Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

I was pointing out how you were posting links without actually examining what they said. You were trying to argue that a person could not claim CO status, while posting links that they could. the fact that you think asking for proof is somehow the same as you posting links that prove you are wrong shows how incapable you are of actually thinking.

All I can say is.

Bullshit. I never claimed that someone could not claim CO status.

What I claimed was that CO status is not a "No Hassle" path to discharge out of the military as you said. I posted the military regulations that shows it is not, that it's actually a long drawn out process. Nor is it an automatic out.

Finally I disagreed with and proved under miltiary and civilian law that a CO claim is not a positive defense when charged with violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


Some people are able to admit they were wrong when faced with facts. Others are not. Such is life.


>>>>

My mistake. I was tired, and what you actually tried to argue was that,k because it did not actually use the words in the Manual for Courts Martial, an affirmative, or positive, defense of being a conscientious objector is not permitted, and challenged me to prove that it was.

From Military Regulations concerning conscientious objector status are not as easy as you imply. There are procedures to request such status, however those procedures require an indpendent investigation to determine the validity of such a request and the military does not view or process such requests favorably when:

1. Personal history and claims to being a conscientious objector prior to volunteering for the military.

2. Based on conscientious objector status claimed and rejected under the Selective Service System.

3. Based on disagreement with a particular action (such as deployment orders), pragmatism, or expediency to evade deployment.

4. Insincere claims.

5. Based on disagreement with a certain war.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf

Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.

"Affirmative defense?" That means that someone was charged with something (otherwise they wouldn't need a "defense").

Here is the link to the Manual of the Courts Martial -->> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf

The MCM describes in detail the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's punative articles, and the means of charging each and the criteria used in evaluating each of the charges.

Please quote the section that cites "conscientious objector" is a positive defense for any of the punitive articles contained therein.

I will gladly review your findings, but be aware the word "conscientious objector", "objector" or "conscientious" (as it pertains to this subject) do not appear anywhere in the Manual of the Courts Martial and so are not listed as a "positive defense" in respect to any charge under the UCMJ.



>>>>

I could be wrong about this also, but it might have been in response to this post that I pointed out that posting links and thinking are not equivalent. The Manual for Courts Martial is a guidebook, and is not all inclusive. For example, it doesn't mention Facebook or Twitter, but that will not stop either the prosecutor, or the defense, from using either, or both, to make their case if someone is charged with, for example, some idiot decides to post pictures of themselves abusing prisoners at a military prison.

Learn to think and you might not feel stupid when someone posts the obvious using your links. Or, if you are really as dumb as you pretend, keep doing the same thing and letting people use your own links to prove you are stupid, but continue to believe you are actually smart because you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong. That will quickly earn you the reputation of being just another rdean, which you do not want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry, where is your citation from the Manual of the Courts Martial to support this claim?

I also posted a link to a case showing that even after claiming CO status and it's use as a positive defense the individuals status was denied and he was then Court Martialed.

You got anything?

I don't need one, you already gave i when you talked about affirmative defense in an attempt to debunk my point. Just because it doesn't always work does not mean it is not allowed. Even idiots should understand that.

And someone familiar with the military knows that the article descriptions in the MCM identify positive defenses to certain charges. CO claims are not among them.




Well lets see what you actually said...

Last I looked no one is required to be a pharmacist either. I will also point out that, even as an all volunteer force, the military still recognizes conscientious objectors and has no problem discharging them. And, despite the claims of some to the contrary, it is actually pretty easy to get a discharge as a conscientious objector if it is legitimate. Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.

1. I provided military regulations that show that the military does have a problem discharging people for CO status after claiming they were not on enlistment documents.

2. The regulations also show that the individual must be counseled before hand that claiming CO Status could result in loss of veterans status and inability to access post-service benefits specifically for veterans.

3. The military regulations that I posted show that it IS NOT "actually pretty easy to get a discharge" for CO status.

4. I also showed with the Manual of the Courts Martial and Federal Case Law where claiming CO status is not an affirmative defense for crimes committed. "Affirmative defense" would only apply to those that had committed crimes and were charged - if you are not charged with a crime, you don't have to provide a "defense".

It happens, period, which is all I said.

No that's not all you said, you characterized it as "pretty easy" and that it could act as an "affirmative defense". Both are factually wrong as shown by military regulations, the Manual of the Courts Martial, and federal case law.


>>>>

You argue that the MCM does not allow CO status as an affirmative defense, yet you also link to a person using that defense, and point out how it was dutifully investigated by the command, and proven to not be applicable. Let me try to explain how this actually works.

If a person could not use CO status as a defense it would have been rejected out of hand, and not investigated at all. The very fact that they chose to investigate it, and reject it, proves that he was able to use it in the first place. All you have shown is that in one particular case where it was used it failed.

Thank you for again making my point for me, and even more for failing to understand that you are actually make it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, you tried to say this incident never happened.





Don't worry, Quantum did as well.



A post you thanked him for.

Scary shit there that we have Americans that will dispute anything and everything unless it matches and conforms to their ideology and political beliefs.
I see it everyday in the courts. They get hammered with the facts and their own inconsistencies yet continue to stand firm, making it up as they go.
Someone has to say "Do you want fries with that".

Even scarier that we have people that not only misrepresent facts, they deny it when they are called on it.

Like the lie that is the thread title?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Remember when I told you about thinking, and not just linking to things? Another example of why you should engage your brain before you post.

He thinks that anyone that agrees with him is intelligent, and ignores or belittles people who disagree.

There might be a word for this...

........................................... let me think on it for awhile.



>>>>

Please do, it might do you some good. I doubt it, but I actually believe people can change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scary shit there that we have Americans that will dispute anything and everything unless it matches and conforms to their ideology and political beliefs.
I see it everyday in the courts. They get hammered with the facts and their own inconsistencies yet continue to stand firm, making it up as they go.
Someone has to say "Do you want fries with that".

Even scarier that we have people that not only misrepresent facts, they deny it when they are called on it.

Like the lie that is the thread title?

Modbert thinks I have a personal grudge against him because I call him out when he is wrong. What scares me is that he is part of the generation that will shortly be in charge, and is already brainwashed to believe that one party is always right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I could be wrong about this also, but it might have been in response to this post that I pointed out that posting links and thinking are not equivalent. The Manual for Courts Martial is a guidebook, and is not all inclusive. For example, it doesn't mention Facebook or Twitter, but that will not stop either the prosecutor, or the defense, from using either, or both, to make their case if someone is charged with, for example, some idiot decides to post pictures of themselves abusing prisoners at a military prison.

Learn to think and you might not feel stupid when someone posts the obvious using your links. Or, if you are really as dumb as you pretend, keep doing the same thing and letting people use your own links to prove you are stupid, but continue to believe you are actually smart because you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong. That will quickly earn you the reputation of being just another rdean, which you do not want.

I've presented facts with supporting evidence. You have presented opinion with no documented support. Maybe you should be so entrenched in your own opinion that you fall to evaluate new information when presented.

You argue that the MCM does not allow CO status as an affirmative defense, yet you also link to a person using that defense, and point out how it was dutifully investigated by the command, and proven to not be applicable. Let me try to explain how this actually works.

If a person could not use CO status as a defense it would have been rejected out of hand, and not investigated at all. The very fact that they chose to investigate it, and reject it, proves that he was able to use it in the first place. All you have shown is that in one particular case where it was used it failed.

Thank you for again making my point for me, and even more for failing to understand that you are actually make it.

If you had evaluated the information presented you would find, IIRC, that the investigation into the requested CO status was conducted prior to the occurrence of the crimes for which the individual was convicted. The "investigation" had already occurred and was not part of the investigation into the crimes and as such as not a "affirmative defense". If CO had been an affirmative defense then the individual would have been found not guilty, since CO is not an affirmative defense the individual was convicted.


Sorry you failed to understand that.


*****************************


Now if you would like to discuss facts concerning the regulations, MCM, and case presented feel free. Let's discuss.

If on the other hand you just want to digress into an ad hominem exchange then I think we are done as that's not normally my cup of tea (although I do slip periodically).

You have a nice day.


>>>>

 

[AllieBaba]

Even scarier that we have people that not only misrepresent facts, they deny it when they are called on it.

Like the lie that is the thread title?

Modbert thinks I have a personal grudge against him because I call him out when he is wrong. What scares me is that he is part of the generation that will shortly be in charge, and is already brainwashed to believe that one party is always right.

Modbert doesn't represent the majority and never will.
They're a small minority. Vocal, but still a minority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could be wrong about this also, but it might have been in response to this post that I pointed out that posting links and thinking are not equivalent. The Manual for Courts Martial is a guidebook, and is not all inclusive. For example, it doesn't mention Facebook or Twitter, but that will not stop either the prosecutor, or the defense, from using either, or both, to make their case if someone is charged with, for example, some idiot decides to post pictures of themselves abusing prisoners at a military prison.

Learn to think and you might not feel stupid when someone posts the obvious using your links. Or, if you are really as dumb as you pretend, keep doing the same thing and letting people use your own links to prove you are stupid, but continue to believe you are actually smart because you are incapable of seeing that you are wrong. That will quickly earn you the reputation of being just another rdean, which you do not want.

I've presented facts with supporting evidence. You have presented opinion with no documented support. Maybe you should be so entrenched in your own opinion that you fall to evaluate new information when presented.

You argue that the MCM does not allow CO status as an affirmative defense, yet you also link to a person using that defense, and point out how it was dutifully investigated by the command, and proven to not be applicable. Let me try to explain how this actually works.

If a person could not use CO status as a defense it would have been rejected out of hand, and not investigated at all. The very fact that they chose to investigate it, and reject it, proves that he was able to use it in the first place. All you have shown is that in one particular case where it was used it failed.

Thank you for again making my point for me, and even more for failing to understand that you are actually make it.

If you had evaluated the information presented you would find, IIRC, that the investigation into the requested CO status was conducted prior to the occurrence of the crimes for which the individual was convicted. The "investigation" had already occurred and was not part of the investigation into the crimes and as such as not a "affirmative defense". If CO had been an affirmative defense then the individual would have been found not guilty, since CO is not an affirmative defense the individual was convicted.


Sorry you failed to understand that.


*****************************


Now if you would like to discuss facts concerning the regulations, MCM, and case presented feel free. Let's discuss.

If on the other hand you just want to digress into an ad hominem exchange then I think we are done as that's not normally my cup of tea (although I do slip periodically).

You have a nice day.


>>>>

No, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the facts that are inconvenient.

Just an FYI, you have just put yourself in the rdean category. That means I will only be mocking you and anything you say in the future, unless you actually get something right. You obviously cannot think past your blinders and admit the truth, so I will not be trying to educate you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like the lie that is the thread title?

Modbert thinks I have a personal grudge against him because I call him out when he is wrong. What scares me is that he is part of the generation that will shortly be in charge, and is already brainwashed to believe that one party is always right.

Modbert doesn't represent the majority and never will.
They're a small minority. Vocal, but still a minority.

One can always hope.

Thanks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the facts that are inconvenient.

You never presented facts, just opinion (regarding the subject of CO being an affirmative defense or a no hassle way to get out of the military).

But I forgive you.

Just an FYI, you have just put yourself in the rdean category. That means I will only be mocking you and anything you say in the future, unless you actually get something right. You obviously cannot think past your blinders and admit the truth, so I will not be trying to educate you.

:SHRUG: - Act as you choose.

Have a nice day.


>>>>

 

[geauxtohell]

What the fuck?

Did you, or did you not, post this?

To rehash. The following quote:

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

Is where you started to lose me on this thread. I never claimed pharmacists weren't real medical professionals. You inferred that was my opinion. That inference was wrong. You were even so tacky as to apply quotes to something I never said.

Your beliefs are quite plain.

Obviously, they aren't.

You believe you can say anything you want and not be called on it. You believe that you can then claim a person is misquoting you and they will run away because they are afraid of you.

You did misquote me.

As I have said before, fuck you and your patronizing attitude,

And with gems like this, the rest of your participation in this thread went down the drain. Obviously people are discussing this in a rational manner. Even people who don't agree. You are the one that is tossing out ad hominem and "fuck you"s all over the place.

There are also people in this thread who agree that your position is not clear, so don't try to act like I am the only person who sees it.

And I responded to them. I see little use in responding to you on this issue. You either aren't comprehending my words or are intentionally distorting them.

do not try to claim this is some sort of personal vendetta.

I don't think it's a personal vendetta, and I haven't stated that. I think you are incapable of discussing this issue in a civil manner.

Others are.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the facts that are inconvenient.

You never presented facts, just opinion (regarding the subject of CO being an affirmative defense or a no hassle way to get out of the military).

But I forgive you.

Just an FYI, you have just put yourself in the rdean category. That means I will only be mocking you and anything you say in the future, unless you actually get something right. You obviously cannot think past your blinders and admit the truth, so I will not be trying to educate you.

:SHRUG: - Act as you choose.

Have a nice day.


>>>>

Uh oh. Prepare to be "mocked" on an internet message board.

I hope you can live with yourself in the face of stern mockery!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Uh oh. Prepare to be "mocked" on an internet message board.

I hope you can live with yourself in the face of stern mockery!

I'm 51 years old and a retired Navy Chief, I don't think I'll have a problem sleeping at night.


>>>>

 

[AllieBaba]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, and ignore the facts that are inconvenient.

You never presented facts, just opinion (regarding the subject of CO being an affirmative defense or a no hassle way to get out of the military).

But I forgive you.

Just an FYI, you have just put yourself in the rdean category. That means I will only be mocking you and anything you say in the future, unless you actually get something right. You obviously cannot think past your blinders and admit the truth, so I will not be trying to educate you.

:SHRUG: - Act as you choose.

Have a nice day.


>>>>

I do not need to present facts that you have already presented, all I have to do is show you what the facts you present, like the fact that the Army did not summarily reject the defense of being a CO without investigating it.

Thanks for making the mocking really easy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the fuck?

Did you, or did you not, post this?

To rehash. The following quote:

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

Is where you started to lose me on this thread. I never claimed pharmacists weren't real medical professionals. You inferred that was my opinion. That inference was wrong. You were even so tacky as to apply quotes to something I never said.



Obviously, they aren't.



You did misquote me.

No I did not.

Where do you see me quoting you? The only quotes in that post are around the word real, to indicate just how stupid I think your position is. That is not a quote, it is a deliberately inflammatory restatement of your position to emphasize just how offensive it is. You can whine and cry all you like, but we both know that I am not doing what you say I am.

And with gems like this, the rest of your participation in this thread went down the drain. Obviously people are discussing this in a rational manner. Even people who don't agree. You are the one that is tossing out ad hominem and "fuck you"s all over the place.

What is irrational about attacking a position that is based on a false premise? You have never once attempted to defend your position, or explain it in a way that I find less offensive. You are denigrating an entire profession just because you do not like the fact that some people have managed to use it to, and I quote.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Those are your words, and your position is offensive. Pharmacists can have a conscious, and doctors do not have the right to trump their conscious by writing a prescription. Even if, as you assert, the only reason anyone is trying to assert the conscious of pharmacists is to interdict Roe.

You insist you are capable of a rational discussion, prove it. Rational people do not pout simply because someone insults their position.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I do not need to present facts that you have already presented, all I have to do is show you what the facts you present, like the fact that the Army did not summarily reject the defense of being a CO without investigating it.

Thanks for making the mocking really easy.

Given that Aguayo applied for CO status in February 2004,

GIven that Aguayo's application for CO status was denied by the Army in July 2004,

Given that Aguayo appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2005 and the parties agreed to an amended application,

Given that the Army again denied the application in January 2006,

Given that on March 14, 2006 Aguayo filed an amended habeas corpus brief with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

Given that in August 2006 Aguayo sought an injunction to prevent deployment,

Given that "By order and opinion of August 24, 2006, the district court denied Aguayo's habeas petition and denied the injunction as moot.",

Given that Aguayo was tried and convicted by a Military Court Martial on March 6, 2007 and was imprisioned in a military "jail" until April 2007 and then received a Bad Conduct Discharge from the United States Army,




I'm sure that he will take great solace in knowing that an anonymous internet poster's opinion is that his request for CO statusm, which had already been denied twice by the Army, should have been an "affirmative defense" for his crimes.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not need to present facts that you have already presented, all I have to do is show you what the facts you present, like the fact that the Army did not summarily reject the defense of being a CO without investigating it.

Thanks for making the mocking really easy.

Given that Aguayo applied for CO status in February 2004,

GIven that Aguayo's application for CO status was denied by the Army in July 2004,

Given that Aguayo appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2005 and the parties agreed to an amended application,

Given that the Army again denied the application in January 2006,

Given that on March 14, 2006 Aguayo filed an amended habeas corpus brief with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

Given that in August 2006 Aguayo sought an injunction to prevent deployment,

Given that "By order and opinion of August 24, 2006, the district court denied Aguayo's habeas petition and denied the injunction as moot.",

Given that Aguayo was tried and convicted by a Military Court Martial on March 6, 2007 and was imprisioned in a military "jail" until April 2007 and then received a Bad Conduct Discharge from the United States Army,




I'm sure that he will take great solace in knowing that an anonymous internet poster's opinion is that his request for CO statusm, which had already been denied twice by the Army, should have been an "affirmative defense" for his crimes.



>>>>

Good for you.

Now, did he or did he not argue that he had CO status, and did the court not examine the evidence provided by his command that his attempt to attain that status was insincere?

Ask a lawyer about this if you do not believe me, but the right to present an affirmative defense does not guarantee that said defense will work. For example, the Twinkie defense worked one time, and never worked again. That was because, after the first fiasco where it worked prosecutors found their own experts to debunk it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good for you.

Now, did he or did he not argue that he had CO status, and did the court not examine the evidence provided by his command that his attempt to attain that status was insincere?

Ask a lawyer about this if you do not believe me, but the right to present an affirmative defense does not guarantee that said defense will work. For example, the Twinkie defense worked one time, and never worked again. That was because, after the first fiasco where it worked prosecutors found their own experts to debunk it.

I would highly doubt (<<-- Opinion) that the military judge allowed his previous two attempts at CO status, which were both denied, to be presented as an affirmative defense at Court Martial becaue they would have been irrelevant to the crimes committed after the decisions had already been made. Just as Obama's status was deemed irrelevant in LTC Lakins case.

From the Manual of the Courts Martial...

Rule 401. Definition of &#8220;relevant evidence&#8221;
&#8220;Relevant evidence&#8221; means evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without
the evidence.

Rule 402. Relevant evidence general
admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise
provided by the Constitution of the United
States as applied to members of the armed forces,
the code, these rules, this Manual, or any Act of
Congress applicable to members of the armed
forces. Evidence which is not relevant is not
admissible.​

1. Under Rule 401, his previous attempts at achieving CO status would have no bearing on his **actions** for the crimes committed.

2. Since the status as a CO was not in question, then it would not have been relevant to the crimes committed later. As such it would have been irrelevant under Rule 402 and the judge probably didn't admit it. Now to be honest I can't confirm that without access the the trial transcripts, which are not available through the JAG site.



>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

But your explanation was somewhat lacking. If I get your position correctly, you believe that because the pharmacist is simply dispensing the medication they are not really part of the process as someone that is actually prescribing, administering or otherwise taking part in the actual procedure and therefore should not have the right to object to the medication. I find that stretching as they ARE a part of that process. Is the getaway driver not implicated in the crime as well?

I gave my opinion on why, when it comes to this particular procedure (and not pharmacy as a whole) that I don't support being able to opt out of dispensing abortificants under the banner of conscious and differentiated it based on the act of actually performing an abortion. For a surgical procedure, the act can't be completed without physicians and the rest of the surgical crew. I think it is far to allow people to opt out of that, as it is by their hand that the abortion is carried out. When it comes to medical abortion, the act is carried out by the hand of the person taking the pill. The pharmacist is simply a step in between a physician's script and a patient getting the pill. The pharmacist isn't prescribing the pill, they are just a gate-keeper in the process of a perfectly legal medical procedure. I certainly respect that it might be morally troubling to pharmacists, however, I think society should make reasonable accommodations for moral objections when it comes to patient care. I would find it equally absurd if a physician refused to care for a terminal patient, because they refused to be involved in any aspect of end of life care in which pain control often hastens death. I personally (and this is just my opinion) don't see it as reasonable. In regards to the pharmacist, you are specifically allowing someone to act as a gatekeeper and hinder the doctor patient relationship. This is an egregious example, however, there have been even more egregious examples: pharmacists refusing to dispense oral contraceptives.

USATODAY.com - Druggists refuse to give out pill

There are actually numerous examples of this. It's easy enough to say: "go to a different pharmacy", but what if this is a small town and the only pharmacy? What right does a pharmacist, who is licensed by the state to promote general health, have to refuse care to someone because of their own personal moral beliefs? No one is forcing the pharmacist to take the pills. Instead, it seems to me that this is abusing a license to force a person's morals onto another person. In a similar vein, it would be an abuse of a physician's license to use their access to the system to try and prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

I find that particular argument a cop out anyway. As I said before - a hospital should have that requirement as that is a public place and that is the only place that should be required to fill any particular script. You can ALWAYS go to another pharmacy, I do not care if your town only has 3 people in it or not. Just because it would be a larger incontinence for someone does not mean that you can force business or people to perform a particular action. It still goes back to freedom and small towns are not a good reason to restrict freedoms just as your inconveniences are not a good reason to restrict another's freedom.

To piggy back off of your words: What right does a customer have of forcing a pharmacist to provide a means to something they are firmly against? My answer is none.

Comparing this to a "get away driver" isn't reasonable, as we are comparing legal and illegal activities.

What my post never said, or implied, was that pharmacists were irrelevant or unimportant to patient care. In hospitals, pharmacists are mixing the drugs and keeping the physicians from overdosing patients. In outpatient settings, it's often pharmacists that blow the whistle on dishonest physicians who are abusing their script pad to give everyone and their brother narcotic pain pills or benzos purely for profit. I would also expect a pharmacist to refuse to dispense an illegal drug or a "deadly drug" in a state where there isn't a "death with dignity act".

I don't want to give the perception of arrogance. I am a medical student. I have no room to be arrogant. I was just stating my opinion.

Never said or seen that you did. They are important to care. What you did do though (and restated here) is that pharmacists are not part of the procedure and therefore not culpable in the act. Because of that you are saying that they should not be able to deny medication based on morality. I find that deeply flawed. Don't like the car example, here is another: You know a perfectly healthy individual that is deeply depressed and suicidal for whatever reason. What you are stating is that there is no moral complications with you providing that individual with the means (say a gun or pills) to kill themselves even though you know what they are going to do with it. I would contend that is bullshit. YOU provide the means and that makes YOU accountable in the moral sense. I would also contend that your version is meaningless because morality is a personal stance and because you would not feel morally responsible had you given the abortion drug but not administered it is whether or not they would feel culpable that actually matters.

Another thing I said, that I believe got misconstrued (probably because I didn't word it clearly) was that I see the conscious clause as an attempt to stymie pro-choice. In that regard, I wasn't talking about the individual pharmacists that might be acting on what they deem to be a moral position. I was talking about the legislators that make these laws.

I don't see that and it honestly has no baring anyway. These laws do NOTHING that would stymie the ability to have an abortion. They simply allow those that are not supportive of abortion to opt out and not be FORCED to participate in what they consider to be butchery. Why is the woman's abortion a choice and yet the option to dispense the medication is not a choice? That is an abhorrent double standard. To me, the opposition to these laws is an example of those pro choicers trying to beat down those that are pro life. The difference in the way we see it is that you are in a position that forces one party to accept the others view while I would allow either party to choose their own actions. You can see why I cannot abide by forcing one to do something they do not wish to do?

I don't care what the particular reason is that a pharmacist does not want to sell a particular drug and I can't see where the problem is if the employer has equal power to hire someone else. It is funny that anyone here would support profitability as a good reason to not sell or stock a drug but bring in morality and suddenly we get a resounding we can't have that...

I actually agree with this. I would have less of a problem with the conscious clause if a store like Walgreen's had the option to not hire people who decided to exercise it. However, that is not how the law is written. The larger problem I see for health care is that physicians are not going to have to try and keep track of individual pharmacist's moral stances before they send a script somewhere.

If a national corporation like Walgreen's (which is all about profitability) decides that they don't want to lose business over someone's conscious, they should be able to screen against that. On the other hand, if a bunch of pharmacists want to set up their own shop and only give out drugs they deem to be morally appropriate, they should have that right too.

We agree here but I cannot seem to reconcile this belief with what you typed earlier. You said they should not have the choice but now you are saying that they should? That is a double standard. Of course I also believe that this law is not written properly but that does not mean I disagree with conscious clauses, just that this particular one is not complete.

The same can be said for the example given here by another poster of the Muslim woman that wants to be a dancer. She has every right to refuse to remove her gear and the employer has every right to not hire/fire her for that decision as it affects his business directly.

Agreed. But this is about abortion, so we just can't think logically about the matter.

Now now, SOME of us cant. I happen to believe that we are doing quite well so far.

Also, you have no idea why it was denied.

Maybe it was denied because it was a questionable prescription.

Maybe it was denied because the pharmacist couldn't get a verification of who prescribed it, or why.

Maybe it was denied because it was the wrong dosage.

You don't know, do you? We do know the board found the pharmacist did nothing wrong.

End of story. What a shame for the pro-abortionists who see the enemies of child killers around every corner...

Really? Never had a pharmacist deny medications for any of those reasons and I am not even sure if they could. I have been in ALL of those situations as well. Even been in situations where the medications were in conflict and not supposed to be taken together. Only thing I got was a warning and some info to go to my doctor with to ensure that was what the doctor actually wanted.