Mike the Usurper wrote:

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

If the pharmacy doesn't carry something (and in this case they comment later that a bit over half the pharmacies in the state don't carry it), then they don't carry it. If I owned a pharmacy, and I carried it, and I had an employee who refused to fill a prescription, I ask why, and if there is a medical reason (drug A, which the person is on, reacts badly with drug B) then we tell the person and we refer them back to their doctor based on that. That's a valid reason to defer filling the prescription.

If I have an employee who refuses to do it for "religious or moral reasons," I get a new employee. Kosher butchers don't carry bacon, and religious kook pharmacies don't carry RU-486. I can't get bacon at a kosher deli, they don't carry it. But if I go to a non-kosher butcher for bacon (which they have) and get told, "No, I won't give you bacon because it's against my religion," then that person is working in the wrong place.

That clerk should get to keep the baby or pay for the real abortion.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

But if I go to a non-kosher butcher for bacon (which they have) and get told, "No, I won't give you bacon because it's against my religion," then that person is working in the wrong place.

I hate pharmacists. They get paid a professional salary to operate a cash register and hand me a box (which usually takes about 20 minutes). Pharmacists are not needed anymore. There are cheaper ways to ensure that people get the drugs they are supposed to get. Those that want personal assistance with the drugs should pay for it, rather then forcing the rest of us to prop up this beaurocratic niche in the midst of skyrocketing healthcare costs. I do not think it ought to be legal for a pharmacists to refuse to fill a perscription for personal reasons. Thats between me and my doctor. This is not the only context in which I have seen this kind of thing occur. Pharmacists should not be empowered to exercise their personal whims over people's healthcare.

Decius wrote:
I hate pharmacists.

I do not think it ought to be legal for a pharmacists to refuse to fill a perscription for personal reasons.

A recent episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm had a subplot about this topic, although not having anything to do with crime, as with this news story. In the Curb subplot, Larry goes to the pharmacist to fill a prescription for this father, only to have the pharmacist attempt to convince him to choose a different drug instead. The pharmacist, whose name was Cofey, would say, "Yes, but I _prefer_ this drug." So Larry goes back to his own doctor and asks him to change the prescription. After an argument, he does. Later, for other reasons, ultimately proven to be mistaken, Larry ends up deciding not to take the pharmacist's advice.

In Larry's case, the pharmacist wasn't arguing on moral or legal grounds, but (implicitly) on the basis of some kind of kickback from the manufacturer of the preferred drug.

k wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

If the pharmacy doesn't carry something (and in this case they comment later that a bit over half the pharmacies in the state don't carry it), then they don't carry it. If I owned a pharmacy, and I carried it, and I had an employee who refused to fill a prescription, I ask why, and if there is a medical reason (drug A, which the person is on, reacts badly with drug B) then we tell the person and we refer them back to their doctor based on that. That's a valid reason to defer filling the prescription.

If I have an employee who refuses to do it for "religious or moral reasons," I get a new employee. Kosher butchers don't carry bacon, and religious kook pharmacies don't carry RU-486. I can't get bacon at a kosher deli, they don't carry it. But if I go to a non-kosher butcher for bacon (which they have) and get told, "No, I won't give you bacon because it's against my religion," then that person is working in the wrong place.

Agreed. For the record I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It's not inconsistent.

If I think war is immoral, I don't join the army. I *certainly* don't join the army, work myself up to quartermaster, and then refuse to issue ammo to the soldiers. That's the analogue here. If you don't like it, protest, lobby, vote your concience, pray, whatever. But bugger off when it's time for other people to make their choices.

I guess the bitch could have become a pharmacist, herself. Couldn't she? One of the great things about this nation is that women are free to abort their children, and others are free to consider them murdering scum. Additionally, others are free to refuse help to women who wish to murder their children. Then there would be no problem. She was probably asking for it anyway. Most people need little dramas to get through their insignificant lives. By the way, being anti-abortion and pro-choice ARE inconsistent. It is a hypocritical way of saying that you want to get laid without consequences, yet you don't wanna shell out a couple of bucks to help the bitch pay for the abortion when the time comes. Shame on you. I myself am pro-abortion in every way. The world is overpopulated, people are bloodbags of shit and babies are a disgusting burdon on humanity. Abortion should be mandatory. I am not pro-choice at all. Women who wish to have children should be gassed to death. They are wasteful breeding cows and should be skewered through the gut and cooked on a spit to feed to some of the poorest of our worlds overburden.

Vile wrote:

By the way, being anti-abortion and pro-choice ARE inconsistent. It is a hypocritical way of saying that you want to get laid without consequences, yet you don't wanna shell out a couple of bucks to help the bitch pay for the abortion when the time comes. Shame on you.

Since pretty much everything you say is inane, I'll only respond to the specific part where you assess my position. Incorrectly.

I believe the following :

1. Abortion may or may not be "murder" in the strictest sense, but the very fact that it's questionable means I'd ultimately feel better if it wasn't ever done.

2. It's 100% not up to me. Unless i'm the father and then it's 99% not up to me. Someone else has to carry and birth that thing, so they get to make the call.

2b. If we lived in a society in which the "villiage" could raise the children, my attitude would be less stringent. Since, in fact, we live in a world which is unsypathetic to these kinds of situations, it becomes the choice of the mother.

3. I *do* want to get laid without consequenses. Who doesn't? I do not, of course, believe this is realistic in our world.

4. Pharmacists should not be empowered to make judgements on the fulfillment of a prescription signed by a doctor unless they demonstrate a verifiable medical concern.

Vile wrote:

I guess the bitch could have become a pharmacist, herself. Couldn't she? One of the great things about this nation is that women are free to abort their children, and others are free to consider them murdering scum. Additionally, others are free to refuse help to women who wish to murder their children. Then there would be no problem. She was probably asking for it anyway. Most people need little dramas to get through their insignificant lives. By the way, being anti-abortion and pro-choice ARE inconsistent. It is a hypocritical way of saying that you want to get laid without consequences, yet you don't wanna shell out a couple of bucks to help the bitch pay for the abortion when the time comes. Shame on you. I myself am pro-abortion in every way. The world is overpopulated, people are bloodbags of shit and babies are a disgusting burdon on humanity. Abortion should be mandatory. I am not pro-choice at all. Women who wish to have children should be gassed to death. They are wasteful breeding cows and should be skewered through the gut and cooked on a spit to feed to some of the poorest of our worlds overburden.

I don't think the pill exactly "Aborts a pregnancy." I think it stops the egg from being fertilized. It's no more murderous than a condom. This pharmacist was an idiot. He should have been aborted.

k wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

If the pharmacy doesn't carry something (and in this case they comment later that a bit over half the pharmacies in the state don't carry it), then they don't carry it. If I owned a pharmacy, and I carried it, and I had an employee who refused to fill a prescription, I ask why, and if there is a medical reason (drug A, which the person is on, reacts badly with drug B) then we tell the person and we refer them back to their doctor based on that. That's a valid reason to defer filling the prescription.

If I have an employee who refuses to do it for "religious or moral reasons," I get a new employee. Kosher butchers don't carry bacon, and religious kook pharmacies don't carry RU-486. I can't get bacon at a kosher deli, they don't carry it. But if I go to a non-kosher butcher for bacon (which they have) and get told, "No, I won't give you bacon because it's against my religion," then that person is working in the wrong place.

Agreed. For the record I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It's not inconsistent.

If I think war is immoral, I don't join the army. I *certainly* don't join the army, work myself up to quartermaster, and then refuse to issue ammo to the soldiers. That's the analogue here. If you don't like it, protest, lobby, vote your concience, pray, whatever. But bugger off when it's time for other people to make their choices.

Get used to this because it's not illegal and is happening all over the place. It's not just RU-486 either. I've had this happen while trying to buy condoms. I think you can see where this is going. It's no different than when private security was ruled to have authority over who could enter a mall and what you could do there. Ultimately, you cannot grant that kind of power to anyone, since their prejudices will get the best of them.