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

[Modbert]

Ah. Poor Allie. You apparently thought you were going to pop back up on here and get a mea culpa from us, as opposed to the truth; we don't give a flip about your new found devotion to equal time. You've contributed nothing to this thread except the patently obvious (We only know one side of the story).

Thanks for that Einstein. We still managed to talk about the issue.

Hey, where did your post about how much your rep went up on this thread go?

I always find it amusing when "Conservatives" are advocating for what is essentially the fairness doctrine on USMB.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's all in your head, slobbert.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I don't see that anyone verified it was a conscience thing. That's just what PP said. Walgreen's didn't deny or confirm it. And the state just said there was no fault.

You are claiming that which is not in evidence, the Board did not say there was "No Fault", it said the Idaho Pharmacy Act did not mandate the filling of prescriptions. It's very possible the pharmacist was "at fault" just that his actions were not subject to administrative sanctions.



BTW - Anybody but me notice the Nurse Practitioners name is contained in the Boards response? Wasn't it a big deal because no name had been released in the press reporting resulting in the claim that no valid complaint had even been filed?


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

And I don't see that anyone verified it was a conscience thing. That's just what PP said. Walgreen's didn't deny or confirm it. And the state just said there was no fault.

You are claiming that which is not in evidence, the Board did not say there was "No Fault", it said the Idaho Pharmacy Act did not mandate the filling of prescriptions. It's very possible the pharmacist was "at fault" just that his actions were not subject to administrative sanctions.



BTW - Anybody but me notice the Nurse Practitioners name is contained in the Boards response? Wasn't it a big deal because no name had been released in the press reporting resulting in the claim that no valid complaint had even been filed?


>>>>

Sad that most Americans do not know there is a big difference between not guilty and innocent.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Cant imagine this thread is still going.

 

[bodecea]

And I don't see that anyone verified it was a conscience thing. That's just what PP said. Walgreen's didn't deny or confirm it. And the state just said there was no fault.

You are claiming that which is not in evidence, the Board did not say there was "No Fault", it said the Idaho Pharmacy Act did not mandate the filling of prescriptions. It's very possible the pharmacist was "at fault" just that his actions were not subject to administrative sanctions.



BTW - Anybody but me notice the Nurse Practitioners name is contained in the Boards response? Wasn't it a big deal because no name had been released in the press reporting resulting in the claim that no valid complaint had even been filed?


>>>>

Sad that most Americans do not know there is a big difference between not guilty and innocent.

You'd think O.J. Simpson would have taught them that.

 

[AllieBaba]

WTH?

How did OJ get into this?

LOL!

You have reached epic, dare I say it...RAVI....heights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

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.


>>>>

I wasn't wrong, I never said it was easy, I said it happened, and that the two cases I know succeeded. One happened with a guy I went to went camp with, and he got out about 6 months after he raised the issue. The other happened to a guy that was served in Korea and Nam, and then converted to Jehovah's Witness. That took longer, about a year if I remember correctly, but he got out with full retirement and benefits despite his refusal to obey any orders that had anything to do with facilitating anything to do with war at all. He even refused to salute before he finally got his discharge.

It happens, period, which is all I said.

 

[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?

"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.

Interesting. If you take my statement in context you will see that I was pointing out that him positing the links did not disprove anything I was saying, and I then proceeded to explain why. He didn't seem to understand the point, and still attempted to prove I was wrong.

Challenging you to prove a statement is not covered by that, and your attempt to deflect in light of the fact that the state board disagrees with your assertion that the pharmacist was wrong more than proves that this is nothing but an attempt to twist the facts to suit your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>


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

I agree that, if the facts presented in the complaint are true that the pharmacist was wrong. However, it appears that under Idaho law a pharmacist does not have to fill a prescription at all. Not sure why they decided to carve out a conscious exemption on top of that, but they did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What the ****?

Did you, or did you not, post this?

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

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.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

If that is not a quote from you then complain to the mods that I am rewriting your quotes, otherwise I suggest you take back your assertion that I am misquoting you.

Your beliefs are quite plain.

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.

As I have said before, **** you and your patronizing attitude, If you do not want me to challenge you when I see you say something like this, don't say it. You still have done nothing to clarify your position, other than to state that the obvious interpretation of your position is wrong.

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. I would like to point out that I can think of a post in this thread where I agreed with you, so do not try to claim this is some sort of personal vendetta. I can understand if you do not like to be called out when you are wrong, but it will not stop me, or anyone else, from doing so,

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is not a denial that anything ever happened, it is an alternative explanation. You, however, have a personal grudge against me, and are also stupid, so I do expect you to understand the difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is funny coming from you, who ignores the fact that the pharmacist did not break the law, and insisted form the beginning that the initial complain contained a name, even thought the letter that was linked to specifically said that the name was not asked for, and that the complainer regretted not asking for a name.

I still think that, if the facts were as outlined in the complaint are true the pharmacist was wrong. I also still think that the facts, as presented in the complaint, are not complete. Yet, to you, I am an ideologue because I will not condemn someone who it has been proven did nothing wrong.

Makes me wonder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I say nobody should talk about it?

Link, please.

I said: "No one should talk about it into all the facts are in."

You are right, you never said "no one should talk about it".

However, you spent the better part of five annoying the hell out of the rest of us about only having one side of the story when it was clear that everyone was more interested in discussing the larger issue in the context of this story.

And about three other posters told you that.

I don't care if you're annoyed.

And I put as much stock in the "about three other posters" and their idiocy as I do in yours. You and "about three other posters" are a drop in the bucket and do not represent "everyone".

Moron, lol.

He thinks that anyone that agrees with him is intelligent, and ignores or belittles people who disagree. I am just glad he is not my doctor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.





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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The incident as presented in the OP and subsequent posts likely didn't ever happen.

We don't know. The state found the claim wasn't substantiated. We don't know why. Could be because it never happened.

That's false Allie, you are making an assumption on incomplete data, the same thing you chastised others for earlier in the thread:

The incident as presented in the OP and subsequent posts likely didn't ever happen: You have no basis for that statement. The letter released by the board says that the claim of violation of the HIPPA act is not within the purview of the board.

The state found the claim wasn't substantiated. The board did not state that the claim was unsubstantiated. The board said that the claims did not fall within the purview of the board based on the Idaho Pharmacy Act.​

The letter states that the board could not confirm **ALL** the allegations, mainly because some of the allegations pertained to HIPPA which the board refused to address. The board did not say the facts were mis-stated, they point out that there is no statute in Idaho code or in the Idaho Pharmacy Act that requires a pharmacist to fill a prescription.

The board did clearly disagree with the allegation of grave physical danger based on the prescription being filled in another location.



For those that would like to read the letter it is here -->> Ruling Idaho Pharmacy Board



>>>>

Funny how you leave out the part about the noard pointing out that to violate HIPAA someone has to release information.

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

 

[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?

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.

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.


>>>>

I wasn't wrong, I never said it was easy, I said it happened, and that the two cases I know succeeded. One happened with a guy I went to went camp with, and he got out about 6 months after he raised the issue. The other happened to a guy that was served in Korea and Nam, and then converted to Jehovah's Witness. That took longer, about a year if I remember correctly, but he got out with full retirement and benefits despite his refusal to obey any orders that had anything to do with facilitating anything to do with war at all. He even refused to salute before he finally got his discharge.

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.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>