First Florida, Now Missouri: Women Are Worthless Chattel

http://tinyurl.com/27hws
Druggists opposing abortion could be shielded
By Matt Franck
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau
03/17/2004

JEFFERSON CITY - Pharmacists in Missouri who oppose abortion could refuse to fill prescriptions for "morning-after" birth control without risking their jobs, under a bill that many say signals a new battleground in the fight over reproductive rights.

<...>

The Missouri bill would leave it up to pharmacists to be guided by their own definitions of when they believe life begins. The legislation says they could refuse to dispense any drug that they feel could "contribute to the death of a human being by abortion or otherwise."

<...>

Furthermore, the bill would allow pharmacists to refuse to refer a patient to another pharmacy. Pharmacy students would also be permitted to refuse to participate in training on the use of the drugs.

<...>

-30-

Of the prescription medicines I take on a daily basis, I can think of at least five that are labeled that they are not to be taken by pregnant women or by women who may become pregnant due to the harm they can cause a developing fetus. It looks as though in Missouri, a pharmacist can not only refuse to fill a script for Plan B, but also refuse to fill those for statins, chemotherapy agents, migraine treatments, ARB inhibitors, certain drugs for diabetes, etc if s/he believes it could "contribute to the death of a human being {sic} by abortion or otherwise."

It's good to know that women's health and well-being are completely irrelevant if someone decides their worth is defined by the content of their uterus.

siezure medications on that list, too! I haven't had it for a while, but I believe that Dilantin has a warning about pregnancy on its list as well...

does that mean he or she can refuse to fill a prescription for a needed medication then, too?

it seems to me that if a pharamcist is unwilling to comply with the contract to fill medicines prescribed by a doctor for a patient, then that person should not be a pharmacist in any store which is not one associated with that person's peculiar belief system.

this is way out of the mainstream to think that a POTENTIAL fertilized egg takes precedence over a female's right to a medicine prescribed by her doctor.

why should any person have to endure a pharmacist's religious beliefs? we've already seen there have been many cases recently when this has impacted patients.

If a pharmacist refused to fill my prescription, would it then be okay if I employed self-defense against someone who was causing me bodily harm?

no one is forced to be a pharmacist. it is a privilege to work in a position of such trust, and just because someone has trained for a job, that does not give them the right to keep such a job if they fail to perform their duties.

... when I manage to pick my jaw up off the floor:wow:

I can now say that I have officially been driven batshit by the right wingers. Must mark it on my Dayrunner calendar.

This is beyond the pale. So now legal female hormones can be treated as an illegal substance at the whim of a pharmacist? Well, let's extend this, shall we? The conduct of the Bush administration offends me to my marrow; does that give me the right to refuse to pay my taxes to support them? I don't appreciate cars with Bush/Cheney bumperstickers on them; does that give me the right to run them off the road? If something is legal, then I DO NOT have the right to impose my opposing views about it on another person! There are other choices I can make, as can these pharmacists.

If such a bill passes, then I think that drugstores should be required to POST very clearly a list of drugs their pharmacists will not dispense.

I am so angry about this news, and it's only 5:30 in the morning!

I posted it here as soon as I saw it somewhere else, and I haven't calmed down yet. Want to refuse surgery? Go to jail. Need a legal, prescription drug prescribed by someone with a medical degree? Not if some dork with a PharmD deems it unnecessary.

Sorry, it's hard to talk with my jaw still lying there forlornly on the floor.

I can't believe they want to drive us UNDERGROUND to obtain a LEGAL DRUG.

REP, this needs to be in LBN, this is one of the most horrifying articles I've ever seen at DU, and I've lurked since the very beginning! Please tell me this is an early April Fool's joke?:(

But what if I need to fill a prescription for Actos or Lovastatin or Caffergot or Cyclcosporine or Methotrexate (all examples of drugs than damage or kill a fetus) in Missouri and the pharmacist thinks I look pregnant? Do I have to take a piss-test to prove I'm not pregnant?

(The above drugs treat, in order: Diabetes, Artheriosclerosis, Migraine, Chemotherapy Agents also used to treat arthritis and other diseases.)

The morning-after pill -- and the regular old pill -- are prescribed for the purpose of preventing ovulation, just as the other medications you mention are prescribed for the purpose of treating diabetes, artheriosclerosis, etc.

There is a theory that the morning-after pill, and the pill, may also "work" by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Despite how widely accepted this theory seems to be, it is still merely a theory, and if the pills do have that effect in any individual instance it is an unintended effect of the medication.

To allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for a medication that is intended to prevent ovulation because it might -- IF there is a fertilized ovum present, and that is a huge, huge "IF" -- prevent implantation, as an unintended effect of the medication, *IS* to allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for any other medication that s/he "believes" might interfere with a pregnancy in some way -- IF the client is pregnant.

And that "IF" covers every woman from menarche to menopause, pretty much. So yup, how could a pharmacist be sure that s/he was not violating his/her personal little moral code by dispensing a myriad of medications to half the women in the store, without making them pee in a cup? (Which of course would not work for women with fertilized ova who are not yet pregnant, which happens only with successful implantation, another of those great bit "IF"s.) The only way the pharmacist could be sure would be to refuse to dispense just about anything to just about any woman, I'd say.

Of course, we don't really expect that pharmacists would be doing that, do we? Because -- we don't really believe that these "pro-life" pharmacists give any more of a shit about little zygotes and embryos and fetuses, let alone little fertilized ova, than any of their fellow travellers in the anti-choice brigade do.

We know that what they're really out to do is control and oppress women. And the fact that they're *not* proposing to deny medications such as you describe to potentially-pregnant women (or women with potentially-fertilized ova in their bodies, that not being the same as "pregnant") is just one more bit of evidence of that fact.

.

and oppress women."

EXACTLY! That says it all right there!

with MURDER ONE in Utah because she didn't have a c-section when her almighty, omnipotent, all-knowing doctor wanted her to to be even more horrifying and portentous of what's to come if we don't get the wingers and their God Shrubya THE FUCK OUT OF THE WH!

When we talked on the phone this morning, you had me kinda worried about ya. :loveya:

<<refuse to fill those for statins, chemotherapy agents, migraine treatments, ARB inhibitors, certain drugs for diabetes, etc >>>

But read the wording in the article. A pharmacist might want to include non-contraceptive drugs in those that they refuse to dispense to women.

I really don't like this possible change in the law but, let's give the pharmacists a chance if this thing goes any farther. Jeepers these folks are professionals and from what I can tell do care about their customers . There is also the Govenor who this will have to get past and if all else fails there the pharmacy down the street or by mail. It's the republican state legislature that's the problem here not the guy in the white coat getting your script together.

There have already been cases where overly-sensitive pharmacists refused to their job. They were fired. This bill would protect the overly-sensitive, morals-free scum who would refuse do their jobs.

Especially if you don't live in a city, there may not be another pharmacy "down the street". Forget about the mail.

I don't doubt that the majority of pharmacists are professionals. Yes, "let's give the pharmacists a chance"--to speak out against this stupid law.

I don't believe in writing faith-based legislation that leaves the door wide open for this kind of abuse. Maybe it's because at age 43, I've become a cynical, ornery cuss who doesn't believe that people can always be trusted to do the right thing when left to their own devices. There are too many assholes out there with their own adorable agendas, and I don't want my health (or anything else) left up to their distorted discretion.

We know what deregulation has done with energy companies and with the polluters ~ "they'll do the right thing if we just get off their backs." Yeah, uh-huh. Likewise, I don't want legal prescription drugs deregulated! I'm sure most pharms are honorable men and women; but we need protection from the dishonorable ones.

And welcome to DU!:hi:

to arrive in the mail. And I can think of several instances where people shouldn't be asked to shop around for emergency contraceptives.

for god's sake? Where are their "morals" then?

"Professionals" are people who belong to self-governing professions.

We entrust certain people with the authority to do certain things that no one else is permitted to do. Lawyers give legal advice; doctors perform surgery; engineers design bridges; accountants audit financial statements; and pharmacists dispense controlled substances.

Their professional bodies are then given the authority to determine who may and who may not practise the profession. They require (and supervise) advanced education, they require (and provide) on-the-job training (periods under articles for law students, residencies for medical students, etc.). And they impose codes of conduct on their members, and are responsible for maintaining discipline within the profession.

They are given that authority on condition that they use it in the public interest.

A professional "code of ethics" is NOT a "moral" code. It is a set of rules that professionals are required to follow in spite of their own "morality", if necessary. If a lawyer is assigned by a court to represent a murderer, s/he must to so to the best of his/her ability, not in such a way as to ensure that a guilty person gets punished. That is because we believe it is in the public interest for everyone to have a competent defence, not just the innocent. And a doctor must perform surgery with all his/her skill, even if the patient is a serial child rapist. Etc.

Pharmacists are professionals. They are bound to practise their profession in the public interest -- as defined by the public, not as defined by any individual pharmacist.

If the public decides that it is in the public interest for a particular drug to be available to individuals and for individuals to be able to purchase that drug, then it is not up to any individual pharmacist or group of pharmacists to do otherwise. It is not open to them to do otherwise. To do otherwise is to violate their professional ethics.

And a pharmacist who doesn't like the rules is entirely welcome, and free, to find another job. Just like any other professional who doesn't like the rules of his/her profession. A professional is someone who has been granted the privilege of making money by doing things that no one else is permitted to do. S/he does not get to decide what the conditions of that privilege will be.

This legislation amounts to exempting pharmacists from the ethical rules of their profession, and permitting pharmacists to act contrary to their clients' interests, and to the public interest, with no requirement other than the whim of the individual pharmacist. Once that line is crossed, there's no line left.

This is indeed a women's rights issue, and an enormously important one -- but as in so many other situations, women are the canaries in the mineshaft. The people behind this kind of shit do indeed want to control and oppress women, but they also want to control and oppress anybody else who might be in their way. Once it is made permissible to violate women's rights, as clients of pharmacists or as individuals whose lives and health are at risk if they are not permitted to make their own choices in respect of pregnancy, or in any other way, nobody's rights are safe.

In our societies, professionals are often the means by which people exercise rights, which often cannot be exercised without professional assistance. An accused person cannot meaningfully exercise the right to a fair trial without a lawyer, a woman cannot meaningfully exercise reproductive choice (the rights to life and liberty) without a doctor, and a sick person in need of medication to survive cannot meaningfully exercise the right to life without a pharmacist. Professionals cannot be allowed to play gatekeeper to people's rights by substituting their own whims for the public's instructions.

And that is exactly what this legislation would allow pharmacists to do -- to exempt themselves from the rules that the public has imposed on them.

Rights is rights, and either we all have 'em and we all have access to the means of exercising them where we cannot meaningfully exercise them without assistance, or none of us will.

.

on professional issues. You'd be amazed at how very UNprofessional some of them can be.

to do their job because they don't like the prescription being filled is NOT, in my view, ANY kind of "professional!"

This is the same republican legislature that forced the carry and conceal law down our throats, even though it was rejected by THE PEOPLE when it was on the ballot. Holden couldn't stop that, and I'm not sure he'll be able to stop this, either.

But I see your point. Just the same, it is a way of making legal prescriptions harder to get for women. I live in a town of 65,000. Yesterday I couldn't even get a fourteen day dex-pak of cortical steroids anywhere in town. Waiting a day for a script sucks.

If I were a pharmacist, I could no more do this than tell someone, "I see by your girth that you're a glutton. I think it's a deadly sin. Sorry, I'm not filling that script for nifedipine or lovastatin."

Someone needs to sue. If someone already born and out of the uterus dies as a result of some pharmacist playing morality police, there better be jail time and heavy fines and lawsuits.

I'm envisioning the following sequence of events:

Woman: (enters pharmacy and hands over prescription)

Pharmacist: Sorry, ma'am, but this is an abortafacient. I am legally allowed not to fill this as it conflicts with my moral beliefs.

Woman: Fine. Just give me back the precription and I'll give some other pharmacy my business. You'll never see one more penny from me.

Pharmacist: Sorry, ma'am, I'm keeping the prescription. You see, if I give it back to you, you'll get it filled somewhere else by someone with no moral fiber. I have the legal right not to fill this prescription and refuse to return it.

(later. Woman goes back to doctor's office)

Woman: Doctor, the pharmacist refused to fill my prescription and wouldn't give it back. Could I get a copy?

Doctor: (hands out copy of prescription)

Woman: Thanks. Is there a phone I could use?

Receptionist: Sure. Over here.

Woman: Does this pharmacy fill Plan B? You do? Great! I'll be over in ten minutes....

(ten minutes later)

Pharmacist B: Sorry, ma'am, my religious beliefs conflict with filling this prescription.

Woman: You told me over the phone that you'd fill it.

Pharmacist B: I'm under no legal obligation to fill this. Oh, and I'm keeping this prescription so you don't fill it at a pharmacy with no concept of morality.

Woman: You lied to me.

Pharmacist B: It's acceptable to lie when you do it for a greater good. Got any names picked out?

Woman: Back to the doctor's office. I have 3 hours left.

(After getting yet another prescription for Plan B)

Woman: OK, if you told me over the phone you're going to fill it, I'll let you see the copy. I'll just hold onto the original until you give me the drugs. You don't give me the drugs, this piece of paper doesn't leave my hands. It's not an abortion yet, and if I don't take these in 2 hours I WILL be needing an abortion. Will you fill this prescription?

All of a sudden, they have "moral problems" with prescribing certain medications?

Could this be some kind of "movement" by the Religious Right/Dominionists to force test cases? Say "Drug-Mart" fires a pharmacist for refusing to fill scripts for BCP. Said Pharm. might have a test case for religious discrimination, thus giving fuel to the argument that we NEED the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" because people are losing their jobs because of their "Christian" beliefs.

This is how it works. Pharmacists are being "harmed for their religious beliefs" when they're fired for insubordination, women are being court-ordered to undergo surgery, or arrested for MURDER because they exercised their RIGHT and refused surgery, and as Al Jolson said, "You ain't seen NOTHING, yet!"...

This goes much deeper than just some Pharmacists going to a Promise Keeper's break-out session and being taught that they need to "protect little babies".

Little drips. The solvent of religious fanaticism flows over everything, looking for a weak spot in the mortar of the Constitution where it can seep in and start it's work of disolving the foundations of our democracy.

You betcha it is.

It pretty much started with Karen Brauer, known on the internet as "Hoosier Pharmer". She's the pharmacist who was fired by K-Mart for lying to a client: saying she did not have the morning-after pill for dispensing, purely because of her "moral" objections to dispensing it. If you google those names, you'll come up with enough to keep you entertained for a while.

She became the darling of Carolyn Gargaro and her crowd of fawning Rightgrrls -- the charming Carolyn and her barbie-doll partner, whose name escapes me, in the "pro-life, conservative" "feminist" business, being precursors of freepers on the net (I imagine there is a fair bit of overlap). If you've never seen rightgrrl.com or gargaro.com, you're in for a treat. (I believe the "guestbook", actually a hotbed of some of the most bizarre and vicious right-wing garbage you've ever seen, is still dormant, but its archives can be read, for those with the stomach.)

She and her comrades and their backers in the religious and non-religious right -- Gargaro and some of her colleagues are quite sophisticated, in fact -- have made this a cause for quite some time. Brauer and her colleagues have had the matter considered by the American Pharmacists Association (*not* as part of any code of ethics, which is set by the professional governing body; the APhA is merely a voluntary association of pharmacists to protect pharmacists' interests, like the ABA or the AMA). I'm not quite clear on the outcome of the discussion -- no resolution seems to have been reached -- but the committee's report on what they smoothly call a "conscience clause" can be read here:
http://www.aphanet.org/lead/committee2.html

Here is the APhA's "code of ethics" (again, that being a voluntary code, and not the same as the one imposed by a professional governing body):
http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html

(for more, ask the search engine at http://www.aphanet.org for "conscience)

Ah, according to Karen Brauer at gargaro.com in 1999, the NJAphA and Ohio PhA (again, voluntary associations, not governing bodies) have passed "conscience clauses":
http://www.gargaro.com/pharmacy
of course under pressure from a major lobbying effort by the anti-choice brigade ... oops, "Pharmacists for Life".

Well, there ain't no such thing as a pharmacist for life. ;) Yer a pharmacist as long as you adhere to professional discipline, and if you don't want to, then you should maybe go become a faith healer, I'd suggest.

.

http://www.monaral.org/s04politicalupdates/legupdates.shtml

Prescription Denial Bill
(Cauthorn) SB 1119
First Read

This anti-choice bill seeks to allow pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions that they disagree with. This bill was written to prevent women from accessing some forms of contraception--such as emergency contraception--yet it was written in such a broad manner that it could potentially apply to any prescription drug. This bill, if passed, threatens to further limit women's options for preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Link to the bill itself: http://www.senate.mo.gov/04INFO/bills/SB1119.htm

As that site shows, Missouri is quite the hotbed of anti-choice legislative initiatives.


http://www.prochoicevoice.org/get_informed/fact_sheets/emergency.asp

Fewer than 10 percent of Missouri hospitals provide emergency contraception, according to the preliminary results of a survey conducted by Missouri NARAL. ...

(This appears to be low vs. other states in the US, and is a reason why the legislation is particularly problematic in Missouri.)

.

This bill was written to prevent women from accessing some forms of contraception--such as emergency contraception--yet it was written in such a broad manner that it could potentially apply to any prescription drug.

I knew I couldn't be the only one who read it that way. Permitting delicate flowers to avoid dirtying their hand with icky birth control is bad enough, but the way this bill is written, the lives of even more women could be endangered.

If only more people on the right knew that Bush is against contraception. Maybe, just maybe enough would wake up from their stupor.

We've been warning them the "partial birth" con is just one step along the slippery slope, but there have been many more warnings about his stance on birth control...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/birthcontrol/031030_report_bc.html">The Assault on Birth Control - Planned Parenthood

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&s=pollitt">Toothpaste, cough drops, aspirin, contraception - The Nation (Katha Pollitt has been covering this very well)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030203&s=block">Christian Soldiers on the March - The Nation

Sorry, just had to mention it.

Here's another excellent Pollitt piece:

(Note to mods: The authors of this piece have asked that it be distributed widely in its entirety, so no copyright is being infringed)

An Open Letter About Emergency Contraception


by Katha Pollitt & Jennifer Baumgardner

The one thing that activists on every side of the abortion debate agree on is that we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are 3 million unintended pregnancies each year in the United States; around 1.4 million of them end in abortion.

Yet the best tool for reducing unwanted pregnancies has only been used by 2 percent of all adult women in the United States and only 11 percent of us know enough about it to be able to use it. No, we aren't talking about abstinence--we mean something that works!

The tool is EC, which stands for Emergency Contraception (and is also known as the Morning After Pill).

For thirty years, doctors have dispensed EC "off label" in the form of a handful of daily birth control pills. Meanwhile, many women have taken matters into their own hands by popping a handful themselves after one of those nights--you know, when the condom broke or the diaphragm slipped or for whatever reason you had unprotected sex.

Preven (on the market since 1998) and Plan B (approved in 1999), the dedicated forms of EC, operate essentially as a higher-dose version of the Pill, compressed into two tablets. The first dose is taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex, the second pill is taken 12 hours later. EC is at least 75 percent effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy after sex by interrupting ovulation, fertilization, and implantation of the egg.

If you are sexually active, or even if you're not right now, you should have a dose of EC on hand. It's less anxiety-producing than waiting around to see if you miss your period; much easier, cheaper and more pleasant than having to arrange for a surgical abortion if you end up pregnant and don't want to be.

These websites will help you find an EC provider in your area:
www.backupyourbirthcontrol.org
www.not-2-late.com
ec.princeton.edu/providers/index.html

Don't wait until you're in a crisis. Your doctor may not be able to see you in time, and other doctors may not want to deal with walk-ins. Many clinics and doctor's offices are closed on weekends and holidays--the most likely times for unprotected sex. If you live in a rural area, the logistical difficulties--finding the doctor, finding the pharmacy that stocks EC--are compounded. Plan ahead!

Forward this information to anyone you think may not know about backing up her birth control and print out the info in this e-mail if you want to organize as part of the EC campaign (or do your own thing and let us know about it). Let's make sure we have access to our own hard-won sexual and reproductive freedom!

Seven Things You Need to Know About Emergency Contraception

§ EC is easy. A woman takes a dose of EC within 72 hours of unprotected sex, followed by a second dose 12 hours later.

§ EC is legal.

§ EC is safe. It is FDA-approved and supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Women's Association

§ EC is not an abortion. The two pills you take are not RU-486, the abortion pill, which can be taken up to nine weeks into a pregnancy. EC does not work if you are already pregnant and will not harm a developing fetus. Anti-choicers who call EC "the abortion pill" or "chemical abortion" also believe birth control pills, IUDs and contraceptive injections are abortions.

§ EC works. It is at least 75 percent effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy after sex, but before either fertilization or implantation. According to the FDA, EC pills "are not effective if the woman is pregnant; they act primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)."

§ EC has a long shelf life. You can keep your EC on hand for two years, according to the FDA.

§ EC is for women who use birth control. You should back up your birth control by keeping a dose of EC in your medicine cabinet or purse.

What You Can Do to Help

Forward this e-mail to everyone you know. Post it on lists, especially those with lots of women and girls. Print out this information, photocopy it to make instant leaflets and pass them around your community. Call your healthcare provider, clinic or university health service and ask if they provide EC. Spread the word in your community if they do. Lobby them (via petitions, meetings with the administrators, op-eds) to offer EC if they don't.

Make sure that your local ER has EC on hand for rape victims and dispenses it as a matter of policy to women who have been assaulted. Many hospitals, including most Catholic hospitals, do not dispense EC even to rape victims.

Get in touch with local organizations--Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, campus groups--and work with them to pressure hospitals to amend their policies.

If you can't find a group, start your own. Local activism can achieve wonders.

If you are a writer, submit an op-ed to your local paper. Writer or not, send letters to the editor about EC. You can key your letters to particular stories--or request that stories be written.

Make sure that your local pharmacy will fill prescriptions for EC. Some states have "conscience-clauses" that exempt pharmacists from dispensing drugs that have to do with women's reproductive freedom.

Birth Control Pills That Can Be Used in the United States as EC
Trivora (4 pink tablets)
Alesse (5 pink tablets)
Levlite (5 pink tablets)
Nordette (4 light orange tablets)
Lo/Ovral (4 white tablets)
Levlen (4 light orange tablets)
Levora (4 white tablets)
Low-Ogestrel (4 white tablets)
Tri-Levlen (4 yellow tablets)
Triphasil (4 yellow tablets)

to sue the Pharmacists who refused to perform their job for child support. If this medication is FDA approved and also studies have proved it works,then force Pharmacist to cough up some dough. Might be a long shot but it could work.

The mother might have had a personal belief that she couldn't support a child in her life at that time. Which is a more rational belief then a Pharmacist screwing over a patient to get in good with their God.

and other Nations with their shit. Out of touch and out of control.

Raised by someone else in the thread in LBN about this article: have any pharmacists ever refused to dispense Viagra? After all, some of those men may be unmarried! Where are their delicate morals then?

Also got to thinking about insurance companies in many states just recently being required to cover birth control if they provide RX benefits. Do you suppose this might be some sort of corporate backlash against 'uppity women'?

If they catch a scrip written which is contraindicated due to some other meds a person takes or because of a known allergy, they call the MD for a chat to clear up any question. It is likely a lot of potential problems are avoided by clear thinking, well informed pharmacists. When they flat out deny scrips for meds a medical doctor has prescribed, seems like they are practicing medicine without a medical license. When the courts decide to shield them for this crap, women need to wake up and fight. I also think the shield laws are just to protect companies which hire these bigots.

Ladies, are your assets in the hands of misogynists who consider us less than human? I am waiting for the day when we go to those Diebold ATMs and find out they won't give us our money either. Fears of Margaret Atwood getting more likely every day.

I am so fucking sick of hearing about self-righteous fundies telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Perhaps we should only let certain women have BC pills -- like those who are married. Or perhaps we can ban them all together?

they just take ALL pregnant women, no wait, make that ALL WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING AGE, and put them in their own "camps" to watch them 24/7? First the woman in Utah, now THIS bullshit?

Using that law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill ANY prescription at all for a pregnant woman, even one for diabetes and other life-threatening diseases! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!

Are they now going to start charging men who have sex with women who get pregnant and who need medicines possibly dangerous to the fetus with "assault with a deadly weapon?" Oh, wait, no, of course not, the wingnuts would NEVER charge MEN with ANYTHING now, would they, it's ALL the woman's doing!

Goddamn, I sure am glad my one and only pregnancy was thirteen years ago so I don't have to deal with this bullshit. I had enough of that shit when I was pregnant, and I imagine it's far worse now. It's as if I didn't even exist, that the only important thing, the ONLY thing that mattered, was the fetus I was carrying. It was just amazing to me how little I actually mattered to most people, medical professionals especially, when I was pregnant, it was all the fetus, the fetus, the fetus. Total strangers thought they had the right to tell me what to do and how to do it, and to judge and castigate me for whatever they saw as a "bad choice."

Yet, when I was in labor and my water broke, there was merconium staining (the baby had a bowel movement in the womb), which meant they should have taken him out RIGHT THEN AND THERE to avoid possible poisoning. Yet they let him breathe in and stew in all that filth and poison for another TWELVE HOURS before they did the c-section, and they didn't even tell me there'd been merconium staining in my water. Why? Because, as a sympathetic nurse who thought I deserved to know the truth explained it the next day, I was on Medicaid at the time and the goddamn greedy doctors and hospital wouldn't get as much money as they would had my labor progressed "normally." And these were "pro-life" doctors I'm talking about.

So where the fuck were the wingnuts and their "concern" for the baby then? Where is their "concern" when it comes to getting pregnant women the health care they need without totally bankrupting them, and making sure they have access to the ever-dwindling number of doctors who'll actually treat them without insurance or money (yes, people, even "pro-life" docs refuse to treat pregnant women without insurance or money, shocking I know).

And that doc and the hospital are lucky my son didn't suffer any ill effects from that, or I would have sued their asses so bad they'd never have been able to practice medicine again.

And the part about that law that REALLY gets me is that they are allowed to refuse to refer the woman to another pharmacy. So, say if she's given medicine for diabetes that she has to have, what the fuck is she supposed to do then? And how is that "pro-life" for the baby as well, if it's mother dies from diabetic complications before it's born (it's happened way too many times, people, believe me it has. But you can't tell these brain-dead "pro-life" wingers that). Same with cancer treatments, or any other medical needs.

Who the fuck do these pharmacists think they are, anyway? Maybe THEY'D like to help raise the baby they're so determined to have the woman they don't even know bring into the world? How many of them vote for school levies, social and public services, become foster parents, etc., etc., etc.? WHO THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE? And what the hell do they think women are, anyway, just a meaningless lump of property?

We're in a helluva cultural, political, and religious war, people, and WE MUST WIN! WE CANNOT ALLOW THE WINGNUTS TO WIN THIS WAR! Or we will be stuck in a country we most assuredly will NOT want to live in, with no way out!

It has been completely hijacked by right-wing nutcase greedy selfish know-nothing republicans. There's currently a bill going through to restrict Medicaid payments, so that some 1000 children living in poor households will lose their medical coverage. And that was sponsored by a *woman*, for christ's sake! This is a state that espouses a huige degree of concern for children, and yet they come up with something like this! Our repugs are well along to road to utterly gutting our state's social safety net.

Dirk

They need to be all over this bullshit.

They're pandering to them, that's where some pharmacists' associations are.

Here's a good article from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:
http://www.rcrc.org/news/commentary/do_no_harm.htm

Do No Harm: Far-Right Medical Groups and Religion Don’t Mix

... Groups like the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA), the Catholic Medical Association, Pharmacists for Life, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) trade on the professional credibility of doctors and other health professionals to oppose abortion and reproductive rights.

These previously little-known groups are becoming increasingly active in policy issues that affect women’s right to the most medically appropriate and scientifically advanced reproductive health care. ...

... At the urging of PFLI <Pharmacists for Life International>, the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA), the national professional organization for pharmacists, in 1998 revised its Code of Ethics to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense medications to which they have a religious or moral objection. The APhA stipulated, however, that pharmacists must ensure that referral systems are in place to allow patients access to their medications. PFLI disputes such reasonable accommodations, and argues that pharmacists should not be required to provide a referral if they deny a medication. According to PFLI, “it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health,” effectively asserting the right of pharmacists to discard the medical decisions of women and their doctors.

PFLI has lobbied state legislatures to pass “conscience clause” protections for pharmacists into law. The first such law, passed in South Dakota, allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense a prescription if the medication would “destroy an unborn child,” which the state defines, against the accepted medical definition, as a pre-implanted fertilized egg. This allows pharmacists to refuse to provide emergency contraception, all hormonal contraceptives, and IUDs. Numerous states have considered similar laws in recent years. PFLI’s influence extends into other areas of medicine as well. In 1998, PFLI was invited to testify at the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee hearing on approval of mifepristone.

I haven't found any statement by the AMA, e.g., about this issue. Anyone else?


Here's good old Gargaro on the issues:
http://www.gargaro.com/pharmacy/drugtopics.html

Interestingly, here's what the Hoosier Pharmer had to say about the issue of referring clients to another dispenser:

In practical terms, patient referral is a non-issue, observed Karen Brauer, a pro-life Indiana community R.Ph. who said she was fired last year by a discount chain after she refused to dispense Micronor (norethindrone, Ortho Pharmaceutical), which can be used as a morning-after pill, and transferred the Rx to a competitor. "A pharmacist of conscience should not have to tell a patient to do the obvious, namely, try another pharmacy," she said. "When he does that, he's telling the patient that he has certain ethics but he knows a particular pharmacist colleague who does not. When a pharmacist gives a referral, with or without an explanation, he's telling the woman to go somewhere else to do something he thinks is detrimental to her <sic>. That does not agree with the oath I took upon graduation from pharmacy school. When a pharmacist explains why he won't dispense a drug, he's risking a fight with the patient and the doctor. Many pharmacists don't have the stomach or the time for that."

Not only should they be entitled to refuse to dispense medication *and* refuse to refer elsewhere, according to this bozo, they should be entitled to refuse to explain the reason. Slippery slopes indeed.

"Unlike the <American Medical Association>, pharmacists do have a duty through standards of practice and implications in the state practice acts to refer patients back to the doctor when problems arise or the pharmacist is not sure that the treatment is in the patient's best interest," said Catizone. "However, there are no requirements for pharmacists to make such referrals when it becomes an issue of the pharmacist's objecting morally to a course of therapy, unless, once again, the therapy is not in the best interest of the patient."

.

I cannot believe the precedents this sets. It's bad enough being treated like a vessel the minute you get pregnant. That's the reason I got a midwife with my last child. With her, she treated me like a human being that actually happened to be pregnant. The OB/GYN I had for the first two treated me like a child.

I knew before this bastard got selected that things were going to get bad, but even I could not conceive of the way things are going. It's utterly disheartening and pretty scary. All I can think of is The Handmaid's Tale, which scared the crap out of me.


EDIT: This was supposed to be posted to the original post. Once again, I prove that I'm too tired to play ball.

with their husbands and lovers until this shit stops. Arm them with some pepper spray for unwanted advances.

Next thing you know, doctors and nurses will be exempt in clinics and ED's from treating patients with STD's or anything they suspect could have been derived from "immoral" behavior.

Don't be giving lurkers any ideaa, now!

Now I ask you, just what did I do to you anyway? I am a husband in Florida. Meanie :evilgrin:

is that if I refuse to make love with my husband.. I don't get to make love to my husband. Where's the fun in life then? :D

who AREN'T "feminists" -- listen up honey, this is you MUST stand up and be counted as that dreaded "f" word.

EVERYTHING you have grown up with and taken for granted as your "right" as a woman is at risk. The crazies are loose and YOU are their target. Say no to a doctor? Go to jail! Need contraceptives? No, I'm not comfortable with your moral choices! Raped and need emergency contraceptives? No, God wants you to have that preborn child!

Feminism is needed now MORE THAN EVER.

Didn't all of this come about because a rape victim (with a scrip from a crisis center) tried to prevent carrying a reminder of that crime for even 1 day? The Pharmacy employees were fired for refusing to fill it...they even went so far as to give the young woman grief about "how she got raped".

These people are sadists.


















:mad:

It's just all one big can of worms, isn't it?

http://www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Archive/Conscience-Breaking-News-Archive/Conscience-Breaking-News-2001-04.html
(note that the POV that may be seen in all of the following is *not* mine, and I just leave y'all to make your own sarcastic comments after each one)

31 December, 2001
Illinois attempts to force referral
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that hospitals that do not want to be involved with dispensing the potentially abortifacient 'morning-after-pill' are being pressured by a new Illinois law to inform rape complainants where to get the drugs.

... 8 November, 2001
Demands for 'morning after pill' a problem for Catholic health care
Problems have arisen in negotiations that would have seen a "hospital within a hospital" established to avoid conflict with the requirements of Catholic health care (See Compromise proposed in hospital reorganization).

The Seton Health Care Network has advised the mayor and council of Austin, Texas, that, even in a separately licensed facility within the hospital, rape victims must be tested to see if they are ovulating before potentially abortifacient drugs can be dispensed.

Bishop Gregory Aymond of the Catholic Diocese of Austin will be speaking with Seton representatives and Catholic ethicists about the situation. While noting that the church condemns rape as a terrible evil and responds compassionately to rape victims, "a Catholic institution cannot act or cooperate in an action that destroys human life."

The proposed protocol is said to be still under review, but the development caught the mayor by surprise. Annoyed, he withdrawn the item from the City Council agenda, cancelled a public hearing on the matter and "postponed indefinitely" any further action by the council. He suggested that dispensing the controversial drugs was "fundamental . . . and not negotiable." ...

... 13 December, 2001
Maryland Catholic hospitals at risk
Maryland's Catholic bishops expect that a bill intended to suppress freedom of conscience in Catholic institutions will be re-introduced in the state legislature in January. The bill would repeal existing protection and force Catholic hospitals to dispense or refer patients for abortifacient drugs if the patients presented as rape victims.

It seems that these <insert your own expletive> are even being taken seriously in Canada:

20 December, 2001
Conscientious objection respected in Quebec
While Quebec pharmacists are being trained to dispense the 'morning after pill' without a prescription, Normand Cadieux, managing director of the Association Québécoise des Pharmaciens-Propriétaires (Association of Quebec Pharmacists) stated that those who have religious objections to the pill do not have to be certified to dispense it. It is reported that four thousand of the province's 5,700 pharmacists have already had the required training.

but fortunately not everywhere:

14 November 2001
College of Pharmacists still opposed to freedom of conscience
The Annual General Meeting of the BC College of Pharmacists meeting was held in Burnaby on 3 November, 2001. The only resolution presented at the meeting proposed an amendment to the College Code of Ethics to respect freedom of conscience. The resolution was defeated 24-14, but the degree of support for the motion was a surprise to at a least one experienced pharmacist. A member of the College's Ethics Committee found himself challenged by a young pharmacist for attempting to impose his own views as a kind of religion.

And Europe is doing fine:

November 16, 2001
European Court ruling ghettoizes religious belief in Europe
In October, 2001, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed an appeal by French pharmacists Bruno Pichon and Mrs Marie-Line Sajous. They had argued that they should not be forced to dispense a drug marketed as a contraceptive that sometimes had an abortifacient effect, as they were opposed to abortion on religious grounds.

The court ignored the argument about the nature of the drug, and instead interpreted Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights to mean that the practice of religious belief "does not cover each and every kind of public act or behaviour, motivated or inspired by a religion or a belief." It appears that the court interprets practice or expression of religion or belief to mean narrowly religious worship, teaching, and ritual observance. In effect, the Court has ruled that religious believers who actually attempt to live by their faiths may be forced out of civic and professional life.

The UK are Ireland are even dealing effectively with the lie that EC is "abortifacient":

15 November, 2001
Irish Medicine Board declares 'morning-after-pill' non-abortifacient
Reversing a decision made about 18 months ago, the Irish Medical Board has aligned itself with the position of the Irish Government, which states that the drug Levonelle does not fall within the definition of abortion set out in the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy bill, now before the Dáil. A cabinet sub-committee recommended last month that legal uncertainties about the drug should be removed. The IMB consulted the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecolgists and a senior lawyer.

The change may not impact conscientious objectors directly because Ireland's protection of conscience law prevents them from being forced to participate in the distribution of contraceptives. However, the law does not prohibit discrimination against them, so they may find themselves excluded from educational programmes and from employment.

14 November, 2001
U.K. authority moves to suppress freedom of expression
The Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom has ordered the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children to stop describing 'morning-after-pills' as "abortion-inducing", apparently because official government policy is to deny that the drug has an abortifacient mechanism. The development is of interest for two reasons. First: citizens in a democratic country are being forbidden to express opinions that contradict government policy. Second: conscientious objection to the drug can be suppressed on the ground, not that the reasons for objection (in most cases, that the 'morning-after-pill' may have an abortifacient effect) are erroneous, but because they are contrary to state policy.

Yeah. Just like claims that laetrile cures cancer aren't "erroneous", just "contrary to state policy" ...


(on edit:
note, for copyright purposes, that each of the above items is from a different published source, cited at the source from which they were taken, and therefore falls within the short-excerpt exception)

.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Maybe all sales people will be given discretion over what they sell to each member of the public, based on their own personal biases.

PRIDE: No cosmetics sales for you, cupcake! I happen to think lipstick is a sin against God.
ENVY: I can't sell these designer jeans to you, because they're a popular brand. That means that this brand inspires envy, and that's a sin. Here are some no-label jeans instead, because I think it's best.
GLUTTONY: No Krispy Kremes for you, you look like you need to lose some weight!
LUST: I can't sell this magazine to you, look at that scantily clad woman on the cover! Think of the children!
ANGER: Naw, I don't think I'll sell you a gun. What if you got mad and used it inappropriately?
GREED: I can't sell you this lottery ticket, because gambling is a sin against God.
SLOTH: Yes, I know our store chain accepts food stamps, but I think you're just lazy, and I am the store manager, so I won't accept them here at my store.

AND WE DEMS ARE ACCUSED OF RUNNING A NANNY STATE?!

Get ready for the New American Century!
:crazy:

The women of Free Republic, well, they might be a different story.... :evilgrin:

I've already been harassed at my clinic back when I had health insurance because the clinic, among other things, provides abortions and I am a female of childbearing age. Therefore I was automatically pregnant and the fanatics harassing me felt free to get in my face and block line of sight to traffic.

If I have a prescription, I'd better not be denied the drugs because some self-righteous twit doesn't believe in that particular drug. I don't go to a pharmacy to be judged, but it seems that judging women is the pastime of the month.

If you want to judge me, keep it to yourself, don't interfere with my autonomy and my freedom to make my own decisions about my own body.

Too bad we don't have the ability to swap bodies, so we can make a judgemental fundy pharmacist go through the pregnancy and birthing and society's lack of compassion and the rape victim won't have to. But I can fantasize.....

Absolutely mind-boggling.

And I will be the leader of the women's front!!!

you, I'm sure!

Let's wipe those motherfuckers off the face of this great country, like wiping the pus from a popped zit off your teen-ager's face! :kick:

....will be subject to harassment from fundy wackos.

How will your local drugstore react to a dozen people standing outside with "baby killer" signs? Will they stop dispensing drugs to avoid the controversy? Will they cave to boycotts organized by the local congregations?

There is way more to this than a few pharmacists with "moral issues".