pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

i never stated that pharmacys should only be required to dispense plan B and no other drugs. they should be required to carry it (the cancer drug), or an equal, if its a time sensitive drug, i dont have a problem with that mandate either. drugs that are not time sensitive, do not necessarily need to be covered under this.

You don't have a problem with that, Adolf?

What price will you permit them to charge? Or will you mandate that pharmacies must give drugs away?

You decide, the peasants obey, right Adolf?
yeah..... lets just let people suffer there Kim Jong. and youre on ignore.... you racist piece of shit
 
Show me one single place where anyone is ever forced to sell a hard hat...

There is no such case because requirements to have a safety item NEVER entail the forced selling of that item. The way it works is that an agency sees a safety item and then mandates that businesses use such devices.
On another note, I would like you to point out where there are any items that are specified as I do not believe there is. There are guidelines about what qualifies as a safety item or item that you must carry but specific items ARE NEVER IDENTIFIED and never is a company forced to sell them.

What is your solution when there is no pharmacy?

Ah, and here we come again back to my point that kills your entire bullshit argument that you have continually ignored. So, let's try one more time in big letter and short statements:

MOST PHARMACIES DO NOT CARRY LIFE OR DEATH CANCER DRUGS THAT MY SON REQUIRES

How can you continue to push the idea that a pharmacy MUST dispense plan B but does not have to do so with cancer drugs?
Their reply: "But ...But...But.....That's different".
You won't get a straight answer.
i never stated that pharmacys should only be required to dispense plan B and no other drugs. they should be required to carry it (the cancer drug), or an equal, if its a time sensitive drug, i dont have a problem with that mandate either. drugs that are not time sensitive, do not necessarily need to be covered under this.

You are essentially saying " I think they should have to sell products that I deem they should have to carry"

Merchandize Dispersant Czar anyone?
 
yeah..... lets just let people suffer there Kim Jong. and youre on ignore.... you racist piece of shit

Racist?

You're a totalitarian thug. You seek to use the force of government to force your will on others.

That makes you a scumbag.

Hey, Uncensored, congratulations. You have been deemed unworthy of being read by Syphon. And It seems you are the first to have done so. I remember when Dot.com announced to the entire site that I had won that privilege. I still deem that an honor.

Immie
 
Hey, Uncensored, congratulations. You have been deemed unworthy of being read by Syphon. And It seems you are the first to have done so. I remember when Dot.com announced to the entire site that I had won that privilege. I still deem that an honor.

Immie

What I find amusing is that these fools think it is a shield, that suddenly I will stop exposing them if they ignore.

As for dot-com, he was over at Argue With Anyone. He's really not a bad guy - for a brainless lefty...

:)

He used the mouse from the Simpsons for his avatar, so I called and continue to call him "Scheiß Mause."
 
Hey, Uncensored, congratulations. You have been deemed unworthy of being read by Syphon. And It seems you are the first to have done so. I remember when Dot.com announced to the entire site that I had won that privilege. I still deem that an honor.

Immie

What I find amusing is that these fools think it is a shield, that suddenly I will stop exposing them if they ignore.

As for dot-com, he was over at Argue With Anyone. He's really not a bad guy - for a brainless lefty...

:)

He used the mouse from the Simpsons for his avatar, so I called and continue to call him "Scheiß Mause."

Actually, I have no problem with Dot.com. He makes some reasoned posts and when he joined the site, I enjoyed conversing with him. He simply took offense to someone signing their posts and since I refused to kowtow to him and stop he put me on ignore.

Therefore, I think of him as maybe a 14 year old kid who thinks he's cool, but everyone else just pats him on the head and goes about their merry little way. I still read his posts when he participates in a thread I am in.

Immie
 
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

I’m pleased to report that a federal district court in Washington state today delivered an important victory for religious liberty. As I outlined in several posts some weeks ago, Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the abortifacient drug Plan B, notwithstanding their religiously informed conscientious convictions not to participate in the destruction of the life of an unborn human being.
In its opinion today, the federal district court correctly ruled that the regulations do violate plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights. Specifically, the court determined that the regulations are not neutral for purposes of deference under Employment Division v. Smith. Rather, they“are riddled with exemptions for secular conduct, but contain no such exemptions for identical religiously-motivated conduct” and thus amount to an “impermissible religious gerrymander.” Likewise, the regulations are not “generally applicable” but rather “have been selectively enforced, in two ways”: First, the rule that pharmacies timely deliver all lawful medications has been enforced only against the plaintiff pharmacy and only for failure to deliver plan B. Second, the rules haven’t been enforced against the state’s numerous Catholic-affiliated pharmacies, which also refuse to stock or dispense Plan B.
For each of these reasons, the regulations are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they can’t survive.
The court also found that the state regulations were “aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception.” Indeed, “the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.”
Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online



Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

The expert speaketh, the discussion is over.
 
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online



Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

The expert speaketh, the discussion is over.

Any tire dealer that sells Uniroyal, Hankook, Michelin, Pirellii, and Kumho but not Goodyear is a moron................

Same reasons.

Do they really not see where this could lead?
 
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.



Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online



Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

And, at least currently, the right to be an 'idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron' is fully protected. Go figure.

Amazing, isn't it?
 
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.

I’m pleased to report that a federal district court in Washington state today delivered an important victory for religious liberty. As I outlined in several posts some weeks ago, Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the abortifacient drug Plan B, notwithstanding their religiously informed conscientious convictions not to participate in the destruction of the life of an unborn human being.
In its opinion today, the federal district court correctly ruled that the regulations do violate plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights. Specifically, the court determined that the regulations are not neutral for purposes of deference under Employment Division v. Smith. Rather, they“are riddled with exemptions for secular conduct, but contain no such exemptions for identical religiously-motivated conduct” and thus amount to an “impermissible religious gerrymander.” Likewise, the regulations are not “generally applicable” but rather “have been selectively enforced, in two ways”: First, the rule that pharmacies timely deliver all lawful medications has been enforced only against the plaintiff pharmacy and only for failure to deliver plan B. Second, the rules haven’t been enforced against the state’s numerous Catholic-affiliated pharmacies, which also refuse to stock or dispense Plan B.
For each of these reasons, the regulations are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they can’t survive.
The court also found that the state regulations were “aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception.” Indeed, “the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.”

Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online



Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

Would it shock you to know that the world does not revolve around your personal fucking opinion about it and, in fact, no one gives a shit how you think things should be or what you think is smart? One more time for the gray matter-impaired: if you're not the person's employer, YOU DON'T GET A FUCKING VOTE.
 
:clap2:

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.

Yeah, that's what it is. By personally refusing to be part of your taking pills, the pharmacist is deciding what pills you can take . . . because you're apparently such an ignorant twat that you can ONLY take pills from THAT pharmacy and THAT pharmacist, and if he or she DARES to not want to give them to you, the resultant confusion caused by your ignorance makes it impossible for you to find any other way to get those pills.

Or maybe you should just stop staring at your belly button and thinking you're the center of the universe, realize that other people are PEOPLE and not just cardboard cutouts provided for your entertainment, get over your butthurt that everyone on Earth doesn't agree with and fawn over your decisions, and move the fuck on with your life down the road to the next pharmacy.
 
What ever happened to letting the free unregulated markets decide? The for profit insurance companeis did a cost analysis and decided that contraception is preventative medicine and will save money.
 
Doesn't look good for the Obama administration in its attempts to restrict religious liberty to only applying in churches.



Important Victory for Religious Liberty in Washington State - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online



Any pharmacist who dispenses ordinary birth control pills but not Plan B is simply an idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron. Ordinary birth control pills can also kill a recently fertilized embryo and its possible many thousands of these human beings are killed every year by regular birth control pills.

And, at least currently, the right to be an 'idiot, ignorant, or just a self-righteous moron' is fully protected. Go figure.

That particular right is the only thing that keeps twats like Oops talking in public.
 
:clap2:

But expect this to be over turned.

Can't allow those terrible pharmacists to object to killing babies! My goodness if we let them get away with it who knows who will object next.

/sarcasm off

Immie

Killing babies?

When you kill a recently implanted embryo - you're not just killing a baby. You're killing an adult. And an old person. And the thousands to millions of descendants that person would have had. In fact - I'd think a single Plan B dispensation is probably killing 1,000,000 or so people - its genocide plain and simple.

I really think its the pharamacist that gets to decide what drugs I should take, not my doctor. Doctors are stupid and can't be trusted.


Wow.... more brilliance from the right. Doctors can't be trusted? Let me guess... their all fucking Commies.

Wow, more brilliance from the left. Hey, Einstein: Oops isn't on the right. That was her lame attempt at being sarcastic. Way to step on your johnson, Brain Trust.
 
Any business should have the right to sell or not sell any products it wishes.

If the employer of a pharmacists says he won't sell morning after pills then that's how it is but if a pharmacist refuses to sell the pills when his employer states that the policy is to sell them the pharmacist should be fired.

Unless the employer doesn't wish to fire him, which the one in the OP apparently does not, in which case, THAT is how it is, and nobody else's business to say otherwise.
 
What ever happened to letting the free unregulated markets decide? The for profit insurance companeis did a cost analysis and decided that contraception is preventative medicine and will save money.

The free market decided that Catholic Schools are free to make their own choices.

You leftists oppose freedom, so you seek to have the federal government choose instead.
 

Forum List

Back
Top