Pharmacists denying Birth Control

to single and married woman is unconstitutional and will go to SCOTUS in the next year....mark my words
quote.....
Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone,"
end quote.......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Griswold, and others violated Connecticut law in providing contraceptive information, devices, and drugs to a married Connecticut couple. They appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing the law violated the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed. Citing the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, the Supreme Court found that the right to privacy is implicit in the Constitution, and that it precludes laws such as Connecticut.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Baird violated Massachusetts law in providing a contraceptive device to an unmarried woman. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing the law violated the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed. Citing the right to equal protection, the Supreme Court found that Massachusetts had no rational basis for distinguishing between unmarried and married persons with respect to the use of contraception, and could not therefore criminalize its use by one and not the other.

period. They are not doctors and do not get to decide what legal medications anyone gets.

Large boycotts are in order.

http://www.saveroe.com/fillmypillsnow/scored.php

There was a email campaign there recently agains Target.

But not a lot of help for rural populations with little alternative to Mom & Pop pharmacies (and yes, those still exist) if Mom & Pop get all fundy.

I like the idea of a data base. $$ talks. Most of the 'moral value' shit where a few try to cram their moral choices down the throats of the many will collapse when faced with red ink where there used to be black.

Boycotts are good. They generally work if done well and long enough. And it really pisses off the wingers when any group but them mounts a boycott. Worth it just to get 'em all annoyed (sorta like when we sang hymns to the idiots harassing Planned Parenthood Clinics ;) )

Just set up a site, and get a few girls to volunteer to call pharmacies and ask if they will fill such and such a prescription. This isn't a bad idea at all as I think about it.

for help with compiling a data base. Hey, maybe we should start a thread in the activist forum?

PM me sometime if you want to roll with it. ;)

...what they DO NOT have a right to do is PICK and CHOOSE WHICH legal medication they want to fill. This is the same as a doctor saying they won't treat AIDS! A disease is a disease and many are deadly. A med is a med and no one has a right to decide based on what it is being taken for.

Your two cited cases resulted in a state not being able to pass a law that outlawed contraceptives. It doesn't address what a private entity can or can't do.

it was the decisions that made way for ROE.Both are based on privacy and 'liberty'. The problem will not exist with major companies, it will only be small private pharmacists that will challenge the status quo.I'm sure every major company is ASKING on the interview what the pharmacists position is and hiring/denying employment based on it.This is a pandora's box major companies do not want to deal with.

as well as others...they enjoin the state governments from passing a law, not private entities.

I'm only disputing that part of the OP...not the sentiment behind it.

Here's the response that I got from Target (bolding is mine):



As I'm sure you'll agree, Target is NOT a small private pharmacy. By the way, I told Jennifer that she can count on NOT seeing me again at Target.

And don't they realize that it's ALSO unconstitutional to force THEIR religious views upon others? Every pharmacists who denies should be sued for a civil rights violation.

:headbang:
rocknation

views on others. I might not agree with it, but it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

or even better, sue CVS, Walgreens, etc. See how fast they FIRE these pharmacists when THEY are made to pay for their employees "religious" views.

And the argument will be the one used for integration: You offer a service to the public, it must be to the ENTIRE public. This pertained to a privately-owned business.

And I don't believe it would be legal for Fundies to try to open a "Christian-only" pharmacy.

I have no problem that a company does not want to do anything for religious reasons...that is their prerogative. I have a problem when an employee sets the rules for a company he does NOT own..and I'm sure the company would also. Like it or not, most of the companies we are talking about are publicly traded companies. The shareholders have a right to demand equality is business practices.

There are some OB-GYNs who refuse to prescribe birth control pills and other forms birth control because they view such as abortifants, something which goes against their particular religious beliefs.

Last year I agreed to visit another doctor in my doctor's group because my doctor was called out for an emergency. I had my annual exam and asked for my birth control prescription... that's when everything went downhill.

It is my firm belief/opinion that individuals who follow such strict religious guidelines as to discount birth control should not follow the OB-GYN or pharmaceutical career path. It isn't ethical and it isn't beneficial to society.

belief. of course they do i say. and they shouldnt have a job that conflicts with their religious belief.

she says they have the right to work

i told her, no they dont. if they know something in that profession goes against their relgion it is their duty to not be a part of that industry. it is the religious that must sacrifice because of their religion, it is not all the rest of us that must sacrifice for their religion. if they cannot fill a prescription then in the name of their religion they must sacrifice their profession

also, take it a step further to the fda head dude. he wrote a book, pms, open your bible.

the essence, the pain is from original sin, suck it up. so my old body that has old fallopian tubes, that cause me massive pain every month, i get a pain perscription. does this person now get to deny me pain medicine because i am suppose to experience the pain so i will know what a sinner i am

telling ya. this one i ask the pharmacists loudly what their religion is and does their religion interfer in prescribing drugs to women. everyone has been bothered i ask about their religion. each one i tell they should have the right to privacy, but fellow pharmacist has lost that for them. my right to know overrides their right to privacy

I have posted this before...I went on a date with a (Catholic)retired OB-GYN.....4 years ago and we had this conversation. He said that HE couldn't perform an abortion of religious/moral ground BUT he always counseled his patients on the option and had an associate standing by for woman that elected an abortion. I don't have a problem with anyone doing the same on B/C pills....the denial and lectures we are hearing is total bushit.

someone? Would he/she still have the right to be a police officer? (There are definitely cases where a police officer has to kill someone to protect someone else.) My answer is NO -- it is one of the requirements of the job.

really? You mean you can get FIRED if you REFUSE to do your JOB?

Perish the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucking thought.

right to alter it without telling the patient?

Would they be legally protected to send a woman on her way with placebo's, with her thinking they are bcp's? I doubt any court would uphold that, that would be seen as interfering with the care.

Or would it? Could a pharmacist get away with that?

so that the whole world knows!!

WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF???? LOSING BUSINESS????


"We refuse birth control (or fill in the blank) prescriptions! Have a nice day!!"

Let's see what would happen?? Why should they be allowed to operate in "stealth mode" on this??

I think some organizations should fund raise on this and use the $$ to BUY ADS OUTING THESE COMPANIES!!!(And I don't care if it's only in certain stores....if the national chain permits it, TOUGH! Let them change their policies nationwide!

no gay agenda, maybe use that to our advantage...Tell them that this will only increase Lesbianism and is part of the Great Gay Agenda...and they are playing right into it....:sarcasm: