Government VS pharmacies over plan B and religion

[lothar]

Agree with these, if the pharmacy wishes not to carry it, fine. Once the pharmacy does carry it, however, religious objections of the individual dispensing should not enter into the process. Don't want to risk dispensing it? Do not work at that pharmacy.

This. :thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

You missed this little gem in your article.
Why should any business be coerced and forced to carry a particular product?

Because pharmacies enjoy special privileges provided by State licensing. As a group, they're granted the privilege of making a profit selling drugs having restricted availability.

As such, the state has the right to demand that pharmacies carry & dispense certain drugs, just as they demand record keeping wrt prescription drugs.

By extension of the argument, a Faith Healer could become a pharmacist, refuse to dispense any drugs, and their champions here would endorse their actions. It's absurd.

Nobody has ever been forced to be a pharmacist, so the religious nuts in the profession need to get over themselves, quit trying to run other people's lives.

 

[lothar]

Because pharmacies enjoy special privileges provided by State licensing. As a group, they're granted the privilege of making a profit selling drugs having restricted availability.

As such, the state has the right to demand that pharmacies carry & dispense certain drugs, just as they demand record keeping wrt prescription drugs.

By extension of the argument, a Faith Healer could become a pharmacist, refuse to dispense any drugs, and their champions here would endorse their actions. It's absurd.

Nobody has ever been forced to be a pharmacist, so the religious nuts in the profession need to get over themselves, quit trying to run other people's lives.

Not different from any other business.
The state is also free to drop that "exclusive" licensing privilege for pharmacies if it wants. They can also solve the "restricted availability" problem by making all drugs OTC if that's what you want.

Please.
No state has the right to tell me what I should carry on my shelf.
Any legislator or regulator that demands to tell us we have to carry Intron-A, Fentora, or Mylan brand Fentanyl would be sued to hell. That also applies to all products, BTW. I was only giving a few examples.

I don't have a right to use anyone else services. Why should you?
If a business tells you something you don't want or like, vote with both your feet and wallet. You don't need any state regulators to do that for you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not different from any other business.
The state is also free to drop that "exclusive" licensing privilege for pharmacies if it wants. They can also solve the "restricted availability" problem by making all drugs OTC if that's what you want.

Please.
No state has the right to tell me what I should carry on my shelf.
Any legislator or regulator that demands to tell us we have to carry Intron-A, Fentora, or Mylan brand Fentanyl would be sued to hell. That also applies to all products, BTW. I was only giving a few examples.

I don't have a right to use anyone else services. Why should you?
If a business tells you something you don't want or like, vote with both your feet and wallet. You don't need any state regulators to do that for you.

Stooping to absurdity in defense of absurdity. Nice.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Pharmacies should not be forced to carry particular drugs, however, if the pharmacy does have the drug on hand the pharmacist should not be allowed to pick and choose who he gives the drugs to.

There have been instances of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions for teenagers, for example.

I agree. I don't believe people have the right not to do their jobs because of religious objections. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. I do believe that the government has no business telling pharmacies what drugs they should or shouldn't carry.

 

[Wreckem]

Kinda like a democracy, where the majority have rule over the minority.

Except the constitution and SCOTUS protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Wreckem]

The arguements against plan B are fucking hilarious.

If they dont stock plan b, the shouldnt be stocking any birth control/contraceptive device. Or any aid that might cause single people to have sexxors. No condoms, no lubes, no ED meds. Etc.

 

[lopri]

No chance this rogue decision will be uphold in an appellate court. In the words of Justice Scalia,

The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development." Lyng, supra, 485 U.S. at 451. To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. at 167 -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. [n2]

Employment Division v. Smith

 

[Rainsford]

You missed this little gem in your article.
Why should any business be coerced and forced to carry a particular product?

For the same reason that a deli owner can't refuse to serve people because he doesn't like their skin color.

And the reason ISN'T that the government should intervene in private relationships between individuals. The fact is that the government is already involved in the business of deli owners and pharmacists, both of which benefit in many ways from government recognition of their business status. It seems unreasonable to claim the benefits of begin legally recognized as a pharmacist and reject the obligations that go along with it.

 

[Rainsford]

Not different from any other business.
The state is also free to drop that "exclusive" licensing privilege for pharmacies if it wants. They can also solve the "restricted availability" problem by making all drugs OTC if that's what you want.

Please.
No state has the right to tell me what I should carry on my shelf.
Any legislator or regulator that demands to tell us we have to carry Intron-A, Fentora, or Mylan brand Fentanyl would be sued to hell. That also applies to all products, BTW. I was only giving a few examples.

And you have no right to be legally recognized as a pharmacist by the government.

I don't have a right to use anyone else services. Why should you?
If a business tells you something you don't want or like, vote with both your feet and wallet. You don't need any state regulators to do that for you.

That's a much broader argument than we're having here. We live in a system where many behaviors of business are regulated in the interest of the consumer. And while voting with your wallet is a valid response, that hasn't stopped the government from deciding Safeway isn't allowed to poison me.

If you want to argue that business behavior towards customers should never, EVER be regulated by the government, that's a valid position. But I think you'll have a pretty uphill battle in convincing people that the free market works just fine in dealing with things on its own. There's substantial evidence to the contrary...

 

[zinfamous]

Except the constitution and SCOTUS protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

whoa whoa whoa!

you mean them activist judges?

 

[zinfamous]

No chance this rogue decision will be uphold in an appellate court. In the words of Justice Scalia,



Employment Division v. Smith

So Scalia should be cool with defending the rights of Rastafarians that have their pot confiscated by the DEA, right?

 

[lothar]

For the same reason that a deli owner can't refuse to serve people because he doesn't like their skin color.

And the reason ISN'T that the government should intervene in private relationships between individuals. The fact is that the government is already involved in the business of deli owners and pharmacists, both of which benefit in many ways from government recognition of their business status. It seems unreasonable to claim the benefits of begin legally recognized as a pharmacist and reject the obligations that go along with it.

Your comparison of a deli refusing to serve people based on their skin color and a pharmacy refusing to carry Intron-A, Mylan branded Fentanyl, Equate branded OTC products, or any other product are not analogous.

Can a state force a deli owner to stock pork?

 

[lothar]

And you have no right to be legally recognized as a pharmacist by the government.

That's a much broader argument than we're having here. We live in a system where many behaviors of business are regulated in the interest of the consumer. And while voting with your wallet is a valid response, that hasn't stopped the government from deciding Safeway isn't allowed to poison me.

If you want to argue that business behavior towards customers should never, EVER be regulated by the government, that's a valid position. But I think you'll have a pretty uphill battle in convincing people that the free market works just fine in dealing with things on its own. There's substantial evidence to the contrary...

The state has the right to deny or suspend my legal recognition if it wishes. Obviously, it doesn't...There are also 49 other states that one can practice, each with their own competing laws.
The state also has no right to tell me to stock a particular product.

Equating poison to a pharmacy being able to not stock Plan B, Intron-A, or Mylan branded Fentanyl? That's quite a reach, even for you.

Can you prove that free market doesn't work in the case of stocking Plan B which would warrant government intervention?
If you haven't noticed, in the articles linked earlier mentioned the major chains CVS/Walgreens support Plan B/Birth controls and there are many other places.

Similarly, a pharmacy can decide not to stock Plan B, cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara makeup if it wants.
I believe there was a thread here years ago about an independent pharmacy in Virginia that did that and went bankrupt. Free market works. Some chain store probably bought all their prescription files while the owner closed shop and lost the potential business revenue he could have built from selling all those products.
Those are high margin products the owner is avoiding.
Wholesale price of Plan B: $27.95(the generic wholesale price is even less than that, mark it up to $50 and people would still buy it regardless)
Price charged to the customer: $50

That's a 50% profit margin right there. Cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara have much higher profit margins than "general" merchandise.
Any pharmacy that wishes not to stock any product is free to do so and lose(or gain) it's profit margin. There isn't much profit margin for a pharmacy to be made in selling cereals, kit-kats, bread, and eggs.

Can you prove to me that free market doesn't work and therefore warrants government intervention of forcing a pharmacy, deli, or retailer to stock a particular product?

 

[Paratus]

The state has the right to deny or suspend my legal recognition if it wishes. Obviously, it doesn't...There are also 49 other states that one can practice, each with their own competing laws.
The state also has no right to tell me to stock a particular product.

Equating poison to a pharmacy being able to not stock Plan B, Intron-A, or Mylan branded Fentanyl? That's quite a reach, even for you.

Can you prove that free market doesn't work in the case of stocking Plan B which would warrant government intervention?
If you haven't noticed, in the articles linked earlier mentioned the major chains CVS/Walgreens support Plan B/Birth controls and there are many other places.

Similarly, a pharmacy can decide not to stock Plan B, cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara makeup if it wants.
I believe there was a thread here years ago about an independent pharmacy in Virginia that did that and went bankrupt. Free market works. Some chain store probably bought all their prescription files while the owner closed shop and lost the potential business revenue he could have built from selling all those products.
Those are high margin products the owner is avoiding.
Wholesale price of Plan B: $27.95(the generic wholesale price is even less than that, mark it up to $50 and people would still buy it regardless)
Price charged to the customer: $50

That's a 50% profit margin right there. Cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara have much higher profit margins than "general" merchandise.
Any pharmacy that wishes not to stock any product is free to do so and lose(or gain) it's profit margin. There isn't much profit margin for a pharmacy to be made in selling cereals, kit-kats, bread, and eggs.

Can you prove to me that free market doesn't work and therefore warrants government intervention of forcing a pharmacy, deli, or retailer to stock a particular product?

You want an example of the state telling a business what they can and can't stock?

Have you ever bought alcohol at a supermarket, pharmacy or liquor store? Strange how they are required to be licensed by the state and the state controls what they do sell.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

So Scalia should be cool with defending the rights of Rastafarians that have their pot confiscated by the DEA, right?

You read the quote wrong. Scalia is saying we can't let people decide if they will follow every law based on their religious beliefs. It goes against the very point of having laws in the first place.

 

[xBiffx]

You want an example of the state telling a business what they can and can't stock?

Have you ever bought alcohol at a supermarket, pharmacy or liquor store? Strange how they are required to be licensed by the state and the state controls what they do sell.

The problem with the alcohol example is that the state is limiting what you can and can't sell and it is not telling you what you have to sell. If you want to sell liquor, you get a license. The license does not say you have to sell liquor, nor does it say what types you have to stock.

Its still an interesting analogy though. If I go into a liquor store and they refuse to sell me Jack Daniels or they say they will only stock Wild Turkey, do I have a right to sue or should there be a law protecting me or making them sell Jack Daniels to me or have it available?

 

[Painman]

If Ron Paul mandates that a rape victim is subject to conscientious choice via whatever hospital she is able to drive up to, then HER choice is forever irrelevant, if she lives in the "wrong" part of the country.

Guess she should have moved to the "correct" part of the country before she got raped, according to Libertarian Wonderland Advocate Ron Paul.

He has always advocated for small gov't, but he's perfectly OK whenever the Right Boot comes and crushes your throat.

Because that's "just the free market excercising its First Amendment Rights". Or something.

Pro tip; The First Amendment means less and less, the more of your public space you cede to private entities.

...And the more power you cede to Crypto-Fascists like Ron Paul, the better for them.

...Surprised? Yes! I just called Ron Paul a Crypto-Fascist.

...Don't expect an apology, anytime fucking soon.

 

[Paul98]

This is NOT religious freedom, this is trying to push someones idiotic religious views on others. If you can't perform your job because of your religion... quit. If you strongly didn't agree with abortion, would you become an abortion doctor? Or if you didn't eat meat because you didn't agree with killing animals for food you wouldn't work at a slaughter house.

If you don't agree with what you are required to do on your job and won't do it time to find a new job.

 

[Paratus]

The problem with the alcohol example is that the state is limiting what you can and can't sell and it is not telling you what you have to sell. If you want to sell liquor, you get a license. The license does not say you have to sell liquor, nor does it say what types you have to stock.

Its still an interesting analogy though. If I go into a liquor store and they refuse to sell me Jack Daniels or they say they will only stock Wild Turkey, do I have a right to sue or should there be a law protecting me or making them sell Jack Daniels to me or have it available?

You're right that in the alcohol case the state is not telling you what you must sell just what you can and cannot sell. In reality there's not much difference in those positions.

In your example I think it would be closer to say with a liquor license you must carry whiskey not necessarily you must carry JD. So it's not a far step to say that if you receive a state license to operate a pharmacy you must supply certain classes of drugs.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm going to return to school to be a pharmacist. After I'm hired, I'm going to allow a religion that shuns all medications as not being part of God's plan to convert me to their religion. (Heck, legally, I can start my own religion.) Then, "oh, you need blood pressure medication? I can give you a band aid! Next! Hmmmm, birth control? Here's a band aid. Next! Hmmmm, oh, I'm sorry. You need penicillin? I seems to me that it's God's will that you die and go to Heaven. Here's a band aid. Next!"

/sarcasm

Obviously, I do not support pharmacists getting to pick and choose which medications to hand out based on their religious views.

 

[waggy]

I don't get it. IF i go into work and claim i can't do my job for 1 type of person then i get fired.

why should they be any different?

This has nothing to do with religious freedom. they aren't forced to do it. they can quit, change jobs, move whtaver. nobody is forcing them to do the job.

I can see a case being made the other way though. The pharm is trying to impose his religious beliefs on someone by not giving it to them (btw both arguments are fucking stupid)

 

[lothar]

You want an example of the state telling a business what they can and can't stock?

Have you ever bought alcohol at a supermarket, pharmacy or liquor store? Strange how they are required to be licensed by the state and the state controls what they do sell.

Your analogy is stupid and is not anywhere near being an example as you put it.

Your state requires supermarkets, pharmacies, and liquor stores to stock Budweiser, Mike's Hard Lemonade, Harp, Jack Daniels, and Guinness beer?
Must all stores that sell liquor with a valid alcohol license carry Heineken on their shelves?
Is a store with a valid liquor license in your state mandated to stock Guinness?
What state do you live in that requires all these?

If a licensed liquor store owner in your state decides not to stock Budweiser beers for whatever reason, what happens?

 

[Fern]

Here, I found this article from 2010:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/05/1410620/board-oks-drug-referrals.html



Sooooo... a pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill the prescription since the pharmacy carries the drug and should seek employment elsewhere right?

You're starting to get it.

I see a major difference between an employee and an owner.

Employee: Follow the practices and preferences of the employer. If an employee doesn't want to sell Plan B, pork or whatever, do not get a job at a business where the employer does want to sell such items.

Employer/owner: Gets to decide what products (s)he wants to carry/sell. If the employer is willing to allow an employee to hand off Plan B or pork to another employee because of an objection, that's the employers decision. Likewise if they don't want to permit it.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

If they don't want to doll out the welfare dollars as we see fit, then they can skip taking our welfare dollars. Isn't this the same logic we apply to those on social services like foods stamps ?