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

[Quantum Windbag]

Update on the facts:
Walgreens called PP and spoke with their regional media director. Why? Because Walgreens is worried about the negative media this is giving them. Walgreens is a well run organization.
Walgreens took prompt action and informed PP media director Kristen Plosser that they informed the pharmacist that what they did was wrong, that it will never happen again and that the pharmacist in question was told specifically she should have handed it off to another colleague and was instructed to do so in the future.
But wait a minute. Walgreens did all this not even knowing if any of the allegations were true or not.
Of course all of these allegations are false. Abortion is wrong and anyone involved in it is a liar and they made this entire episode up.

Do you have some sort of link, or is this simply another attempt to distort the facts to favor your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even the UCMJ allows an affirmative defense.

I can't think of a single CO request (or CO period) that I stumbled upon during my time in the service.

Attempting to claim CO status as a "positive defense" didn't seem to work very well for PFC Aguayo.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/Agust...aselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1019295.html
No.?06-5241. - AGUAYO v. HARVEY - US DC Circuit


>>>>

Of course it didn't, because he actually denied just 2 years before that he was a conscientious objector.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And, it you are charged with failure to obey an order, or missing movement, or many of the other things conscientious objectors can be charged with, you can use it as an affirmative defense.

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?

Idiots are always able to post links, intelligent people can think for themselves.

I can understand you shifting to ad hominem posting after being unable to validate your claimes either under military regulations (which I posted**), the Manaual of the Courts Martial (which I posted), and Federal District court (which I posted).

You know there is nothing wrong with saying "I was wrong".



** Yes you can request to change your CO status after entering active duty and stating that you are not, but it is not an "easy process" and not automatic. Nor is it a positive defense if you violate military orders while (a) waiting for the process to proceed, (b) violate orders and then attempt to use it as a defense.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Seems like the Idaho Board will not be taking administrative action against the Pharmacist.


State: Nampa pharmacist OK in denying drug to woman | KBOI 2 - Boise News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News Boise, Idaho | Local & Regional



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

And a nurse anesthetist does not actually preform an abortion, they just stands around making sure the patient does not die, yet they is allowed to opt out. That makes your whole premise for basing your argument on faulty.

As for the Muslim woman who wants to be a dancer which you think proves something, it really doesn't. No one would hire a woman in a burkha as a stripper in the first place, and she would never want to be a stripper. The reason I ignored the example when Divecon brought it up was it is so ridiculous in the first place. That you are trying to use it to defend your position shows how desperate you really are.

If a pharmacist owns his pharmacy, is responsible only to himself for the profitability of his business, your stance would still deny him a conscious objection. You can drop all the discussions about employers and employees because it is irrelevant..

 

[AllieBaba]

>


Seems like the Idaho Board will not be taking administrative action against the Pharmacist.


State: Nampa pharmacist OK in denying drug to woman | KBOI 2 - Boise News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News Boise, Idaho | Local & Regional



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Update on the facts:
Walgreens called PP and spoke with their regional media director. Why? Because Walgreens is worried about the negative media this is giving them. Walgreens is a well run organization.
Walgreens took prompt action and informed PP media director Kristen Plosser that they informed the pharmacist that what they did was wrong, that it will never happen again and that the pharmacist in question was told specifically she should have handed it off to another colleague and was instructed to do so in the future.
But wait a minute. Walgreens did all this not even knowing if any of the allegations were true or not.
Of course all of these allegations are false. Abortion is wrong and anyone involved in it is a liar and they made this entire episode up.

Do you have some sort of link, or is this simply another attempt to distort the facts to favor your position?

"Idiots are always able to post links, intelligent people can think for themselves".
Verbatim by YOU.

Practice what you preach would be a start for you.

 

[Immanuel]

>


Seems like the Idaho Board will not be taking administrative action against the Pharmacist.


State: Nampa pharmacist OK in denying drug to woman | KBOI 2 - Boise News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News Boise, Idaho | Local & Regional



>>>>

Thanks for information.

Although the link does not tell us what the facts were in the case, I still feel that what the pharmacist did was wrong, if the facts presented in the OP are accurate. I can understand if the drug were RU-486 or something else intended to cause an abortion, but it does not seem right to me not to issue a drug to stop the bleeding whether or not it was caused by an abortion.

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

Idiots are always able to post links, intelligent people can think for themselves.

Do you have some sort of link, or is this simply another attempt to distort the facts to favor your position?

All I can say is -



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

>


Seems like the Idaho Board will not be taking administrative action against the Pharmacist.


State: Nampa pharmacist OK in denying drug to woman | KBOI 2 - Boise News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News Boise, Idaho | Local & Regional



>>>>

You claimed this never happened numerous times.
"The Idaho State Board of Pharmacy says a Nampa area pharmacist did nothing wrong when they denied filling a woman's prescription last year"
"there is absolutely no evidence it is true" AllieBabble
Allie gives a link that states without any doubt that the drug was denied by this pharmacist and offers it as her best evidence that there is "absolutely no evidence it is true".
Under the law there is nothing a state board can do. Statute allowed it.
Case closed.

 

[geauxtohell]

And a nurse anesthetist does not actually preform an abortion, they just stands around making sure the patient does not die, yet they is allowed to opt out. That makes your whole premise for basing your argument on faulty.

As for the Muslim woman who wants to be a dancer which you think proves something, it really doesn't. No one would hire a woman in a burkha as a stripper in the first place, and she would never want to be a stripper. The reason I ignored the example when Divecon brought it up was it is so ridiculous in the first place. That you are trying to use it to defend your position shows how desperate you really are.

If a pharmacist owns his pharmacy, is responsible only to himself for the profitability of his business, your stance would still deny him a conscious objection. You can drop all the discussions about employers and employees because it is irrelevant..

You are obviously slow on the uptake, so let me spell this out for your: since you are incapable of discussing this issue without falsely attributing quotes to me, miss-stating my positions, and making inferences that you claim are my beliefs, I see little point in continuing on with you. There is another example in your above quote: I responded to the Muslim dancer hypothetical. It wasn't my creation, and it wouldn't have been my choice to draw an analogy from. However, it's generally considered common courtesy to respond to posters question. Yet, somehow, I have assumed responsibility for it.

The fact that you are now tossing out personal attacks affirms that you are a waste of time on this thread.

There are other people (like the poster I responded too) who are apparently capable of talking about this in a rational manner. You just aren't one of them.

Again, posters like you are why I generally avoid threads on abortion. You refuse to do any nuance on this issue and you refuse to entertain other people's opinions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Idiots are always able to post links, intelligent people can think for themselves.

Do you have some sort of link, or is this simply another attempt to distort the facts to favor your position?

All I can say is -



>>>>

I caught that also.
Wham it zero on set, EP on ready, 2nd team KO team on mass.

 

[AllieBaba]

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...

 

[geauxtohell]

Also, you have no idea why it was denied.

Neither do you.

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

It's idiotic hyperbole like this that leads me to suspect your original instance that no one talk about this until all the facts are in were really just an attempt to stymie discussion on the matter.

How did that work out for you?

BTW, this doesn't close the book on this matter. There still could be a civil challenge.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where did I say nobody should talk about it?

Link, please.

 

[AllieBaba]

And..I said all along I didn't know why the pharmacist denied the med.

 

[AllieBaba]

I also said you yoo hoos would feel stupid when it turned out to be nothing.

Do you feel stupid? Probably not, it's pretty much your state of being..you probably don't even notice.

 

[Modbert]

I also said you yoo hoos would feel stupid when it turned out to be nothing.

Actually, you tried to say this incident never happened.

No, there's no confirmation.

PP said that they had taken corrective action, but no specifics..and again, it's from PP.

Probably the pharmacist is a figment of somebody's imagination. The next press release from PP will probably "affirm" that the pharmacist absconded to Guatemala, or has disappeared, the victim of an unsolved kidnapping, or committed suicide because of extreme guilt, and out of respect for the family, PP will refuse to release the name...

What happened?

PP alleged that an unnamed pharmacist refused to fill a scrip to an unnamed person, via an unnamed nurse practioner?

Beautiful. Those are some mighty heavy duty facts.

Don't worry, Quantum did as well.

How about this one, the pharmacist never had a chance to issue the prescription because the whole thing was fabricated. That makes more sense to me than the story I am reading.

A post you thanked him for.

 

[Gadawg73]

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...

I am anti abortion. I have never met anyone that is pro abortion.
I am also a true patriot and defender of freedom.
I fear the power of government. Equal protection of the LAW and LIMITED GOVERNMENT is what I defend.
It takes guts but someone has to do it. The weak can step aside and blow up legal clinics killing innocent bystanders and then hide in the mountains for years.
Abortion is horrible but is a health family matter.
Doctors do abortions. NO LAW will ever stop abortions. Wealthy women will always get them no matter what and the poor will find a state that will do it.
The facts always are ignored by ideologues.

 

[blu]

the pharmacist should be shot in both knee caps and then thrown in a pool with sharks