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

[Immanuel]

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

He? Did say can, not must.

I have to tell you, that if the government tried to force me to dispense a product, I would object regardless of the product (I'm not even sure if Plan B is an abortifant or a contraceptive or can be both and that I personally would not dispense it despite my religious beliefs) and I would in no way assist anyone to get it. I don't care if the product is bubble gum.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

if you are under obligation to perform a service as part of your employment, then yes you can be forced, or you can be subject to disciplinary action or even termination.

I've already stated my opinion on the employee/employer relationship in this matter probably half a dozen times. I'm not going to put you throught that again.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

They can simply refer people to another pharmacy, and can even call them up and make sure that pharmacy has the drug.

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

if you are under obligation to perform a service as part of your employment, then yes you can be forced, or you can be subject to disciplinary action or even termination.

Yes, but not by the government. And further if the employer chose not to punish the employee then the government couldn't do anything to him/her either.

 

[Syphon]

If I were opposed to the product, why would I assist them in that manner. Am I under some kind of an obligation to find the product for them if I don't have it?

Immie

if you are under obligation to perform a service as part of your employment, then yes you can be forced, or you can be subject to disciplinary action or even termination.

Yes, but not by the government. And further if the employer chose not to punish the employee then the government couldn't do anything to him/her either.

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

if you are under obligation to perform a service as part of your employment, then yes you can be forced, or you can be subject to disciplinary action or even termination.

Yes, but not by the government. And further if the employer chose not to punish the employee then the government couldn't do anything to him/her either.

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

 

[Syphon]

Yes, but not by the government. And further if the employer chose not to punish the employee then the government couldn't do anything to him/her either.

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

your comment is a bit off topic. since in this specific case the employee was not breaking an employer policy, they were in fact breaking a state law.

try again......

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

your comment is a bit off topic. since in this specific case the employee was not breaking an employer policy, they were in fact breaking a state law.

try again......

post the law they broke

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, but not by the government. And further if the employer chose not to punish the employee then the government couldn't do anything to him/her either.

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

Don't confuse him with facts.

 

[Immanuel]

go back and read my post about the supreme court decisions and try again. it has already been decided that in fact they can.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

your comment is a bit off topic. since in this specific case the employee was not breaking an employer policy, they were in fact breaking a state law.

try again......

Bad laws will never be changed if good people don't stand up to oppose them.

I'm stealing that quote from someone or paraphrasing it. I have no idea who said it, but I know I didn't come up with it.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

As so many drug stores have chosen not to sell cigarettes because "they are bad for you" I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to not carry anything else they object to.

 

[Syphon]

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling where the government has been awarded the right to punish an employer who doesn't take action against an employee who breaks company policy.

Now reread that VERY slowly and realize that I am talking about company policy, NOT LAW. Of course the government has an interest in employees who break the law.

your comment is a bit off topic. since in this specific case the employee was not breaking an employer policy, they were in fact breaking a state law.

try again......

post the law they broke

have you been following any of this thread?

the 2007 law states the Pharmacy's in the state of WA are required to provide Plan B.
A pharmacist refused to provide it when it was requested.
hence she broke the law.

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.41.020 and § 70.41.350 (2002) relate to emergency care for victims of sexual assault. The law declares it essential for all hospital emergency rooms to provide emergency contraception as a treatment option to any woman who seeks treatment as a result of a sexual assault. The law requires hospitals providing emergency care to victims of sexual assault to: provide medically and factually accurate information about emergency contraception, orally inform victims they may receive emergency contraception at the hospital upon request, and provide emergency contraception immediately to each victim who requests it. The law directs the secretary of health to develop, prepare, and produce informational materials relating to emergency contraception for the prevention of pregnancy in rape victims for distribution to and use in all emergency rooms. (2002 Wash. Laws, Chap. 116, SB 6537)
Wash. Rev Code Ann. § 18.64.011 under a very broad collaborative practice agreement, pharmacists may dispense emergency contraception if specially trained and part of a collaborative practice. (Please note that this agreement does not specifically include emergency contraception, but it is included in practice.)
Emergency Contraception State Laws

 

[Syphon]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

 

[Syphon]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

how was that a different case?

you not too smart are you??? you didnt even read the ruling.... idiot

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

how was that a different case?

you not too smart are you??? you didnt even read the ruling.... idiot

I realize you're busy getting your ass kicked by several on this thread, but when you get a chance can you post the law that was broken?

 

[Syphon]

already did, if youre not following the debate, thats not my problem. go back and take a look

 

[Ravi]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here more info on the appellate court ruling that overturned the district courts ruling calling the law unconstitutional.

Pharmaceutical Plan B discrimination ruling [9th Circuit] - Gazette

That was a different case, idiot.

how was that a different case?

you not too smart are you??? you didnt even read the ruling.... idiot

The case you cited is from 2009, the one I used to start the thread is from this week, why would I need to read the decision? Are you saying that the 9th circuit has a time machine and overruled this decision almost 3 years before it was issued?

Idiot.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

Oh, you were ALMOST there.

It's simple, vote with your dollars, but recognize that other people have rights to. If I own a business and you patronize that business and I treat you in a way you don't like, then you leave and don't return, you don't run to the government. Provided of course that I haven't broke any laws . Certainly owning a business doesn't give one license to say assault a person.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wouldn't go to a pharmacist that refused to fill a doctor's prescription. If he or she lets their morals cloud their judgement, they should find another line of work.

Seriously, if the pharmacist doesn't think a cancer treatment will work they can say it but they can't deny it.

This is no difference.

Would you go to a pharmacy that the DEA shut down because it filled a doctor's prescription that the DEA did not like, or would you prefer to go to one the DEA did not shut down because it didn't fill that prescription?