- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Under New Kansas Law, Pharmacists Can Deny Birth Control Prescriptions
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a bill yesterday that will allow pharmacists in the state to refuse to fill a prescription that they believe could be used to induce abortion.
The law says that pharmacists cannot be required to provide a drug or devise that they think “may result in the termination of a pregnancy," but the law does not define which drug in particular, leaving it up to the pharmacist's discretion.
The Wichita Eagle reports that the law could also “allow a doctor to refuse to provide chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient because it might end her pregnancy.”
Kansas already has a law that allows medical professionals to refuse to assist in abortion procedures. Critics say this new law could stop women from getting contraceptives.
The Chicago Tribune reports:
"Women who want to plan for their families should have access to medications they need," said Julie Burkhart, founder and executive director of Trust Women, an abortion-rights group
in Wichita.
Burkhart said the law could create a hardship for women in small towns with a sole pharmacist who may refuse to fill certain prescriptions. In larger cities, women will have to make sure they go to a cooperative pharmacist, she added.
"Women should not have to go armed with a lot of research when looking for a physician or pharmacist in the community," Burkhart said.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
John Allman, you are right.
John Allman, you are right. Some of these posters think that only religious people are against abortion, and that all religious people are against it. To admit that a person can believe in God and not be a raving lunatic is more than their belief system can bear. To admit that would humanize their enemies, and that they will not do. You are wasting your efforts.
I am not conversant with how
I am not conversant with how pharmacists are licensed. Are they required to take an oath that says they will serve all members of the public equally? If they refused to fill a prescription for a black person they might as well quit the profession and move far away.
Is their any provision in their licensing procedure that says they can refuse service based upon their personal beliefs? How do they know the prescription was not issued by a doctor because any pregnancy would be a life-threatening situation for the woman?
More religious hypocrisy, will it ever end?
All good questions, except
All good questions, except the final rhetorical one, "More religious hypocrisy, will it ever end?"
There is nothing in the story about "religion", and the only hypocrisy touched on by the story, would be the hypocrisy of dispensing prescriptions to procure abortion, if one was allowed to refuse, and if one was against abortion, which one might be for reasons unconnected with religion. It is an assumption easily disproved, that all religious people, and only religious people, are against abortion.
Whether it's for reasons of
Whether it's for reasons of religion or, as you suggest, personal beliefs, I doubt very much if it is legal or ethical to apply those personal beliefs to over rule a doctor's prescription.
FWIW, I have personally never heard of a person that wanted to make all abortions illegal that was not driven by religious reasons.
I personally find abortions, particularly those for convenience, distasteful. I would not tell anyone else they cold not have one, though. That's a persona; choice and neither I,, nor anyone else has the right to tell someone else what to do in their own case.
I do recognize there are instances when abortions are the right thing to do. It's still a recognition of a tragedy, but there are times when it is the best solution in a very bad situation.
Most national governments
Most national governments allow the personal beliefs of people who describe themselves as "pacifists" to "overrule" the government's "prescription" of military service for them, even in time of war. This is not so different from allowing people who disapprove of the abortion industry to opt out of complicity in it.
Abortion law in the UK is governed by an Act of Parliament that contains a conscience clause. For 45 years, health workers in the UK have therefore been entitled by law to refuse to participate in the delivery of abortion services. Only during the past year have a couple of nurses (in Scotland) lost their jobs, and failed (so far - appeals have or will be lodged) to get their jobs back by legal action, for refusing to collaborate.
I am not in sympathy with those American would-be consumers who seem to think their right to access abortion services (or any other) is so paramount that it overrides the consciences of workers whom they ask to provide those services, to refuse, when the use to which those services are to be put conflicts with their consciences. One doesn't stop being a human being when one put on a nurses uniform or a pharmacist's white coat, or when one hangs a stethoscope around your neck.
It's not difficult to find somebody willing to perform abortions, or assist in them, or to sell booze or tobacco, or to print Gay Pride t-shirts. But that isn't enough for activists, who seem to target firms and individuals whom they anticipate might have moral scruples. The really quite vicious agenda seems to grind people into the dust, to humiliate them, like contriving a scheme of forced labour on Saturdays, for Jewish or Moslem prisoners, in a slaughterhouse for pigs.
All this is profoundly disrespectful of individual freedoms. If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear, even when that is the word "no", uttered by people who live in "the land of the free", and who use a cash register in their workplaces.
John, you consistently use
John, you consistently use the word"abortion" when the issue here is birth control pills that actually prevent abortions. isn't that distorting the issue to play to your personal axe to grind? I've come to expect more honesty from you than that.
Naturally, I am not conversant with the laws in the UK. In the USA there is a conscientious objector law for military service. What this does, is place these people in other forms of service, such as medics or other area where they will not be called upon to do violence to others.
That is a much different case, though. Pharmacists chose their profession, they were not forced into it. They calling does not say, "I'll serve anyone except those I choose not to serve and those people might change as I please."
As I pointed out elsewhere, a pharmacist likely doesn't know all of the medical details involved. A prescription for birth control pills might have been given because a pregnancy could be fatal to the woman, baby, or both.
So let's put the abortion issue aside for now. You have seen my views and I yours. Birth control is a vastly different thing and again, it's a personal ethical choice. With overpopulation being the biggest issue facing the world today for many reason, anything that reduces that problem, except abortion for convenience, is a rational thing in my view and one that does display "moral scruples".
Sorry James, if I used the
Sorry James, if I used the wrong terminology. I used the word "abortion", because the legislation refers to "termination" of "pregnancy". (See the second paragraph of the article.)
As is also very plain, the
As is also very plain, the issue is filling prescriptions for birth control pills. Perhaps you'd like to address your stance on those? Even that isn't the real point. That is, can someone who has trained and presumably taken an oath to serve the public, fairly and without discrimination, discard that oath and negate a legal prescription by a doctor to satisfy their personal beliefs?
As I mentioned before, it's unlikely a pharmacist will know the entire medical reasons behind any prescription. To place their personal beliefs ahead of that prescription is irresponsible and possibly illegal.
You seem to be probing me
You seem to be probing me somewhat. I am not in favour of people breaking oaths, without taking agonising decisions. Do pharmacists have to take oaths?
You ask the same question I
You ask the same question I did earlier. :) I don't know if pharmacists take oaths. In the USA at least, I suspect the licensing procedures vary from state to state. Also, pharmacy schools might include an oath as part of their own graduating standards. But I simply don't know. Maybe we'll have to wait until someone that does know responds.
I will note that John
I will note that John Allman's failure to address another clause in this legislation, that which allows doctors and technicians to refuse chemotherapy to a pregnant woman solely because it may end the pregnancy, resounds incredibly loudly in its quietness.
I think that is the key point of this legislation, which makes the state of Kansas appear to value the life of an unborn, entirely-dependent fetus over that of a sentinent, viable, adult female. Shame on any Kansas voter who does not make it clear to their representatives in Congress come election time that this sort of ridiculous hyperreactionary legislation is unacceptable in modern America.
I didn't notice all that much
I didn't notice all that much the bit about chemotherapy. It mentioned doctors, but not technicians. Since when have patients had a right to have their doctors prescribe them medication that the doctors aren't convinced is the best medication for them?
This is ignorant at best and
This is ignorant at best and intellectually-dishonest at worst. The impetus behind and context of the legislation is obviously placing a higher value on the life of an unborn fetus than that of an adult woman. Rather the woman give birth and die of potential complications due to delayed treatment than give her (the only actual human person involved in the situation) the best possible chance of survival, regardless of gestation. There is simply no excuse for that provision, as it expresses implicit approval of a doctor's personal morality causing him/her not to treat a woman's illness in the most effective and prudent manner available simply because a fetus is involved and may be harmed.
Thank you for sharing your
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Thank you for reminding me that my admitted ignorance was "ignorant", though I think it was unfair of you to call my frank admission of ignorance "dishonest", almost as though you were trying to start a quarrel.
I know nothing about the "impetus" you mention.
As I said, thank you for sharing your opinion, even though I don't fully understand what you wrote, which seemed to me to have an awful lot of "agenda" in it.
I agree that doctors ought to treat illness in the most effective and prudent manner, when that is possible. I do see potential for conflict between what is most effective, and what is most prudent, taking into account the interests of both patients, when treating a pregnant mother.
Why not just solve politics
Why not just solve politics by put abortion pills in vending machines in schools and public restrooms?
Because people are stupid.
They don't read or believe directions.
These drugs are safe only for most people. You can have disease that makes it lethal/harmful to you.
Kids are not the only group that might take 10 times the dose "just to make sure".
There are also frequency limits to safety. No - taking one after every time you have sex is not a good idea if you are a drunken sex addict (college girl or bored military housewife). Worse drunks would be tempted to take handful every time they couldn't remember if they already took some before or whether they had sex.
**** Now if you want to remove medical insurance obligations and civil court options for families and idiots who overdose or never got doctor...
Well OK let Darwin rule the land. ****
If I was unfortunate enough
If I was unfortunate enough to live in Kansass, I'd make sure not to patronize any pharmacy that refused to fill someone's/anyone's prescription. The medical choices for a patient's treatment are entirely between that patient and the doctor - the pharmacist knows nothing about the patient, their situation, or their conditions beyond what is written on the prescription. All that is written on the prescription is the doctor's information, the patient's name, the medication, the dosage, and instructions for use - not the condition itself. Any pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for "ethical reasons" is inferring a lot about the patient's situation and condition based entirely on the medication.
I'm not going to accept moral judgement of my actions from anyone based on what's written on a 3x5 piece of paper, and anyone that feels they have the right to do so because of some fairytale they believe in will be summarily fired from serving me. If their employers back them up on that, they're fired too.
Think about the reason we have pharmacies: to keep certain medications out of the hands of the public without seeing a doctor first, and that doctor making the decision that the medication in question is the right one for what's needed, that the correct dosage is being dispensed, etc. To allow some graduate of a 12-week diploma-mill program to come between someone in need of medical care and their prescribed medication is to say they know better than the graduate from medical school does.
How does it violate your ethics when you don't know the whole story, and it's not part of your job to get the whole story? This is like the cashier at the fast-food restaurant refusing to serve one particular customer at the drive thru window because they think the burger will be used for immoral purposes.
Correct very few pharmacies
Correct very few pharmacies get a full medical file on you. But they are under the same medical privacy restrictions as doctors & thus doctors are allowed to share your medical info as needed (consultation aspect of medical privacy laws). But sharing is on job based need-to-know.
As a minimum pharmacies have a complete file of every drug you are prescribed. Any pharmacist can more or less reproduce your non-surgical, treated medical history from that with a fair degree of accuracy. Many states and the federal government requires that certain or all info be available online within 48 hours from anywhere in US with rare exceptions. Why? your drug interaction safety and prescription abuse (especially narcotics).
*** Additionally many if not most pharmacies are given certain info by doctors as a pre-caution against errors by busy doctors. Plus doctor consults are often quite transparent at low volume (Kansas) pharmacies even if names weren't original mentioned. ("what's the latest best VD drug?" and then you come in hours later with only prescription for that drug). ****
Reality? unless you are a doctor's only patient and nothing serious ever happens to you...lots of people get exposed to your medical info.
Doctor's medical transcriptionist knows every objective detail. Though some offices give lip service to obscuring which patient, actually doing so is impractical and irresponsible -- unless you want treatments etc that belong to person of opposite sex and radically different age.
Doctor's billing clerk get every billable item and for your later edification often a short description of why/what for.
You think that when you are in the hospital the nurses know nothing about your condition? What about surgery? Yeah anesthesiologist knows relevant conditions...at least if you want to wake up after.
Depending on state, every medical professional who might need to take blood or deal with your blood may know you have HIV. States which say no one can know have more and more issues filling nurses, orderly, and technician slots -- because no one can simply be 100% vigilant 100% of the time.
Actually Pharmacists are
Actually Pharmacists are specialists considered equal or superior to doctors in judging severe harmful effects and interactions of of drugs in most states. Doctors are generally expected to play with balancing the drugs with less severe side effects against disease and overall health.
Pharmacists save people from doctors accidentally prescribing potential lethal medicines to tens of thousands of times per day in the US. Sometimes by overseeing total combinations of drugs being taken. Sometimes by just being more familiar with noted side effects. And sometimes knowing which drugs are reputably used in combination with known medical conditions (AMA endorsed) or are not FDA approved uses.
Drug recalls and bans go to pharmacists first and that is the point the FDA counts on bad drugs being stopped. Not the doctors. The same for new drug advisories and alerts. Which is why the best doctors periodically consult the pharmacists about what the best or least advised drugs currently are. And why every doctor is required to pay attention to feedback from pharmacists about potential problem prescriptions.
FYI Pharmacists are probably THE key source of doctors losing licenses due to incompetent or unethical use of prescriptions. It is actually very rare for pharmacists to lose licenses over non-financial issues except for federal personal identification stings (don't give the old lady narcotics without giving that driver's license the 3rd degree examination).
Right, and if a pharmacist is
Right, and if a pharmacist is unable to do their job due to their religious beliefs then they need to find a new career.
Complainers say PERSONAL
Complainers say PERSONAL CONVENIENCE should override religious or ethical rights.
How is this law different from one where Vegan cooks and restaurants can refuse to prepare live lobster or bunny rabbits?
Seems to me that is just a matter of going to a different business to get your desires fulfilled. Your CONVENIENCE does not allow you to dictate someone else's religious practice. Very Fascist to think it does.
The only exception would be if you had no other pharmacy access within timely distance under life threatening conditions. Simple abortion drugs is a PERSONAL matter; therefore all issues with lack of access due to poor planning are your problem.
Business and morality point.
Pharmacists are NOT doctors
Pharmacists are NOT doctors and do not have the power or knowledge to prescribe medications or make medical decisions. Your apparent support of this idiotic bill shows that you do not understand the true moral and medical ramifications to patients. And this law would also allow pharmacists to deny birth control pills to patients on the pharmacists personal "moral" grounds, which would violate that patients rights.
The law in Kansas takes that power away from the doctors and that right to be properly and FULLY treated away from the patient.
Religious conviction may ONLY be applied to oneself, you do not have the right to apply it to others, certainly not when it comes to ANYTHING medical.
At what point would you consider religion to be TOO intrusive before you get it out of our secular laws?
For me, that religion is too intrusive at any time that it tries to make a single religion's doctrine into law. No religion has any business making decisions for anyone but those that follow that particular religion.
For this nation to survive, SECULAR, not religious law must be the absolute rule.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
As I said above, how do you
As I said above, how do you know or any pharmacist know, that a pregnancy might be a life-threatening situation for a woman? It would not be on the prescription because that would violate medical confidentiality.
I admit I have a more than casual interest in this issue as that was the case with my own mother after I was born. She was told that having any more children could be fatal. This was long before birth control pills, so the solutions for my parents were no quite so easy.
I am grateful to them for not blaming me because they couldn't have the additional children they wanted.
It had nothing to do with personal convenience (no caps needed) but medical necessity. You're only making weak excuses to support your on religious intolerance.
A better way of phrasing your
A better way of phrasing your restaurant analogy would be that the restaurant has lobster on the menu, the customers show up at the restaurant to have lobster, and the cook decides after cooking the lobster that serving it to the customer would be against their morals. And the customer's life may well depend on their getting lobster.
When this same situation played out in Florida, there were instances of pharmacists not only refusing to fill the prescriptions, but they also refused to return the prescriptions to the patients so that they could not take them elsewhere to get them filled. Medical care providers should NOT have the right to insert their religious beliefs into the care of their patients, though they should respect the patient's religious beliefs: the patient is the one that has to live/die with the consequences, both physical and moral/ethical, and - if you believe in it - the metaphysical.
Religious beliefs are entirely a matter of personal convenience, since they are just delusions that people adopt to help them deal with the scary thought that this life is all we get, there is no afterlife, and there's no magic guy in the sky looking out for us.
This law allows a pharmacist
This law allows a pharmacist to deny contraceptives, not just plan B, to women (in case you're not familiar with how this works contraceptives prevent abortions) and allows Dr's to deny chemo to women with cancer. This is not a matter of convenience.
If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job then get a new job.
A pharmacist could use this
A pharmacist could use this law to refuse to fill a prescription for any number of drugs he doesn't like. MANY drugs can be used to induce an abortion, not just the "abortion pill" (RU-whatever), or the other one that doesn't abort anything, just prevents pregnancy when taken the day after.
Again there are a few good
Again there are a few good abortion doctors. And they are not going to be prescribing unusual drugs for abortion. They will hook up with a pharmacist who is willing to fill the NORMAL prescription. Theoretically you might have to drive 60-90 miles to get to that pharmacy. But chances are you won't find a good abortion specialist in small one pharmacy town anyway. If you do, overnite mail delivery can work if the time is right.
*** Plus I am pretty sure common abortion drugs fall into the class that small town doctors are allow to keep a small stock on hand. Because common abortion drugs don't have recreational mind altering side effects nor normally require hospital monitoring. ***
That aspect makes the real impact of the law fairly insignificant unless something shady or unusual is going on.
Yeah those going through family practice doctors doing a one time thing might be slightly impacted. Oh got to drive 60-90 miles to out of town pharmacy. But then the small town family quack is only best qualified for concealment and the ease with which they might be influenced to cover up incest, etc.
If by "deny drugs the
If by "deny drugs the pharmacist doesn't like" you meant push brand name preferences...
Well that is already legal. The pharmacist is not required to sell stuff he does not stock. In most places a pharmacy has no legal obligation on what it stocks - except generic brands IF filling federal medi-care prescriptions. Pharmacy competition and ethics actually takes care of making sure they have good stocks for the size of population.
(Yup little rural town pharmacies like in Kansas are not going to be able to fill most unusual prescriptions in the first place due to shelf life issues. Not unless someone else in local area needs that drug.)
*** In fact this law is more about cases where the pharmacist does carry the drug for some other use or even for medically necessary abortions
...but morally does not support aborting the 3rd healthy baby of some abused 14 year old who really needs to be taken out of the family home. (Note: social services is loath to notice family issues short of seeing healthy baby born to 14 year old in many places due to legal burden of proof.)
Or some 26 year old party slut who sees x5 doses of day after abortion drug as cheaper and easier to take than normal contraception despite the much higher personal health risks.***
Could deny random drugs --
Could deny random drugs -- but is unlikely to do so randomly.
The pharmacist is well aware of AMA prescribed drug treatments for most diseases and are REQUIRED to look up any they don't know.
If we stay away from paranoid fantasy land, Denial is going to be a case where
(1) the drug has few other common AMA/FDA approved uses, or
(2) the doctor is famous/infamous for abortion support (and since we are talking UNUSUAL drug choice, he is probably into gray or illegal abortions -- too young or too late. Anti-abortionists are not the only ones who cross the legal or ethical line.)
(3) the pharmacist has become personally aware of patient status (other medicines, doctor consult, gossip, or that huge belly)
If we MUST enter paranoid fantasy land then we should be more concerned that the pharmacist is substituting Drano for blood pressure medicine -- than denying prescriptions where he has no reason to strongly suspect pregnancy.
And once you get into unusual abortion drugs...well the gate is open to all sorts of home remedies like rat poison. Doctors who prescribe unusual non-AMA abortion drugs have a well deserved reputation for screwing up and causing more than abortions...death of mother, internal organ damage, or sterility are just obvious ones. Lots of Fringe doctors specializing in abortion do so because they aren't exactly top of the class demanding top dollar for more standard medicine. So you might be better off having your math smart friends calculate the maximum dose of rat poison that is not lethal at your weight then cut that by 10. At least people will know to watch you and what info the emergency room needs to have a reasonable chance of saving your life. Fringe abortion doctors often withhold that info to save their licenses.
Interesting, where's FSI,
Interesting, where's FSI, Zero and Ted Durham??????
Can we please, for once and for all, stop allowing fascist radical right wing republicans to say that they are NOT creating a war on women???
Isn't this government intrusion into our bedrooms again? When are people in the blogoshphere going to call fascist republicans out on this two faced hypocrisy til they own up to it!??
Like "the blogosphere" has
Like "the blogosphere" has any real weight or authority.
Maybe I'm going crazy here or
Maybe I'm going crazy here or something...but wouldn't birth control, oh, I don't, help prevent abortions? If women aren't getting pregnant, then they won't get abortions. And I know some people believe that birth control kills babies...except it doesn't actually, at all. If you deny them birth control more abortions will probably happen! How did someone making the bill not see that?!
Birth control DOES prevent
Birth control DOES prevent abortions. The issue is where birth control is against someone's religion (or beliefs) where; if birth control was NOT used, a pregnancy would have occurred, so the birth control pro actively aborted the fetus. Kind of like pre-crime in Minority Report.
The abortion pill DOES cause abortion and is NOT available over the counter, but Plan B is NOT an abortion pill in that it PREVENTS pregnancy, just after "the act" instead of before. Like when the condom breaks.
Plan B prevents the
Plan B prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thus the woman never becomes pregnant.
Unfortunately there exists a collection of religious folks who believe that life begins when sperm hits ovum, and thus see that single resulting cell as an entire human being and Plan B as an abortion.
This reeks of Christian
This reeks of Christian Sharia, also known as Heresy law, which is, by technical definition, unconstitutional, as it is supported by the religious reich and not by scientific secular reason and consideration for ALL of the citizens. It imposes religious edicts on others who may not be of that religion and takes those choices away from the individual.
This law allows Pharmacists to make medical decisions for women; practicing medicine without a license is a felony, in case the legislators behind this law has forgotten.
More invasive and intrusive laws like this; laws that give one group authority over all others, based on religious conviction, are certainly NOT what this nation needs.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
There is no such thing as
There is no such thing as "Christian Sharia". You have taken oppressive Islamic religious law with its unconscionable (to us) punishments and prohibitions, and applied it to something else you find abhorrent in a misguided effort to associate the two.
Are you seriously denying the
Are you seriously denying the historical existence of societies with Christian principles, including worship, encoded into law?
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Christian
Continue on Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=christian+theocracies
You're welcome.
That's not what I said, is
That's not what I said, is it? Read it again.
Okay then, let's call it
Okay then, let's call it stinkweed. By any other name, it still smells bad.
"Christian Sharia"/"Muslim Sharia" Two different, yet similar religions, both with their religion trying to be made into, or (in some countries) already made into law.
What is the difference between a heresy law and Sharia, beyond the religions that created them? The answer is......NOTHING. Both are a single religion making laws for ALL to follow, based exclusively on that single religion, lest there be consequences for violating that religion's doctrine.
Sharia
1. Islamic law: Islamic religious law, based on the Koran.
Heresy
1. Christian law: Christian religious law, based on the bible.
The only difference is the religion from which it springs.
Heresy = "Christian Sharia" = Muslim Sharia.
Perhaps you should keep things in proper perspective and call a spade a spade, like so many others do, instead of trying to "newspeak" it into sounding like it is something that it isn't.
Or to put it more poetically, paraphrasing the words of the Great Bard; That which we call crap, by any other name would smell as bad.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
"What is the difference
"What is the difference between a heresy law and Sharia, beyond the religions that created them? The answer is......NOTHING. Both are a single religion making laws for ALL to follow, based exclusively on that single religion, lest there be consequences for violating that religion's doctrine."
If you really believe that is the only difference, you really need to pay more attention.
Yep. I read it again. You are
Yep. I read it again. You are denying the existence of oppressive Christian theocracies throughout history.
Please start with the links I provided and educate yourself a little further. It will do you a world of good going forward.
Then you need reading
Then you need reading glasses.
The chemo bit really bugs
The chemo bit really bugs me... Who is the doctor to determine who's more important between the baby and the mother? That's a true slap in the face.
Wow, another victory for the
Wow, another victory for the religious reich. These are the same ones that always claim they are not "forcing their views on others." At least it's nice to see those hypocritical claims as total BS. That's easy for me to say because I don't live in Kansas and never will.
It is a completely
It is a completely unacceptable erosion of freedom to close down entire professions - medicine, midwifery, dispensing pharmacy, nursing etc, to those whose consciences do not allow them to assist the termination of pregnancies. I thought you were a libertarian, James.
And, once again, you have mentioned religion, in a context in which religion is not pertinent to that context.
It's no more an "erosion of
It's no more an "erosion of freedom" to close down a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medicine to pregnant women than it is to close down a car dealer who refuses to sell automobiles to Hispanic males, or Indian females, or .
And I still note your utter silence on the other provisions on this legislation, including the right to refuse chemotherapy to a woman with cancer simply because she is pregnant. Do you agree with the state of Kansas that the life of a non-sentient, non-viable unborn fetus is more valuable than that of an adult woman?
I don't understand your
I don't understand your comparison with racial discrimination.
I have commented elsewhere in this discussion on the said "other provisions".
I do not believe that one life is "more valuable" than another, and have no reason to suppose that the state of Kansas thinks that either.
I've made my points. I have the right to remain in what you call "utter silence". What's your problem?
Can you perhaps explain to me
Can you perhaps explain to me how dooming an advanced cancer patient to an early death by withholding treatment solely to preserve the life of a non-sentient, non-viable fetus could be construed as anything _but_ a value judgment of the relative worth of the woman's life contrasted with that of the unborn?
You have the right to remain silent, as you will, but you do not have the right to expect the rest of us to accept your internally-inconsistent worldview without critique.
How can you say religion is
How can you say religion is not pertinent to this context when it is the pharmacist's religious beliefs that are causing the issue?
When have I said that I am a Libertarian? I have been told that, if I were in a room full of Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians, I could soon have all of them angry at me. That might be because I call them as I see them.
That means I could never adhere to any line of political thinking, which is something most of the above would demand "You're either with us or against us" type of thinking.
When you think about it, you and I are a perfect example. I have come down solidly on your side and several occasions but have just as firmly disagreed with you on others. That we can do so shows that you are a gentleman and deserving of respect. That does separate you from a lot of your fellow travelers, it's true. But again, I call 'em like I see 'em.
It's pharamacists' beliefs
It's pharamacists' beliefs about whether abortion is ethical that are causing the issue. Such beliefs need not be based upon religion at all.
Despite what you say, I have
Despite what you say, I have never even heard of anyone opposed to any abortion that did not base that opinion upon religious beliefs.
I understand your desire to deflect criticism from fellow theists, but observed facts do not support your conclusion. Yes, there might be some that claim their opposition is not based upon religious faith, but then, where did that acquire that opinion if not from other's religious beliefs? It certainly cannot be based upon facts or logic.
As I have said, I am personally opposed to most abortions based upon my observation that too many are for reasons of "personal convenience". But I would never attempt to pass any part of my views into laws for everyone.
Again, is it a violation of professional ethics to ignore the decision of the patient and doctor? Does the pharmacist know all of the details behind the prescription? Or is he unilaterally making a decision for someone else, and thereby forcing his beliefs upon them?