Kroger responds to denied 'morning after' pill request

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: mc00
you know what really gets me mad? when people feel the need to tell others they shouldn't do that because they believe is wrong or because there god say so.. I have 2 kids, my first child I was scare sh!tless because responsibility and etc.. not once I told my wife let's aborted it because I said so. She would disagree. I told her listen, not me or anyone including fairy tale god can't tell you what should you do with your body. if you want to keep I stand by your side if you want abort I stand by your side doesn't matter... is your choice no one else.. People the live in this country believe so truely that U.S is the land of free than act like one stop trying control other people every aspect of there life including religion folk.. if they don't want to follow your damn god back off if they feel like shoving 20 feet pole up there ass mine your business.. as long you don't kill another human, you do whatever you want with your life/body.

as long you don't kill another human, you do whatever you want with your life/body.

Therein lies the entire debate.... some say abortion is killing another human.

 

[imported_Smurf]

Good for Kroger!

Quote from DealMonkey - stop finding the need to interject your superstitious beliefs into everyone else's life.

Couldn't have said it better, myself!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have here, a clash in absolutes, in my opinion. Thou shall not kill, and sovereignty over ones own body. It is wrong to kill and it is wrong to make a woman have a child she does not want.

Pro-Choice should be the choice to conceive. No one forced her to make the child. If they did, a charge of rape should be mandatory on the father.

While I consider the pill itself birth control, abortions are another issue of which I have little sympathy except in the cases of rape and physical endangerment.

All sex is rape. Just an over-riding instinct taking over the intellect. Damn I'm mean to you boys!

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
nope, this is regarding children who were born that the moms didn't want, that doctors couldn't deny the infants medical aid.

linkage pertaining to obama: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/aborti...n-illinois-legislation-2007-02-15.html

Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the Illinois legislation was misleading and a far cry from the Senate?s legislation. Obama was aware of this difference, she added.

Sutherland noted that every medical group in the state was opposed to the state legislation, which would have opened the door to ?civil suits and criminal charges? for doctors and led directly to an overall ban on abortions.

?The legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple,? she said. ?Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was.?

On the narrower issue of ?born alive? infants, Sutherland said, Planned Parenthood of Illinois worked last year with the anti-abortion group, the Illinois Federation of Right to Life, to pass legislation that protects infants that survive abortion procedures.

Sounds like the whole state voted against her measure

>>>my personal opinion .. If a doctor claims that an abortion was successful and the woman goes into labor later... he needs to be held accountable.

 

[Kadarin]

Pharmacists who refuse to fill perfectly legal prescriptions on religious moral ground need to be FIRED and replaced by ones who will do their jobs.

 

[BoberFett]

Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Your theory would be a good one, except that it has happened many times in the past that people couldn't get their prescribed medications when they needed them due to a pharmacist's lack of professionalism. Even when the person could go to a different pharmacy, it may cost more.

There's no question that pharmacists, just like doctors, serve a public need, and cannot be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities, harming the ones they are sworn to serve, based on religious convictions.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Pharmacists who refuse to fill perfectly legal prescriptions on religious moral ground need to be FIRED and replaced by ones who will do their jobs.

Is it legal for Kroger (or any employer for that matter) to put that clause into an employment application (stating that if one's religious beliefs infringe on the job requirement, he/she may not be hired...or if hired, may be terminated)?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

So what happens to those people in Butfuk Iowa who only have the one pharmacy around for 50 miles (and that pharmacy just happens to employ all far right religious nuts)? You think the "free market" is going to open another pharmacy just to service the people who actually need those drugs?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Another round of 'free market magic elixir' for all!

For something you believe so strongly, you don't seem to understand how a free market works very well.

*Hint, in big cities with dozens of pharmacies, you'd have to be truly stupid to fail at filling a prescription because of one nutjob pharmacist*

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

So what happens to those people in Butfuk Iowa who only have the one pharmacy around for 50 miles (and that pharmacy just happens to employ all far right religious nuts)? You think the "free market" is going to open another pharmacy just to service the people who actually need those drugs?

I didn't realize Making Life Convenient for People in Butfuk, IA was a constitutional right in this country. I learn something new around here every day.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Another round of 'free market magic elixir' for all!

For something you believe so strongly, you don't seem to understand how a free market works very well.

*Hint, in big cities with dozens of pharmacies, you'd have to be truly stupid to fail at filling a prescription because of one nutjob pharmacist*

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You accuse me of not understanding a free market, yet you somehow think that forcing people to sell products which they may not want to is it. You're confused, boy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Your theory would be a good one, except that it has happened many times in the past that people couldn't get their prescribed medications when they needed them due to a pharmacist's lack of professionalism. Even when the person could go to a different pharmacy, it may cost more.

There's no question that pharmacists, just like doctors, serve a public need, and cannot be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities, harming the ones they are sworn to serve, based on religious convictions.

Uhhhh, every business serves a public need. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. That's what business is. Filling people needs (or wants). You have failed to explain how pharmaceuticals are an inherent right of mankind, that transcends the right of the other people to do business in the manner they choose.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

So what happens to those people in Butfuk Iowa who only have the one pharmacy around for 50 miles (and that pharmacy just happens to employ all far right religious nuts)? You think the "free market" is going to open another pharmacy just to service the people who actually need those drugs?

I didn't realize Making Life Convenient for People in Butfuk, IA was a constitutional right in this country. I learn something new around here every day.

QFT'

Not only that but I've never been anywhere that didn't have coathangers.

 

[sandorski]

"market forces" hehe. "Market forces" have their place, but this isn't one of them. Pharmacists count pills, they don't judge customers. Start counting.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Your theory would be a good one, except that it has happened many times in the past that people couldn't get their prescribed medications when they needed them due to a pharmacist's lack of professionalism. Even when the person could go to a different pharmacy, it may cost more.

There's no question that pharmacists, just like doctors, serve a public need, and cannot be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities, harming the ones they are sworn to serve, based on religious convictions.

Uhhhh, every business serves a public need. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. That's what business is. Filling people needs (or wants). You have failed to explain how pharmaceuticals are an inherent right of mankind, that transcends the right of the other people to do business in the manner they choose.

You contradicted yourself, then were apparently too lazy to go back and correct that first sentence. Medical care is a need, and so is medicine. Pharmacists take an oath to serve the public, and that service involves obligations that are stronger than their right to deny medicine to people under the guise of "doing business in the manner they choose".

Hypothetical situation #1: Woman goes to the pharmacist, who denies her a morning-after pill. Woman explains to doctor that she was raped, and also has a high chance of passing on genetic birth defects. Pharmacist denies medicine on religious grounds. Woman drives a great distance to get medicine, but gets there too late; they're closed. Woman winds up taking the medicine late, and doesn't realize until later that she is pregnant. Due to religious concerns (the baby has a heartbeat now) she does not abort. Woman has a horribly deformed child who dies young after much suffering.

Hypothetical situation #2: Pharmacist denies medicine based on religious grounds; patient dies as a result.

Do you think the rights of people to be free from disease and suffering, to avoid causing disease and suffering, and to avoid death are greater than that of a pharmacist (sworn to responsibly dispense drugs) to deny drugs to the public?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good for Kroger, it's the same business decision I'd make were I in there shoes. It's their prerogative to enforce rules within their own company.

However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

Another round of 'free market magic elixir' for all!

For something you believe so strongly, you don't seem to understand how a free market works very well.

*Hint, in big cities with dozens of pharmacies, you'd have to be truly stupid to fail at filling a prescription because of one nutjob pharmacist*

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You accuse me of not understanding a free market, yet you somehow think that forcing people to sell products which they may not want to is it. You're confused, boy.

Well, you're certainly confused as to what I said.

Where the market supports multiple pharmacies, chances are you can get your prescription filled. In smaller markets, even a mom'n'pop can act like an 800 pound gorilla.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BoberFett
However in a free enterprise system, pharmacists at other companies should be free to fill or not fill prescriptions at their discretion, depending on each companies policies. The free market would eventually eliminate those companies who don't cater to their customers. Too bad most of you see no option other than the nanny state stepping in.

So what happens to those people in Butfuk Iowa who only have the one pharmacy around for 50 miles (and that pharmacy just happens to employ all far right religious nuts)? You think the "free market" is going to open another pharmacy just to service the people who actually need those drugs?

I didn't realize Making Life Convenient for People in Butfuk, IA was a constitutional right in this country. I learn something new around here every day.

Ah, so by your logic, women should make sure to research the area's pharmacies BEFORE they get raped. Got it!

Thanks for the insight!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Pharmacists who refuse to fill perfectly legal prescriptions on religious moral ground need to be FIRED and replaced by ones who will do their jobs.

Is it legal for Kroger (or any employer for that matter) to put that clause into an employment application (stating that if one's religious beliefs infringe on the job requirement, he/she may not be hired...or if hired, may be terminated)?

It's a matter of the pharmacist not being able to perform his or her job, regardless of the reason behind it. If the medication is legal, is carried by the pharmacy, and does not have a dangerous drug interaction with another drug the customer is taking, there is no reason whatsoever to not dispense it.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"when does a person become a person?" for die-hard abortion rights activists, not even after birth.

And for the Catholic Church, not even before. You can't prevent a baby God intends to be born unless you just don't have fun.

Are we having any fun yet? Smile and look like your happy. Now take your pills and go on with your life! Sheesh!

 

[manowar821]

You cannot force your beliefs on others. Period.

Besides, you Christians believe in heaven, right? Doesn't the baby just get back in line to wait for another human body? Making them wait in heaven is just TERRIBLE! IMHO, I'd rather stay there than come down to Earth and have to live with people like you.
/trolling

 

[shrumpage]

Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or are they allowed not to perform one.

If he worked for a clinic that listed abortions as a service, then maybe.

There's no 48-hour window for abortions though; the two situations are less analogous than they might appear.

Both have people performing acts against their conscience, and as the law stands now you can't compel a doctor to perform an abortion.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You know I read the other day that more babies with Down's Syndrome are aborted than are born. What a terrible message to send to those afflicted...

Add to that the fact that now, 25% of all pregnancies end with an abortion. It's a wonder most of us made it here at all.

75% is still good odds.

What is so shocking about embryos born with a incurable disease that dramatically affects the life of the individual and parents not going to term? I can see an issue if people are aborting children because they have the wrong eye color, but when you start talking about lifelong genetic and developmental problems, you have to see that not everyone wants to deal with that.