Should people who deny victims of rape birth control because of "religious objections"...

Have a small and reasonable percentage of their wages garnished and put into a Social Program for the Mothers that they adversely affect because they impose their personal lifestyle choices upon them?

n/t.

cabdrivers who, for religious reasons, refuse airport fares who are transporting unopened bottles of wine or liquor that they bought while traveling? Should the cabbies be fired?

The foolishness of it contains its own punishment in the form of lost income, and it does not impose an alteration of life circumstance for the whole remaining term of a woman's existence.

But a cab company would certainly be within its rights to fire an employee who did that, and in many cities, there are regulations on the refusal of fares that these acts would violate.

others don't? A very illiberal position you take, Sir.

personnel who put their own beliefs above the needs of their patients, and especially your sanctioning of people refusing contraception to rape victims, is VERY illiberal, indeed.

One person refusing "emergency contraception" to a woman doesn't mean the woman will be unable to get the drug.

No one should be forced to do something against their beliefs.

forced to do anything against their beliefs - they CHOSE to take the job.

to drive around in a precarious, traumatized condition, to try to find a LEGAL drug that was LEGALLY prescribed? And, as Mondo Joe says, EC has a very limited window of time in which it can be used.

And I still cannot believe you're making such a ridiculous analogy in the first place. I guess that shows how much respect and concern you have for women.

If people shouldn't be forced to do something against their beliefs, then very few jobs would ever actually get done in this country. People working for corporations who hate what the corporations are doing, etc.

And I notice you are still avoiding my questions. Why don't you try answering them instead of bringing up more ridiculous analogies?

get EC there, if she wanted it.

But when an outstanding warrant was found against her, she was transported to the jail before receiving said drug. Then the medico in charge at the jail was against the drug, she was not given any choice, much less the prescription, for said drug.

case is quite telling, don't you think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x78819

having been arrested after filing her complaint for an unpaid fine from several years ago.

Even though the morning after pill had been prescribed at the hospital, the medical supervisor at the jail refused her the morning after pill, according to the story.

invoked the ridiculous "conscience clause" and refused the EC?

And what about the case we're discussing, where the woman was jailed after the rape and couldn't get to a pharmacy, even though the ER had prescribed the EC for her, the Christofascist medical supervisor decided HER beliefs were more important than the woman's needs and interfered with a LAWFUL prescription. If you in any way sanction that, then you really don't belong here at DU.

shouldn't hold a job where they might be required to do so. If you can't take the heat, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

Your religious rights end where another person's body begins.

God, CHRISTOFASCISTS make me sick!

Muslims refusing fares carrying sealed bottles of alcoholic beverages?

There may not be a variety of local facilities; there may not be an abundance of time.

What this line of argument founders on is simple, though doubtless unpalatable to the devout. When a person claims that the act of dispensing an abortificant causes them the harm of violating their religious convictions, that harm is wholly self-inflicted and imaginary: that "harm" depends solely on the person's voluntary adherence to a belief, and does not exist without that voluntary adherence to a belief. The harm done to a woman who is compelled against her will to carry, and either abort or bear a child, has objective reality. For an imaginary harm to take precendence over a real one is nonesense.

It doesn't matter whether their ethics are relative or absolute, or whether they are founded on religious objections or personal ethical objections.

While the person defending the jail doctor may be wrong about the
ethicality of withholding treatment, your reaction is bizarrely and
radically reactionary, asserting that ALL ETHICS that claims a
religious justification is imaginary.

If folks running the country had made your argument during the 60's, MLK would not have gotten anywhere, just like social justice advocates seem to get NOWHERE today in upper-middle-class, neighborhoods, because
many of their arguments are rooted in 2000 years of mostly-religious ethical tradition, all of which has been discarded by today's selectively-educated wealthy in the name of scientific progress.

Many pocketbook-voting secularists who advocate that things be legislated on a purely utilitarian basis (never mind that a utilitarian system of ethics is every bit as immaterial and thus imaginary as any other system of ethics) today believe that the freedoms of others stop not at their nose, but anywhere under the control of their polity. The polity now decides ethics on a "scientific" basis, hence smoking bans, etc. because individuals cannot be trusted to follow their own "irrational" and often religiously based ethical opinions about life choices, etc.

And so you get statements in constitutional law about replacing common-law definitions of the "public realm" with new definitions in which people have the right not to be exposed to things they find objectionable, on public or private property. Because people's own private ethical judgements are no longer valid, even on a relative basis!

In short, some sort of radical secularism that discards the right of individuals to make their own ethical decisions unless those ethics are rooted in some equally imaginary utilitarian/scientific greater-good theory is truly scary and leads to a path of anarcho-capitalism in which the freedom of the individual is curtailed and that of the corporate state is expanded, all in the name of the greater good. We are already heading down that path in upper-middle-class, secular neighborhoods.

I shudder for our country that a person would utter such a disturbingly
Benthamesque statement in such a faux-Magisterial voice. Sorry.

Please, come back with an argument that asserts that the doctor's
ethical judgement is unsound for other reasons.

(On Edit: I see that you did.)

Do not continue to assert that a person's religious beliefs are automatically irrelevant and that any ethical judgements stemming from those beliefs should be dismissed as meaningless.

If I have an ethical judgement that I never intend to set foot inside a store because of its actions in the past, or that a person intends to fight to the death to preserve my freedom of assembly, a freedom that has no monetary value to me, those ethical judgements are just as "meaningless" according to the utilitarian standards you just outlined as those rooted in religious belief.

That is why Ethics is a separate field from theology, because it does not require religious belief to hold fast to a course of action YOU might find irrational simply because one believes in universal right and wrong.

Or even if one DOESN'T believe in universal right and wrong and is simply an Existentialist who believes in staying true to one's own beliefs.

Physical harm is real, as you may reassure yourself, if you have any doubts on the score, by slamming a door on your hand, and tracking your sensations, and the permanently lessened utility of the fingers, afterwards. If it is inflicted on you by someone against your will, it is in no sense voluntary. All suffering claimed as the result of performing an act contrary to religious convictions, or any other conviction, is both imaginary and voluntary. It is a product of the mind alone, and of a mind that wills it to be so. Even if the act is compelled by another, the experience of it as causing suffering remains voluntary, and the suffering imaginary, without the least tincture of concreteness.

A person does not get to avoid an imaginary and voluntary suffering of his own by inflicting a concrete and physical suffering on another against his or her will. There is really no difference at all between this formulation and the one you approved of below: this is simply the undergirding why of what is wrong with a person feeling he has the right to impose his religious scruples on a person who does not share his faith.

Just because my religion says I should sacrifice animals or children doesn't mean I have a right to act on either.

People do not have a right to impose their religious scruples on persons who do not share their faith. Whether an attempt by someone to do this requires outside intervention to prevent it is dependent on the gravity of the imposition. There will be another taxi-cab along soon enough: it is not a thing in the same league with forcing a woman to carry and bear a child.

on persons who do not share their faith." BINGO! THAT is what we're trying to get across here, to no avail for some people, I see.

to carry fares carrying sealed bottles of wine or other alcoholic beverages.

Should they still be allowed to keep their jobs?

Pharmacist Refuses to Fill Any Prescription!"

But I think that is cultural chauvinism on the part of the naysayers,
not irrational imposition of beliefs in an inappropriate position of
authority. (Unless it is wrong to impose tolerance of people wearing
different outfits.)

pharmacists and for cab drivers ergarding religious accomodation is uniform: reasonable accomodation should be made provided it does not infringe on performing basic job functions.

Similarly, if someone's religious principles prevent them from giving some forms of medical treatment, they should not take jobs where this is an obvious requirement.

If it suddenly became illegal to fire someone for refusing to perform a task essential to the job on religious grounds? A person could get hired on, and then just sit there folding his/her arms while they collect a paycheck.

On the other hand, if someone has a religious objection to dispensing
an abortion pill, they should go to work in a store that refuses to sell
abortion pills and place a sign on the door saying "we do not sell RU-486"

Just like Ben and Jerry's is allowed to say "we do not use BGH or cloned cows"

And did you know the agribusiness industry is trying to make it ILLEGAL
for Ben and Jerry's and other organic producers to do so, using the same
legal precedent?

In any case, I do not believe a rape victim should be denied RU-486.

Even those who believe abortion is immoral recognize that sometimes
it is necessary, because forcing a woman to bear the child would be
even more immoral. It is not inconsistent to believe that.

That pill actually IS an abortion pill. It's taken in the first few weeks of a confirmed pregnancy and induces an actual abortion. The Plan B pill is actually a form of emergency contraception, which acts by preventing ovulation. That's why it has such a small window of opportunity of the first 3 days following intercourse.

There's alot of confusion between the two, but they are not the same thing.

Do you seriously think those are morally equivalent?

is refusing to provide a service for someone else and the refusal is based on religious beliefs. One person denying "emergency contraception" to a rape victim does not mean the woman will be "forced to incubate rape babies."

indicates perfectly that even you have no faith in your own arguments.

that could have been totally preventable if she had gotten the EC in a timely manner.

she did not conceive when she was raped; I hope that is the case.

But she will not be FORCED to bear a child if she did conceive. She can have an abortion if she chooses to.

ectopic pregnancies? A woman who takes EC may wind up with an ectopic pregnancy, which is far more dangerous than a normal pregnancy.

the prescription should be filled. The risks are an issue between the doctor and the patient. Unless the pharmacists is uncovering a mistake the doctor made regarding interaction with another medication, it is the pharmacist's job regardless of their religious beliefs to fill the prescription. It's not their job to assess the risks and benefits and side affects and second guess doctors. If they don't want to fill all prescriptions as prescribed by doctors, they need to find a job where they aren't required to fill prescriptions. It is their responsibility, and a basic requirement of the job. It IS the job.

not up to YOU.

Not really a surprise, but the claim about EC causing ectopic pregnancies is unsupported by facts.

By retract, I don't mean run away from your fallacious claim; I mean own up that you either inadvertently posted erroneous material or that you made it up in the heat of debate.

Tubal ligations can increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy; this is a fact. Should they be banned?

What do you blame for your own ectopic pregnancy?

anti-choicer.

The poster in question has a history of either making claims that cannot be supported - or just making up things off the top of her head. Her stance is best described as pro-lie; well, that is true of anyone who is anti-abortion.

that's exactly what she will be forced with.

Women are already fighting for the right to make their own decisions with their bodies in many states. But the male politicos ( fundies) have already started their 'war against women' when it comes down to birth control and abortion issues.

After all, there are more people whose religious beliefs preclude abortion than emergency contraception.

At worst, she will indeed have to incubate babies. At best, she will have to go to a lot of trouble and perhaps expense to have the procedure; and will possibly have to have it at a later stage than would be medically ideal due to the delay. And we're talking about a woman who is already traumatized from the rape.

So she should be ok with having a abortion rather than getting the legally prescribed medicine? What if her religion is against abortions but not against the morning after pill? What if they are against aborting an embryo but not against preventing an embryo from happening?

It is dangerous to go down any other road than that one.

There was a time (and will be soon again) in our society
when families would be "forced" to abort or expose
deformed or retarded babies, when the poor would be
"forced" by circumstance or reality to have abortions
or sterilization because society would not care for them.

The same is true for a child who is the product
of rape today, although it is not politically
correct to say so!

That certainly does not mean that she should be "forced"
to CARRY the baby, either! which in this case, being in
jail, she was.

There could be a religious belief that there is a difference between preventing an embryo from happening (morning after pill) and aborting an embryo. It could very well be forcing her.

obstruction of medical service.

Being denied access to a legal prescription medication = being denied cab service.

:eyes:

He didn't say specifically, but I'm willing to wager that his tolerance of that behavior to cab drivers would extend to Christians who don't approve of alcohol, just as his disapproval of those refusing to distribute Emergency Contraceptive would extend to muslims who did that as well. :shrug:

And even by practical Moslem standards, such a refusal is fairly extreme. There are Moslem clerics who have issued rulings that a Moslem may take work selling alchohol. An excellent grocery in my neighborhood owned by Moslems sells both halal and non-halal meats, including pork, though at different counters.

The point is the seriousness of the imposition on people's rights and freedoms. Refusing to take someone in your taxi if they are carrying alcohol is improper behaviour, and I am sure a taxi firm could fire the people who do this; but it's not on the level of refusing birth control to a rape victim.

One can certainly easily find plenty of Moslem examples that are indeed as bad or worse. In countries where governments seek to impose Islamic rules, the treatment of women is appalling. All theocracy is bad.

this woman was raped, arrested fro an unrelated incident and held in jail through the window of opportunity for the morning after pill. the cabdrivers are not taking the peoples booze away, not forcing them to not drink it

and they are not in positions of authority, acting on behalf of the government

find a better analogy; this one is DOA

that the two are totally unrelated? You can easily get another cab at the airport. But you cannot easily just go to another pharmacy, especially if you're suffering the trauma and horror of a rape. Why the hell should you have to drive around in that condition to find a pharmacy where a pharmacists will actually DO THEIR FUCKING JOB and NOT put their personal beliefs above your needs? I cannot believe you are equating the two, there's no comparison. Hey, let's just let everyone do what they want in the workforce and screw the consequences to the people they adversely affect.

And I notice that you never did respond to the "this is what an anti-choice paradise looks like" thread, which discussed the horrendous conditions many pregnant women must endure in El Salvador, including forensic vagina inspectors (to make sure a miscarriage really was one and not an abortion), and the fact that women with fallopian ectopic pregnancies cannot be treated at all until the fetus dies or her tube bursts. And if she dies, tough shit. So, tell us, are you in favor of those kinds of conditions?

And you're in favor of those "conscience clauses" to "protect" medical workers, as you say. Well, what if one of them decides not to treat a heart attack victim because they disapprove of inactive people with poor diets? What if a rape victim comes in who's been beaten and someone refuses to treat her because she "should have been more careful" (believe it or not, I've heard that shit in regard to rape victims, from allegedly caring "pro-life" people)? What if an ill person with AIDS comes to the ER and someone refuses to treat him or her because they disapprove of gays and/or drug users, even though they may not even know how the person got AIDS in the first place?

I'm sorry, but conscience clauses are pure, heartless bullshit that puts the lives of human beings at direct risk. If people don't want to do certain things for certain types of people, then they shouldn't go into the medical field in the first goddamned place, it's that simple. When I go to a medical professional, I shouldn't have to kowtow to THEIR particular, personal beliefs, and I absolutely refuse to do so.

They are apples and oranges when it comes to the ethical issue
of individuals in private practice having the right to make ethical
judgements about what sort of treatments they are comfortable
dispensing -- providing that their judgements are clearly advertised.

Any precedent to the contrary would imply, e.g. (and this is already
being stated in legal filings) that companies like Ben & Jerry are
not allowed to exclude BGH or cloned cattle from their products or
even non-organic or GMO grain, because such exclusion implies an
unscientific verdict against the quality of GMO, BGH, non-organic
or cloned foodstuffs.

Again, they are already making the legal argument that professionals producing goods or services are not allowed to withhold certain
ingredients or certain products from their shelves --

a precedent that ironically goes against the foundations of both pre-capitalist common law definitions of individual freedom, basic foundation texts of free market capitalism articulated by Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill (who were, in fact, mainly concerned with this very issue in an era when professional guilds told people how to operate their business) AND post-capitalist social democracy.

So no, when it comes to private pharmacies, I do not believe in forcing them to sell a product, because that opens up the door for totalitarian, mercantile guild capitalism of the 18th century variety, with all sorts of businesses being forced to carry all sorts of products, to utterly replace the relatively benign Main Street capitalism that US citizens supposedly believe in.

It is already argued in some quarters that organized boycotts are injurious and therefore should be considered illegal. That is a similar position on the flip side of this issue.

who work in them generally do not own the pharmacies.

They are simply obstructing access to legal and prescribed pharmaceuticals in supply.

Furthermore, pharmacies are licensed and provide a critical link in medical care. It's entirely appropriate for that licensure to carry expectations of at least minimal service.

If they don't want to do certain things on a job because it's against their religious beliefs, then they shouldn't be working at that job, period. We do not have the ban on alcohol in this country that most Muslim countries have, and we should not have to abide by THEIR rules.

Same with this case. Contraception is LEGAL in this country and pharmacists are obligated to fill LEGAL prescriptions written by actual doctors. They do NOT have the right to substitute their own beliefs and judgments for that of the doctor and his or her patient.

I agree with everything you say liberalhistorian.
Madspirit

I see no reason society should tolerate such primitive and inferior belief systems.

If an action results in unwanted pregnancy, there is significantly greater damage than having to get another cab.

That said, persons who refuse standard and expected cab service should not be licensed.

(A regulatory process tweaked and refined by General Motors acolytes
designed to eliminate efficient and private transit jitneys from the streets)

And you've actually bought into the theory that we are doing so to keep the cabs clean and entirely uniform -- and not just an excuse to destroy competition in the cab market -- all cabs in the city must operate alike and have the same rules about what you may bring into a person's cab, because a city is a vast machine run according to YOUR ethical beliefs about when cab service can be denied, not the ethical beliefs of some religious individual.

Like I say, jail doctors cannot be allowed to deny a person legal
treatment, but private practice is another argument that leads to
arguments like the one you just made, as I mentioned in a post upthread.

And I have no objection to a minimum standard required for that license.

If you don't want to meet that standard, go into another line of work.

And they're not performing their jobs without discriminating.

Their personal beliefs are of absolutely no importance to their customers. They're there to do a job, period.

If they don't like what doing that job entails, they need to find a different occupation.

If a person is incapable of providing services to women, they need to withdraw from a case and let someone else handle it.

actually do.....

Go for the elegant one.

Someone who doesn't want to perform the job they've been hired to do without discriminating ought to be relieved of that job.

Simple enough.

If you wish to deprive yourself of certain medicines and procedures because of superstition that's fine but you should never be able to impose those superstitions on others.

their ability to DO THEIR JOB. That goes for Fundy Christian Pharmacists as it goes for Muslim Cab Drivers.

Far easier to tell them to do their job or find another line of work that doesn't conflict with their beliefs. No one forced them into that line of work. I don't care what they believe as long as they don't put that belief between me and my doctor.

onto the personal choices of other consenting adults, wouldn't it?

But the issue of personal choice and consenting adults is pretty broad in its scope. These people exerting a power to directly impede the medical care of another person. Unless they're uncovering a mistake that could harm the person, there's no excuse for that.

folks seem to feel "forced" to take upon themselves these days.

This story is appalling. And it's the logical outgrowth of this self-righteous mentality that says folks are charged with playing everyone else's morals police.

and choose not to abort the supervisor should have to pay child support. Oh, she should also have to pay medical bills for the pregnancy and birth. If the woman who was raped decides to have an abortion in case of pregnancy the supervisor should have to pay for that. She should be sued for emotional damages as well.


And the supervisor should be fired after a thorough ass kicking.

n/t

If they can't do their job properly then get the fuck out and find another one!!!

Then they can weigh their anti-birth control convictions against their anti-abortion convictions, as well as the financial burden of paying for an abortion, and come to the proper conclusion.

And a whole shitload of projected lost wages. And, and, and....

By god it's hard to think of sufficient chastisement for these motherfucking religious assholes.

with their ability to perform their duties. If you're a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in medicine, don't become a doctor or work in a hospital. If you're a Muslim who thinks that pig flesh is "unclean", then don't work in a BBQ joint. If you're a pacifist who objects to all forms of violence, and won't carry a gun, then don't become a police officer.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Are people deliberately getting jobs so they can refuse to perform them on religious grounds? What about cashiers who object to tobacco or alcohol? Can they chase you away from their cash register and tell you to get in line somewhere else? Would they be fired if they did that? I'm just not getting this.:shrug:

Why should one person be allowed to further their relious beliefs on any population?

Get rid of that fucker immediately.

..On any Religious terms.

If you go into the Medical Field you obviously know that you may very well be dealing with Birth Control issues. the option to take any birth control is a choice that only the affected individual can and should make.

I would smack the shit out of a Doctor who told me after I was raped (if I was female) that they "Can not give any birth control simply because they do not believe in it." Well Fuck you pal, I am the one who has to live with this, not you and apparently you signed up for the wrong career jack-ass.

If they allow for medical personnel deny contraception, then all Birth Control should be over the counter so individuals can make that decision on their own.

:evilgrin:

We all know our limitations and our morals. Just because we have the freedom to select from any job possibility does not mean we are the right candidate for the job.

Hate people? Steer clear of counseling and social work. Hate books? Steer clear of teaching and the library. Hate birth control? Steer clear of medicine and pharmacy.

It's a simplistic view, I know, and not at all feasible, but it's how I feel. I believe that individuals should not be denied services on the basis of a provider's moral hangup. Professional schools have debated their gatekeeper roles for many years, and with good reason. If you can't do what is asked of you professionally, then perhaps another line of work is more appropriate.

for causing harm to their patient, preforming below the standard of care and loose the right to practice. Then a civil law suit should follow and all pockets are to be turned inside out.

...there should be a LAW that says that people CANNOT DENY VICTIMS OF RAPE BIRTH CONTROL because of their religious convictions AND that IF they choose to do so anyway, then they MUST be removed from their job/position AND fined.

The amount of the fine should be the cost of raising one child in the US today - INCLUDING college. I don't know that that's estimated to be but choose the highest estimate and the lowest, and take the average. Adjust it yearly - and THAT is what the fine should be.

I could WRITE the damn law myself. There ought to be one and those should be the stipulations of it.

THAT would put a stop to this kind of bullsh*t right quick.

...then perhaps you should consider a different career option. There's something mentally fucked in the head about someone who goes to school for years to become a pharmacist and then, once they get their degree, use it to keep people from buying birth control pills and rubbers.

I'm all in favor of religious liberties--but not when someone's religion impedes on someone else's rights.

It's simple:

If someone who believes eating meat is wrong gets a job in a steakhouse and refuses to serve beef to customers who order it, should that person be allowed to keep their job (while other servers have to do twice the work)? Is it "religious discrimination" to fire their ass?

No. They shouldn't've taken a job in a steakhouse.

Now, if you're dealing with something really crucial, like medical care? Times 10.

I suppose not, but DAMN is it tempting.

Fucking evil religious bastards.

then say you hate "evil religious bastards"? What kind of evil bastard are you, then? An evil nonreligious bastard?

Many jobs have clearly defined minimum requirements -- things that failure to do for ANY reason will get you warned, sanctioned, and then fired.

If there are things that your religion forbids you to do, then don't take the job. Don't, for instance, become a sex worker if that violates your religion. Just don't. And don't become a pharmacist if you can't bring yourself to dispense any lawful prescription. Just don't take the job. Don't waste your money being trained for it.

It's high time that this gap in the laws governing pharmacists be filled. I've been appalled and disgusted at this latest manifestation of the wingnut culture wars. It threatens us all.

Hekate

1. A person in Jail has the right to receive any and all legal treatment
available to them. Denying them this treatment is worse than just about
anything else.

It is our duty to assist the helpless even if we disapprove of their judgement about what is best for them. To do anything else is the most basic form of oppression. The same applies to allowing a dying man to commit suicide, etc. As the old saying goes (and this is addressed to people like the extremely misguided and likely hateful jail pharmacist) "let God be the judge". But this is basic ethics, regardless of religion.

2. A person who is working at a job where he or she might be asked to do something immoral (according to that person's judgement) has the right to refuse to do so -- and suffer the consequences gladly, be they legal or losing ones job. This is intrinsic to Emersonian concept of civil disobedience.

Many progressive statists no longer believe that civil disobedience is "acceptable", unfortunately. It doesn't matter what the statists think, a person still has the right to disobey their boss. Without that you can't have unions -- another force that many modern, secular progressives tend to downplay in terms of the right to strike illegally, etc.

3. A person in private practice has the right not to sell, stock, or
include ingredients in his or her product that the seller disapproves
of. It is common decency to advertise that one is doing so, however.

It is basic to the freedom of individuals that a "marketplace"
exists in which people can choose which store to go to, and businesses
are not assumed to have a fiduciary responsibility to customers unless
they are a monopoly (which is generally a bad thing.)

This is crucial to both classic capitalism and pre-capitalist revolutionary ideas about liberty. It is, however, a major stumbling block to post-capitalist reformism which tends to verge on statism and oppressive moralism, whether secular (in the case of politically correct laws requiring pharmacists to sell contraceptives) or religious (in the case of countries like Iran).

It is also a major stumbling block to the creation of a postmodern mercantile capitalist state in which the individual no longer has any rights and the consumer no longer has any presumption of choice.

"It is basic to the freedom of individuals that a "marketplace"
exists in which people can choose which store to go to, and businesses
are not assumed to have a fiduciary responsibility to customers unless
they are a monopoly (which is generally a bad thing.)"


:eyes:

1. Agree completely.

2. No one is saying people don't have the right to disobey their boss. They're saying people don't have the right to impose their moral and religious beliefs on others using special powers granted to them by their employer and keep their job and face no consequences. A pharmacist is a gatekeeper that has been granted a special power that no other professional or type of business has, and the only way we can gain access to prescription drugs prescribed by our doctors. There is a difference between civil disobedience to effect change for things like better working conditions, living wages and benefits, and basic human rights for oneself, and another to "civilly disobey" to prevent another person from exercising THEIR rights. It's not like pharmacists are tricked into taking a job and then suddenly find out they have to prescribe birth control. They know that going into the profession as it is certainly a requirement to learn about them. If their moral objections were strong, that was the time to find another profession, not continue to insert themselves to block women from gaining access to something THEY have a right to. There may be some progressives that no longer believe civil disobedience is acceptable, but this is in no way an example of that.

3. No one is forcing any business to sell anything they don't want. A proprietor wants absolute freedom in their business practices can choose not to be a pharmacy. No one but pharmacies can sell prescription drugs. As an industry they have a monopoly on that service, a monopoly granted by the state (Ouch, I know. I'm sorry, I tried to think of a euphemism but couldn't come up with one). There is nothing overreaching about the state setting basic requirements in order to obtain and hold the right to sell them, as they are heavily regulated. If anyone could sell prescription drugs, it would be different. It seems to me that your problem is with any sort of regulation to begin with, and that's really a different discussion altogether. Since we don't live in a Libertarian minimalist government utopia, and prescriptions are indeed heavily regulated, the people who hold the key need to perform the job they're given that key for, and serve the public, or find another line of work. Those who insist they must be pharmacist anyway because it is their lifelong dream promised to their parents on their deathbed could maybe argue for deregulation so they can enjoy fulfilling their lifelong dream without infringing on the rights of others.

-Statist Pithlet, who rather enjoys the infrastructure that allowed her to be a relative success in life.

they are so dedicated to. Deny a rape victim the morning after pill and Voila! Ninemonths later they are the proud parent of the outcome! Hello 18+ of responsibility!

Assholes.

Julie

There should be jail time involved for these people...

If your religion doesn't allow you to do so...find another profession...