Court sides with pharmacists against emergency contraceptives

[bodecea]

You won't have to do that with me. I'm the guy who says women shouldn't need abortion because it's so insanely easy to not get pregnant to begin with.

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

I really don't see why. It really is easy to not get pregnant.

I love guys giving women advice on getting pregnant.

 

[daveman]

^why do you think its okay for a pharmacist to force their religious beliefs on others?

Yes. It's terrible those guys are the only two pharmacists in the only two pharmacies in the entire state of Illinois.

Oh, wait -- no, they're not.

Shop elsewhere.

 

[daveman]

^why do you think its okay for a pharmacist to force their religious beliefs on others?

Explain to me how a pharmacist not selling something,for whatever reason, amounts to him forcing his beliefs on others. Do you think it is wrong for a restaurant that sells Coke not to sell Pepsi? Is their refusal to sell Pepsi forcing their belief in Coke on you, or do you simply go to a place that sells Pepsi?

Pepsi and coke don't prevent a pregnancy, and no one refuses to sell them because of their religion.
If you can't keep your religion out of your job, then find another damned job.

Going back to your butcher shop analogy, halal butchers don't sell pork.

But you think they should so they're not forcing their religion on others.

It's going to be interesting watching you backtrack and claim that's different -- somehow -- it just is!

 

[daveman]

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

You think it is hard not to get pregnant? I would point out that millions of women go through their entire lives without getting pregnant, do you think they are smarter or stronger than the rest?

Considering half of all pregnancies in America are unplanned, I'd say it's not quiet as simple as some men seem to think.

It's very simple. But some people think others should have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

Other people just don't think. They have enough blood to run their brains or their genitals -- not both.

 

[AmyNation]

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

I really don't see why. It really is easy to not get pregnant.

I love guys giving women advice on getting pregnant.

Pregnancy Rates for Birth Control Methods contraceptives

This has a really interesting chart, it shows the precent of pregnancy rate while using each contraception.

 

[daveman]

Fine...but they should make sure they put this in big letters at their pharmacy so people don't bother to go there. Let the market determine.

No problem with that, unless you want it mandated by government.

 

[daveman]

Well first religions dont say they practice a blank, undefined tolerance.....that's where liberals go wrong, to get people to support gays they have this huge over arching view of tolerance, but dont practice it.

And then we can get into details, tolerating gays. what does that mean? you let them get married? let them do their thing? or let them live? Some people believe in those ideas. I as a christian will let them live and do their thing (privately), but marriage no.. .So am I intolerant?
So compared to a mullah in Iran, I am tolerant? correct?

But comapred to a liberal, maybe not on this issue, but lets look at all issues, and you'lre be quite suprised that the people wanting gay marriage arent really that tolerant of other points of view, even less so then most conservative christians....

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

Thank you.

I'm a Christian. The way I see it is gays are sinners. But so am I. So is everyone else. In God's eyes, no sin is worse than any other -- so no sinner is worse than any other. He loves us all.

 

[daveman]

As a Christian it is pretty much written in stone that you are to be intolerant. Christians should embrace that intolerance, it's who they are. They should stand up and say that in their opinion gays should not get married, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and this means that christians should embrace the fact that they don't support equality. It's ok to be intolerant, and more christians should stand up and identify themselves as being selectively intolerant. I say selectively, because as a non christian, Christians look as though they are zealous in their persecution of this one sin above all others. They seem to tolerate divorce more than gays, maybe I'm wrong but they are not pushing for legislation to outlaw divorce.

I really think you are taking extremists and stamping them as Christian.

I know many many christains who supported the repeal of DADT, who support homosexuals having the right to adopt and who even support gay marriage. I also know many who support some but not all. Being anti-gay is not a Christain thing and intolerance is not written in stone for them.

Well maybe I am and maybe I'm in error. I have Catholic relatives who say if you support gay marriage you are not a Catholic. The Angelican church recently split over gay clergy. I have co-workers who are Born again Christians and they are rabidly anti gay. I honestly don't know any Christians who support equal rights for gays.

Most Christians that I know say that if you support gays you are not a Christian.

You don't know all Christians.

 

[jillian]

Well, whattya know -- the court got one right.

if you say so.

 

[daveman]

So you could say they are the "Silent majority", who stand back and let the rabid Chistians ruin their good name. For evil to succeed good people must do nothing.

Kinda like moderate Muslims, huh?

 

[daveman]

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

If the employer has no problem with it, why do you?

He wants to impose his beliefs on others.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis​

 

[jillian]

In looking at the article, it seems there is disagreement as to whether this decision applies to anyone but the two pharmacists involved. That means there are facts upon which the decision is based that affected the ruling. Without seeing the decision, there is no way to know what the court held.

But you can claim a victory if you'd like.

Kind of like the rabid rightwingers running around saying the PA Voter ID law was upheld when it wasn't but was instead remanded to the court below for certain inquiries.

 

[jillian]

I get it now, only pharmacist have this mysterious ability to impose their views on others by not selling something. Do they have form of telepathy that they learn in pharmacy school, or do they use drugs?

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

That isn't the holding of this decision....

at least it doesn't seem to be based

so again... maybe the o/p should actually get a hold of the decision.

 

[daveman]

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

I really don't see why. It really is easy to not get pregnant.

Yes and no.

Men could just stop having unprotected sex, that would stop most abortions.

And women could say "No glove, no love".

It takes two to make a baby. Both parties are responsible -- not just the one with the penis.

 

[daveman]

Lol I remember, I believe we bickered over that before.

I really don't see why. It really is easy to not get pregnant.

I love guys giving women advice on getting pregnant.

Considering it's just as likely that you'll get pregnant as I would, I'd say you don't have much room for an opinion, either.

 

[daveman]

Well, whattya know -- the court got one right.

if you say so.

People who believe in freedom say so.

You disagree?

 

[daveman]

In looking at the article, it seems there is disagreement as to whether this decision applies to anyone but the two pharmacists involved. That means there are facts upon which the decision is based that affected the ruling. Without seeing the decision, there is no way to know what the court held.

Obviously, the court held that the two pharmicists' decision to not provide emergency contraception was covered under existing Illinois law: the Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

Rotten Rod Blago, D-Corruptionland, decided that his decree overrode existing state law and ordered all pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill.

He was wrong about that.

But you can claim a victory if you'd like.

I will. Freedom is a good thing, is it not?

Kind of like the rabid rightwingers running around saying the PA Voter ID law was upheld when it wasn't but was instead remanded to the court below for certain inquiries.

Wasn't overturned, was it?

 

[daveman]

Its because is has to do with abortion, and for some people, ANYTHING that interferes with that is a no go, personal choice (ironic isnt it?) and morality be damned.

It's not the fact pharmacists don't want to sell the pill. It is the precedence they are setting. The fact that anyone now can refuse work on moral grounds is very ambiguous at best. See my post above for examples. The way to get around it would be for the pharmacy itself not to stock the pills, this way the pharmacist don't have to make that call. As an aside though, the morality of the pharmacist is questionable at best. They are not the only pharmacist working at the pharmacy so some other pharmacist is selling the pill. Funny how their morility comes into play when they are asked to sell the pill, yet they won't quit that pharmacy and work for one that doesn't sell the pill. On moral grounds of course.

That isn't the holding of this decision....

at least it doesn't seem to be based

so again... maybe the o/p should actually get a hold of the decision.

Again: The court decided that their refusal was already covered under existing law.

Rotten Rod overstepped his authority. Chicago Democrats have a habit of doing that.

 

[jillian]

In looking at the article, it seems there is disagreement as to whether this decision applies to anyone but the two pharmacists involved. That means there are facts upon which the decision is based that affected the ruling. Without seeing the decision, there is no way to know what the court held.

Obviously, the court held that the two pharmicists' decision to not provide emergency contraception was covered under existing Illinois law: the Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

Rotten Rod Blago, D-Corruptionland, decided that his decree overrode existing state law and ordered all pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill.

He was wrong about that.

But you can claim a victory if you'd like.

I will. Freedom is a good thing, is it not?

Kind of like the rabid rightwingers running around saying the PA Voter ID law was upheld when it wasn't but was instead remanded to the court below for certain inquiries.

Wasn't overturned, was it?

there was no constitutional determination. the conscience act controls in this particular case. that's true. and no, it was not obvious from your link.

this is the decision:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/4thDistrict/4110398.pdf

and no, i don't think that someone should take a job if they can't fulfil the obligations of that position.

kind of like muslims and orthodox jews shouldn't have jobs where part of their responsibilites include handling pork.

see how that works?

and no, the rabiid religious right shouldn't be keeping other people from exercising THEIR fredoms. But i know that's irrelevant to you. So keep talking about freedom... You don't believe it applies to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs..

 

[g5000]

Fortunately, the state now believes it is a crime to insult Islam. I am sure you feel so much better about that.

You are lying.

.