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

[NYcarbineer]

Do you personally understand the difference between the state forcing a Muslim who has a religious objection to alcohol to sell beer at the gas station he owns and your absurd attempts to make your analogies actually fit the situation?

Nobody is forcing a person to become a pharmacist.

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not forgetting that. And yes, you need the federal government for certain things. Interestingly enough, the AoC included a right to travel. I have said (not here because it has never come up) that there should be an amendment that includes the right to travel written for quite some time.

You do not understand federalism as defined by the authors/ratifiers of the Constitution. Even the federalists (who were, in reality, nationalists) did not agree with your sentiments. If you want to understand it then you must read what they wrote. Every time I mention what they wrote you scoff and declare that I can't possibly know what they meant. You do that without reading what they wrote which is funny.

Again, you are free to hold your own opinion but you do so wilfully ignoring what the original authors wrote. That is your perrogative but do not tell me that I don't get it when you insist on NOT reading what is available to you.

The first line in my signature applies here.

Mike

I am not the one who is scoffing at your attempts to expound on what the founders wanted. I generally just ignore that because it is pretty much irrelevant. We now have the 14th Amendment which was clearly meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It doesn't even matter if that is right or wrong, it simply is. None of that means I haven't read the Federalists papers, it just means that you are ignoring the fact that the Constitution is substantially different from what they wanted.

In other words, the states no longer have the ability to broadly experiment and test social theories. We are stuck with a system that has an federal government that interferes with some of the things states should be able to do, and that did not occur because the courts have spent 235 years expanding their power. The courts actively resisted being forced to incorporate federal rights against states, they even ruled the first civil rights bill unconstitutional in the hope that moderates in southern states would work to preserve and expand civil rights for blacks.

It took a century after that before federal courts finally accepted that states were not following the advise of the court and start to intervene, finally allowing Congress to enact laws that addressed the fact that states were denying rights to people.

As I've said numerous times. The federalist papers are just the beginning.

The Constitution, and the amendments, were contracts that were signed. The meaning of a contract doesn't change and it is my goal to restore the validity of the contracts.

And again. You are wrong about the 14th amendment. It was not meant to incorporate the BoR on the states, it was meant to prevent the states from treating people differently within the states. It was not to confer new rights but to ensure the rights that already existed were preserved for everyone.

Mike

The Constitution is not a contract.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everything.

What is specifically wrong with the analogy?

They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.

If the state compels a pharmacy to employ pharmacists who'll only do part of their job, what's that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What state law requires the hippocratic oath as a condition of receiving a degree?

(or as part of an appropriate medical license?)


>>>>

As far as I know, all of them because they require people who take licensing tests meet the requirements of the AMA, which includes the oath.

1. Doctor's are not required to belong to the AMA to receive a medical license from a state.

2. The AMA does not require the Hippocratic Oath.

3. Individuals can voluntarily take any oath they wish, but it does not impact their ability to receive a license.

"The AMA does not have formal policy related to the Oath. Some of the tenets of the Oath represent long-standing ethical traditions that the AMA supports, while others are somewhat outdated. A May 2000 article from AMNews discusses the modern meaning of the Hippocratic Oath.

The AMA used to reprint a translation of the Oath in our Code of Medical Ethics. We still have information on the history and relation of the Oath to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics included in the preface to the Code.

Physicians may take other oaths when they begin or when they graduate from medical school. In addition, they may pledge to uphold professional standards and codes of ethics when they become members of professional associations, such as the AMA or their specialty or state medical society. For instance, every physician who is a member of the AMA must uphold the AMA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.

Because most oaths and codes are administered by voluntary associations and not by regulatory agencies (such as the state agencies that issue licenses to practice medicine), the most serious disciplinary action these voluntary associations typically can take is to expel the member physician from the association.

However, regulatory agencies that oversee physicians take allegations of unethical or unprofessional conduct very seriously, and such actions may warrant more serious disciplinary action against a physician’s license to practice. For further information on how to contact these agencies, please see the information above on how to file a complaint."

Frequently Asked Questions in Ethics​

>>>>

I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nobody is forcing a person to become a pharmacist.

Someone, however, is trying to force people who own a business to do something that is against their religion.

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

Why?

Rights are never limited, what is limited is the government's power to infringe on rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is specifically wrong with the analogy?

They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.

If the state compels a pharmacy to employ pharmacists who'll only do part of their job, what's that?

If you want to repeal the ADA I am right there with you.

 

[saveliberty]

I think the college degree requires it. Now is someone going to say you can be a doctor without a degree?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are wrong about the 14th amendment. It was not meant to incorporate the BoR on the states, it was meant to prevent the states from treating people differently within the states.

Actually John Bingham, considered the principle author of the 14th Amendment clearly stated that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights Applicable to the State.

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

What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day? Nothing at all. And I am perfectly confident that that grant of power would have been there but for the fact that its insertion in the Constitution would have been utterly incompatible with the existence of slavery in any State; for although slaves might not have been admitted to be citizens they must have been admitted to be persons. This is the only reason why it was not there."

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1090

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

"Article 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States,” are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make.”

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?

:Shrug:

It came up in another thread on another board a long time ago and I happened to check on it and it stuck in my head.


>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

What is specifically wrong with the analogy?

They were all pathetic from start to finish. None of them even mentioned the state compelling people to do anything.

If the state compels a pharmacy to employ pharmacists who'll only do part of their job, what's that?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here, but if the state compels..., then it is simply more intrusion by the government on our personal liberties.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?

:Shrug:

It came up in another thread on another board a long time ago and I happened to check on it and it stuck in my head.


>>>>

I don't mind learning new facts. I always thought the oath was a requirement, it might help in the future to know it isn't.

 

[saveliberty]

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

 

[saveliberty]

I guess as far as I know was completely off base then, wasn't it?

:Shrug:

It came up in another thread on another board a long time ago and I happened to check on it and it stuck in my head.


>>>>

I don't mind learning new facts. I always thought the oath was a requirement, it might help in the future to know it isn't.

I looked it up and WW is on target. Some colleges still require it, but ceratinly not all. No wonder the medical profession is so screwed up these days.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.

What good is that if he/she doesn't take it to heart?

Hell, people swear to tell the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth on a bible and they still commit perjury. You can ask me to recite the oath too, but if I don't believe in what it says, what have you accomplished?

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.

What good is that if he/she doesn't take it to heart?

Hell, people swear to tell the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth on a bible and they still commit perjury. You can ask me to recite the oath too, but if I don't believe in what it says, what have you accomplished?

Immie

Basis for a good lawsuit.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm requiring my doctor to recite it before any major medical attention.

What good is that if he/she doesn't take it to heart?

Hell, people swear to tell the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth on a bible and they still commit perjury. You can ask me to recite the oath too, but if I don't believe in what it says, what have you accomplished?

Immie

Basis for a good lawsuit.

Only if I actually practice medicine on you because I do not have a license to practice medicine.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is something a religious person needs to take into account when they go into business.

Your religious rights don't follow everywhere you want to go, any more than your free speech rights or your gun rights.

Rights are always limited.

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?

 

[Syphon]

One of the most ignorant posts I've read in awhile. A right only becomes limited when it enfringes on the rights of another. What you describe NYC, is religious persecution. Forcing people out of their jobs by imposing rules which exclude them.

you are actually correct, so by a pharmacist infringing on anothers right to choose to use Plan B is in fact a violation of the individuals rights.

Wow, did you get that backwards. The only way that would work is if the pharmacists don't have any rights themselves. Are they slaves?

wow so again, i can pick and choose whom i provide service to in my profession no matter what? your understanding of individual rights is sorely lacking. why does it have to stop with plan B, as i have said before? why not refuse to dispense antibiotics? or cancer drugs? what if a christian scientist became a pharmacist and didnt want to dispense anything? since the pharmacist is not personally using the product, the objection to provide it as part of a chosen profession become null and void. they are infringing upon the right of the individual consumer to choose how to live his or her life. the religious right always gets this wrong. this is the same way in which the religious right wants to force prayer in to public school. well i dont believe in your religion so why should the government mandate me to follow yours?

in this instance, the government is not mandating the an individual take or be forced to take / use certain product. they are mandating that it be accessible.

you fail see past the narrowness of your argument and apply your reasoning to other areas of the world. i can not pick and choose which parts of my job i am required to perform without consequence regardless of religious views. if dispensing medication is a required part of my profession, the type of medication with which i am required to dispense becomes irrelevant. i am not paid to be the moral gate keeper of another decisions. i am paid to perform a service.

unfortunately you can not, and will not ever understand this.