a ‘wise business decision’ sense, then let the market decide what is the correct course for someone’s decision. At least the consequence of that action/inaction is still created out of liberty.
And also, your point about an employee refusing to sell a product the business owner carries is unapplicable, irrelevant and thus absurd.
anuts on July 12, 2009 at 5:48 AM
I missed this. If one was not willing to read the topic, click on the link, or know the particular issue then it should be reasonable that I would expect one to at least literally read past the first sentence of the post before commenting. My apologies for assuming you weren’t typing out of ignorance.
anuts on July 12, 2009 at 6:32 AM
guntotinlib, I’ve got a couple of points here, and then I’m done with you. In classic Latin, fetus means “small person”. It has been assumed to mean small person for a long, long time. Sometimes meanings of words change, especially for words translated from a nearly dead language, and even more especially when people of a particular political ilk really really want it to change. But that is the definition, and it would be perfectly apt to use it to describe a newborn baby. The difference is only in timing. Some of us can’t turn our eyes away from a child being ripped apart, or having it’s brains sucked out. It must be nice for you that you can.
guntotinlib – you don’t know the definition of “straw-man” argument which is “to make a false argument that will be easy to knock down”, you know, like a “straw man”. Second off, what you said here pretty much fits the definition too – I do know a little about psychology. I’m not going to bother telling you how much I’ve studied on this subject, since I have no way to prove it to you. And besides, someone with such a closed mind as yours would never believe it anyway.
And dumbass – YOU ducked “reductio ad absurdem” with your little snide
This one may the most childish remark you’ve made yet (not to mention, you totally avoided answering the question, which is understandable, since it would destroy your logic). I don’t blame you though. Admitting you’re totally wrong is hard, isn’t it? And spoiled brats like you have never had to do anything hard, have you?
Well, it was the most childish statement up until
.
You’re a liberal, aren’t you? If not then why are you using their tactics? If a lib can’t answer a question (which is frequent) then throw a bomb and hope for a lot of smoke. I think I’ll try one of those – You’re a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, aren’t you? See how this works? I don’t need evidence or anything.
Now – two things here – NO, I don’t think it will lead to marrying dogs (at least not here in the South). But it will lead to multiple marriages, and then the pedophiles will get their way and “age of consent” will go way down (look up NAMBLA’s charter – a member in good standing in the “Gay and Lesbian Alliance” – and tell me I’m wrong).
And second – I have no need to answer every one of your points – too many of them are inane and childish. Grow up and go back to community college. One year isn’t enough to engage in real debate (which is why you don’t).
Squiggy on July 12, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Pharmacists (as well as physicians, nurses et al.) shouldn’t be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods. Here’s one thing they’re up against: It’s a medical fact that the “morning-after pill,” a high dosage of a birth control drug, along with most other birth control drugs, can chemically prevent a human embryo from implanting in the uterine wall. The manufacturer of Plan B said on its Web sit that “it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.” That constitutes chemical abortion.
Plan B (as well as more common contraceptives) gives a falst sense of security, which leaves girls and women open to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Between 1995, when Plan B became available OTC in Britain, and 2000, diagnosis of genital chlamydia went up 77%, gonorrhea by 57%, and syphilis by 56%, according to the British Health Service.
Will pharmacists be forced to dispense euthanasis drugs as well? Efforts have been underway in many states to allow terminally ill people to request prescriptions for lethal drugs from their physicians; pharmacists would then be asked to fill those prescriptions. Study after study has shown that suicidally inclined patients are often clinically depressed — a condition that can be treated.
Those who call themselves “pro-choice” should especially appreciate the desire of pharmacists (and physicians) who entered their professions because they wanted to prolong and improve people’s lives, to “choose” against being complicit in taking innocent human life or spreading disease.
KyMouse on July 12, 2009 at 7:49 AM
A fertilized egg is no longer a blueprint. Not to mention that comparing a human being to a building shows how little regard you guys have to anyone but yourself.
Squiggy on July 12, 2009 at 7:57 AM
Chekote, it isn’t a question of “belief.” Science has no doubt when a new human life begins. I have a copy of “The Developing Human: Clinicallyl Oriented Embryology,” fourth edition, which was written for medical students.
On page one, it says, “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male…Zygote: This cell results from fertilization of an ovum by a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”
There are many other non-religious textbooks that say the same thing, yet that convenient myth — “no one knows when a new life begins” — persists. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, there are indeed sins of the intellect.
KyMouse on July 12, 2009 at 8:39 AM
I am pro life, I just don’t think the state should be involved in it. Should women that take morning after pills be charged with murder?
Libertarian Joseph on July 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Can America take a political morning-after pill and abort obama out of the white house? If only…
ErinF on July 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM
I agree about the minding your own business and the left wants to regulate everything. But,, really, the right has no desire to regulate anyone’s bedroom. That’s just an urban myth! Yeah, it is! It’s not about regulating the freaking bedroom,,,, God,, if only people kept it all in their bedrooms!! If people kept everything in the bedroom how would anyone else ever know what they were doing??? Conservatives do not want to monitor people’s bedrooms,,, they want the sex to stay in the bedroom!!! Gays are having sex in public bathrooms and on the freaking streets for crying out loud!!! Libs want to teach masturbation to elementary school children!
If only they would keep it in their bedrooms 90% of the population wouldn’t give a rip!! If only the left would stop pushing their sex lives onto 2nd graders and keep it in their bedrooms we wouldn’t be having these discussions!!!
This RU486 crap is about the left bringing their sex lives out of the bedroom and pushing it onto the public at every opportunity they can find!!! They not only demand to have sex anytime, any place without any consequences whatsoever,, they also demand that Christian/pro-life pharmacists assist them in killing their babies after they have had all the sex they want wherever they want without any consequences!! Don’t tell me the Right wants to regulate people’s bedrooms!! The left hasn’t had sex in a bedroom in years!!
That’s the freaking problem!
JellyToast on July 12, 2009 at 9:17 AM
KylMouse at 8:39AM
The Supreme Court went even farther. They said it doesn’t MATTER when a new life begins. The whole idea is that there are some human lives who don’t “count” under the law. Who lack something that makes them worthy of protection, even though they are fully human.
Which was precisely why the Fourteenth Amendment was passed – to grant Blacks (mere biological persons as per Dred Scott, not Constitutionally-protected persons) – Constitutional protection.
If the Fourteenth Amendment only gave Constitutional protection to those who ALREADY HAD IT, then it accomplished nothing. I’d like to hear the SCOTUS justices who decided Roe explain what the Fourteenth Amendment changed, since they claim it only applied to those who were already legally protected.
And I would love to have Chekote explain when Blacks were made Constitutionally-protected persons BEFORE the Fourteenth Amendment so that the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the Roe v Wade SCOTUS could include them.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Did the compelling-to-sell also fix the price?
Or is the pharmacy able to add the total cost of litigation to each prescription it is forced to stock and sell?
LaMonte on July 12, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Libertarian Joseph at 9:02AM
SCOTUS referred to the fact that abortive women were not charged with murder as a reason to say that abortion laws were not about the wrong of killing pre-born life.
If it is granted that all conceived human lives are covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, then a child in the womb would be in the same position as any child who had to be connected to its mother all the time in order to live, while the mother has a hormonal imbalance. Pregnancy is hard on women. A woman giving herself an abortion is sort of like aggravated assault by reason of insanity.
That’s why a pro-life society actually protects women. If women don’t have the so-called quick, easy, painless, morally insignificant answer of death shoved in their faces they are better prepared to do the right thing. And the men who fathered their children have no excuse to abandon the women.
In addition, a society that loves a child regardless of how it came into existence helps a woman be able to view the child as something besides a monster, a proof of what she did, like a piece of toilet paper walking around to make her a public laughinstock. That’s not what a child is, and when we have a sane view of blessings coming even from imperfection we help her through her time of fear-induced insanity.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM
I guess what I’m saying, Libertarian Joseph, is that abortion leaves one dead and one wounded. Abortion is its own punishment for a woman. These women suffer terribly – either from a life of shame or from a life of protesting too much that she has no shame. A woman with a heart that can’t feel is a terrible thing to behold. It’s like a walking death penalty.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Also, if you look at the reasoning in Roe, it claims compelling state interest in POTENTIAL life. That means eggs and sperm. This opens the way for government involvement in fertility, using the same rationale as government-mandated immunizations, for example.
They used as a precedent a decision which said government can’t interfere in contraception choices to say that the government CAN interfere in contraception choices.
The logic is so convoluted it should be classified as government torture.
But it takes on sinister shades when you look at our new “Science Czar” talking about forced abortion and sterilization, China-like child limits, and stealth poisoning in our water supply. Roe would provide a rationale for the government to do those very things because it re-institutes government’s compelling interest in “potential life” – overturning the very precedent it used to support its “right to privacy” penumbra.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I’ll second all of that.
Count to 10 on July 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Beautiful. That was the epitome of eloquence. +1000
Squiggy on July 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Dude, two thirds of fertilized eggs never implant. Are you going to argue that we should take extraordinary means to increase this ratio slightly?
Count to 10 on July 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM
He’s not thinking rationally — we need to brake him of that habit.
Count to 10 on July 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM
First, licensing of those who provide such things that are as potentially dangerous as drugs is important for public safety, and improves lives overall.
Second, such a license should in no way be a slave collar. It should prevent you from acting in certain proscribed ways (selling medication without all due verifications), but should never require you to act (selling a medication you don’t want to sell). Which is not to say that your boss can’t fire you for it, though.
Count to 10 on July 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Wrong. Look here at the manufacturer’s site for a description of modes of action. They include preventing the fertilized egg (which is, from the standpoint of science, a separate individual from his/her mother) from implanting.
The manufacturer cutely says (and this is your uninformed talking point) “Plan B® will not affect an existing pregnancy.” Balderdash. If it affects implantation, it affects pregnancy. And the FDA classifies the single active ingredient of “Plan B” as Pregnancy Category X:
Here’s yet more information on the active ingredient of “Plan B”, levonorgestrel:
Of course, “not always harmful” can be reinterpreted as “sometimes harmful”, and one can easily guess that a megadose of a “sometimes harmful” drug might increase the “sometimes” to “certainly”, particularly if implantation has occured, since the mode of delivery of levonorgestrel is via maternal bloodstream.
unclesmrgol on July 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM
The issue is a pharmacist’s belief that an embryo/fetus is a human entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as opposed to the Court’s view that an embryo/fetus is either only partially human or not human at all, and that the pharmacist has an obligation to actively contribute to its death or destruction.
Such a position is consistent with the Taney Court view on the apprehension of fugitive slaves — one facet of which was Dred Scott vs. Sandford, which caused the extension of slavery even into States which were legally “free”. Officials of a “free” state were obligated to assist in the binding of slaves even where their own laws obligated them otherwise. Ableman v. Booth reinforced this obligation — and is the equivalent of the 9th Circuit ruling — that, regardless of conscience, all citizens are actively required to assist in upholding federal law.
Abortion in modern law occupies the identical place as slavery once did; one human makes a decision as to the humanity/inhumanity of another human, and is able to kill that other human should they decide that their continued life is an inconvenience. The 9th adds the requirement that all citizens are required to actively assist in this endeavor.
The 14th amendment was needed to break slavery in the United States — to expunge it from our Constitution. Perhaps yet another amendment is needed to align our laws with scientific reality. Each side has their own idea as to what such an amendment would look like, and one side’s view is identical to the slaver’s view 150 years ago.
As for regulating your bedroom, I have no wish to do so, but I do think that, should you create another human being by your actions in said bedroom, that you must take responsibility for the health and nurturing of said child.
As for regulating our behavior everywhere else, the left is certainly welcome to try — sooner or later, such acts (like their ancestral actions imposing support for slavery upon everyone) will become so onerous that people of good will shall act.
unclesmrgol on July 12, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The issue does not necessarily have to be the personal beliefs of the pharmacy owner. If there’s almost no demand for a drug, a pharmacy is not likely to sell what they could get from the manufacturer before it goes past expiration. If that’s the case, why stock the product? Heck, I have had to go to a couple of pharmacies to get my migraine pills when the pharmacist underestimated demand and didn’t stock enough.
Abortion is only tangental here. People should be more frightened of the fact the 9th Circus is trying to tell a private company what they should and should not stock.
Sekhmet on July 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Pharmacies also sell briefs these days. What if they don’t want to sell thong undies. You mean to tell me that someone can go to court to compell them to sell thongs against their will? This is utter nonsense that should repulse every rational citizen. Moreover, it is unconstitutional on its face.
littleguy on July 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM
There’s just five people that need convincing on this point.
unclesmrgol on July 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM
You’ve never had anything on backorder at a pharmacy?
In any case, this is America not Nazi Germany, and if a storeholder WON’T sell something because he thinks he OUGHT NOT, that’s his privilege.
******************
Thank you for identifying yourself as anti-birth.
You have no “right” to another person’s labor.
I don’t mind welfare for orphans. By welfare I mean food clothing and a roof, not condoms or other “reproductive rights” you think essential. Do you also have a right to cable TV and wifi?
Chris_Balsz on July 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM
When someone on welfare watches TV it doesn’t create another welfare recipient the way that unprotected sex does. Giving away condoms would be less about providing a benefit than about preventing a future liability.
dedalus on July 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I see this as another assault on private property. Where does the state get the right to tell anyone how to run their own business or what to sell. This all started when the government begin to accuse people of discrimination on the basis of race and logically flows from that. Private businesses should be free to hire and fire, sell or not sell, open or close, or whatever with minimal government restrictions. While discrimination is bad, the attempts by government to fix perceived wrongs only makes everything worse while fattening the pockets of lawyers and allota who are nothing but gold diggers and deserve nothing.
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM
How bout we give abled bodied adults nothing and they get up off their asses and work?
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
The problem is some will while some won’t, and the one’s who don’t create costs for the ones that do.
You can scold the ones who don’t for generations but meanwhile dollars are being diverted from better uses.
dedalus on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM
St. Paul as inspired by The Holy Spirit: If any man won’t work than he don’t eat. If all the crap were cut off like in the ‘old days’ these losers would start working.
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I am firm on this one. Let the pharmicist change careers.
He’s free to do so.
I have no sense that my opinion conflicts with other agendas.
He is free to change careers.
AnninCA on July 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM
am firm on this one. Let the pharmicist change careers.
He’s free to do so.
I have no sense that my opinion conflicts with other agendas.
He is free to change careers.
AnninCA on July 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM
If you live in Buzzard Flats but you have to go into Bugtussle when the Buzzard Flats Winn-Dixie is out of hot dog buns, why is it an imposition to go to the Bugtussle Walgreen’s if the Buzzard Flats Pharmacy doesn’t have Plan B?
Another question: If getting to a pharmacy is so much trouble to pick up a prescription medication…..How did you get a ride to a medical office to get the prescription for Plan B made in the first place?
If the problem is that some of the pharmacies are going beyond refusing to participate in the patient’s chosen action into actively trying to prevent the patient from taking the action (such as by throwing away the prescription), isn’t it a more productive and more Constitutional course of action to ensure that the pharmacy doesn’t cross the line, rather than forcing them to participate in something they don’t want?
Sekhmet on July 12, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Are you talking about an employee if he/she refuses to sell a product which his/her employer carries? Or are you actually refering to a business owner who doesn’t carry a product and mandating that he/she does?
It doesn’t seem ironic to any that the only people who are advocating this exclusion of personal choice (through tyranny) are exactly the ones who call themselves pro choice?
anuts on July 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Very good reply. With facts a your weapons you will win every debate. Facts are stubborn things.
Geochelone on July 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
If he is truly free, then a pharmacy owner can sell what he wants to sell.
Johan Klaus on July 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Can’t the pharmacy decide what the price will be for its medications? I think they can.
So why couldn’t the owner of the pharmacy charge a million dollars a pill for those drugs it does not wish to sell? That would be pro choice and that would fix the problem.
Or is the 9th circuit going to force the pharmacy to sell stuff at the price that the 9th circus decides is fair?
Geochelone on July 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Of course that will happen; absolutely no doubt. Although the tender hearted fair minded leftists will patiently give some a-hole the opportunity to hit the pharmacy with a lawsuit first (gotta throw a bone to the constituent deadbeats and lawyers).
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Yeah pharmacists can be as f-ing stupid as they want, its their constitutional right. I’d also wish they’d post something to let people know how stupid they are so one would know which one to patronize, like a jesus fish or something. I wouldn’t trust the level of common sense of one who would not dispense this or birth control because of the imaginary skygod. And we call this civilization?
LevStrauss on July 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Yes, we do call this civilization. But the reason(s) for calling it such can differ. However, would you consider mandating a business sell a product it chooses not to an example of civilized behavior?
anuts on July 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM
It doesn’t seem ironic to any that the only people who are advocating this exclusion of personal choice (through tyranny) are exactly the ones who call themselves pro choice?
anuts on July 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
>>>>
+10
“Pro-choice” is not about choice in general. It’s about the choice to abort a child. That’s the only choice that’s acceptable to “pro-choice”.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 4:38 PM
You own an auto parts store. You stock Valvoline products. The government says in addition you have to sell Quaker State.
Why can’t the Quaker State customer just go to someone selling Quaker State? Why make the Valvoline dealer stock two brands?
Jeff from WI on July 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM
+1000
DarkCurrent on July 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Sure, if you believe that civilization is founded upon rights.
Such as the right to sell a product or not sell a product. Or the right to patronize the store that sells the product or to take your business elsewhere. Or the right to worship an imaginary skygod or to mock said skygod.
I would not trust someone who would deny those rights. It would not be “civilized”.
PackerBronco on July 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I am firm on this one. Let the AnniCA change countries.
She’s free to do so.
I have no sense that my opinion conflicts with other agendas.
She is free to leave the country.
PackerBronco on July 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM
PackerBronco at 4:51PM
LOL. I love it. It was really big of you to give her permission to leave the country.
She probably has no idea how her arrogance and willingness to coerce look to the rest of us. They never see what’s so obvious to everyone else.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 5:05 PM
My honest opinion is that I would try my best not to patronize a pharmacy that does not stock Plan B. But I will fight to the death for their right not to carry it if they don’t want to.
Sekhmet on July 12, 2009 at 5:20 PM
It boils down to this…
-
Close the door and turn on the oven. Ignore the screams.
-
If you refuse, you will be forced to change careers. You will give up the freedom to be a health care worker and to help people live healthier, happier lives, with reduced pain. You will have mostly wasted the time and effort that you put into becoming a highly skilled health care worker. Your interpretation that assisting in abortion constitutes a participating in a heinous act; murder, is irrelevant. You do not have the right be a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or any other health care worker and to choose not to become part of this holocaust if directed to do so…
-
So it is written, so it shall be.
-
Welcome to the new American utopia created by the radical left.
-
RalphyBoy on July 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Forcing a business to carry a drug is unconstitutional until a law is passed by the state it resides in.
Democrats often have a problem with the rule of law. They rely on emotions. This attitude will lead to our enslavement on the whims of leaders if allowed to continue. This may sound quaint, but it is true.
Federally funded hospitals can be required to carry a drug, when a federal law is passed, not before. And even then the hospital could cease to take federal funding and tell them to stuff it.
scotash on July 12, 2009 at 7:27 PM
You know, you really should correct the article. The morning-after pill doesn’t abort a fetus, it’s to prevent fertilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception
So unless you’re an extremist who thinks “Every sperm is sacred”, I can’t imagine why we’re having this huge debate over this.
Typhonsentra on July 12, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Well, if you consider a fertilized-egg to be a human life, then it is a big deal. No, not every sperm is sacred, just as every egg isn’t sacred. But combine the two and voilà, you have human life. As I’ve already stated: Every pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that I’ve heard stems from one of four things: 1) dependency, 2) development, 3) location, and 4) self-awareness.
Dependency: Should a person have the choice to kill a 4-year-old or an insulin-dependent person?
Development: A 2-month-old is not as developed as an 8-year-old or a 15-year-old. Should we, therefore, have the option of terminating the life of the 2-month-old?
Location: Does a person’s value change from one location to the next? From the store to the car to the workplace? Why then would we apply this standard here?
Self-awareness: Do we value a 25-year-old moreover an 8-year-old because the older is more self-aware?
Send_Me on July 12, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Typhonsentra, when the abortion industry talks about “abortion”, they always couch it in terms of aborting a pregnancy, and always label pregnancy as starting at implantation.
I don’t give a rip about a pregnancy being aborted. Every pregnancy ends sometime – most often through childbirth. What I (and other pro-lifers) care about is a CHILD’S LIFE being aborted. And Plan B does exactly that by making the mother’s body hostile to implantation and thus starving the child to death.
In the convoluted terminology of the pro-aborts, a woman has a conceived child before she’s even pregnant. The child is the precious life we care about.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Send_Me, there’s one other thing that should be added to your list. Some Christian denominations actually teach that a human isn’t sacred until it has been given a soul, which occurs at first breath. I’ve pointed out that Scripture says the life of a creature is in its blood, not necessarily its oxygen intake. I’ve asked how one would scientifically verify the existence of a soul, or how a government without any religious dogma would get ensnared in an argument regarding ensoulment. I’ve asked about fetuses who have found an air pocket in the womb and breathed air before birth. It is well-known that a fetus breathes amniotic fluid to develop its lungs.
When all is said and done, the most ridiculous people to talk to are the ones who are so convinced that the Bible teaches abortion is fine that they will ignore every Scripture they need to in order to hold onto that belief. I had one guy who even ridiculed me because I pointed out that the Greek terms used for “born again” actually mean “generated (that is, the male act of fertilization)from above”. He didn’t even pretend to be interested in the words Jesus actually said. There’s no way to reason with such a person.
Abortion clinics in the beginning set up close to churches with pastors who sent their counselees right on over. George Tiller bought and paid for most of a large ELCA congregation with his blood money.
Roe v Wade refers to the “ensoulment” debate. How the SCOTUS thinks it’s Constitutional for them to wander into doctrinal debates to determine what the Constitution says, I don’t know. I’d also like to know how I can document the existence of my soul to any policeman who wonders whether he can exterminate me. It’s not exactly provable.
justincase on July 12, 2009 at 8:39 PM
The state has the ability to protect the 4-year old, and can take him away from a parent that wants to kill him. Currently, the state is unable to take a blastocyst away from a mother and ensure it’s right to life.
A woman may do several things to make implantation unlikely, some seem designed by nature.
dedalus on July 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM
No, our health care system should have no higher priority than the best interests of the patient. If that means stepping on the religious sensibilities of the owner of a pharmacy, so be it. Amish people don’t open TV repair shops. Maybe anti-Plan B Christians shouldn’t own pharmacies.
RightOFLeft on July 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Not the best analogy in the world, Ed. “I’m a vegetarian” does not rise to the level of a constitutional issue. There’s no religious objection involved.
Not in all cases. My last health-insurance plan required that all covered prescriptions be filled at pharmacy A, forcing me to change from pharmacy B.
Owen Glendower on July 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM
If the Ninth Circuit Court rules that men must conspire in murder, then it is so ordered.
Kralizec on July 12, 2009 at 9:44 PM
I want the Ninth Circuit to order my local drug store to sell handguns and .380 ammo. Preferably 24 hours per day. At the drive-up window.
guntotinglibertarian on July 12, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Nothing like following the constitution chump. Maybe pro-abortion people should be put in jail like they used to with the full backing of the men who wrote the constitution dope.
cjk on July 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Ah abortion the holy sacrament of paganism. One nation, under judgement…
daesleeper on July 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Maybe jackboot-enabling tools like you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Dark-Star on July 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Oh heck yes…are we ever due to be judged as a nation! There is no way the Almighty is going to let the wanton murder of millions of defenseless children go unpunished. If He got so fed up with his chosen people that He finally let barbarians overrun them entirely, you can bet your boots our court date is set!
Dark-Star on July 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Question: Why make those who oppose it sell/work with it.
Can’t the skank pre-buy he baby killing pills before her drunken night of depravity?
Jeff from WI on July 12, 2009 at 10:24 PM
he=her
Jeff from WI on July 12, 2009 at 10:25 PM
The mystery of the Divine One’s birth continues.
As WND documented last week, the White House has dropped statements by the president’s family and other spokesmen for the president that the president was born in Queens Medical Center, opting instead for the latest assertion the president was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.
Joe Bloggs on July 12, 2009 at 10:28 PM
“Removed” but still accessible
Joe Bloggs on July 12, 2009 at 10:36 PM
ROTFLMAO.
I want vending machines that dispense ammo. Now that would convenient.
Geochelone on July 12, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »