« About time! | Main | Sometimes, there are few words ... »
April 06, 2005
Governor of Illinois has a hissy fit
I was quite suspicious of the kerfluffle being whipped up by Planned Parenthood, et al, about a "crisis" of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills due to conscience. I don't doubt it has happened, I just doubt that this is a "crisis" that is any more than a new political axe to grind in the quest of some to beat back The Drooling Theocrats of The Religious Right [cue the sound of screaming horses]
Two things must be kept in mind ... that individual pharmacists are people with rights, too, and they are protected under both Federal Title VII and the profession guidelines of APhA
2004 Pharmacist Conscience ClauseAs long as a PHARMACY institutes a system to insure that their customers are reasonably served, individual pharmacists have the right under Federal law and professional ethics to have their beliefs reasonably accomodated. There are already laws and ethics in place by which two competing needs can be balanced.
1998 1. APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist's right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure patient's access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist's right of conscientious refusal.
2. APhA shall appoint a council on an as needed basis to serve as a resource for the profession in addressing and understanding ethical issues. (JAPhA 38(4): 417. July/August 1998)
Now enter Illinois Gov Rod Blagojevich (D) into the fray and demonstrating his own brand of bigotry.
on Friday issued an emergency rule requiring pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives "without delay" and established a toll-free number for state residents to report refusals, ...So I guess it's true, some people really ARE more equal than others.Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacists is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to or who he doesn't sell it to," Blagojevich said, adding, "No delays, no hassles. No lectures"
Posted by Darleen at April 6, 2005 12:27 PM
Comments
So it's OK for a customer's rights to be ignored but not the pharmacist's? Why would someone become a pharmacist knowing that they won't give out a common prescription? Would someone be let into the army if they could do everything else but refused to salute based on a religious argument? Customers don't go to the pharmacy to pick a fight. They just want their medication. If you as a pharmacy chain don't want to sell it at all, fine, but if you do sell it, whether you can get it or not shouldn't depend on whoever is behind the counter that wishes to impose their own morals on you. I'm frankly shocked that you don't find this behavior unacceptable. By the way, the bill doesn't force the pharmacist to sell it, it just says that there must be someone else made available to sell it right away if one refuses.
Posted by: Erik at April 6, 2005 01:49 PM
you know, Erick, it would be nice if you actually READ what I wrote.
I stated upfront there is a balancing of rights and they are already covered via Title VII and by professional ethics. Read the Gov's statement again...he is saying that individual pharmacists do not have a right to refuse.
As I said, the Ill. Gov has gone beyond the law and wants to abridge the rights of some people in favor of others instead of a reasonable compromise.
I'm surprised you find the Gov's religious bigotry acceptable.
Posted by: Darleen at April 6, 2005 05:57 PM
You appear bent on interpreting this as religious bigotry. Why? Do you really think religion is under such assault? I see this as mostly to do with consumer's rights, not religion.
I did read what you said. I already had the exact same story on my blog a couple days ago and it was hashed out extensively. My reading of it was that individual pharmacists were not required to fill them. There just had to be a system where SOMEone was there to fill them if a pharmacy carries the pill and if they hired someone that can do 95% of the job of a pharmacist.
Ah, here it is. You didn't note this part of the article about the actual law, (not from the Governor's quote). His quote does make it sound like it could apply to individual pharmacists, but it does not. I have seen this in two different places describing the law the same way.
"Under the rule, which lasts 150 days, if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for contraceptives, the drug store must ensure that the patient receives the prescription "promptly" -- usually by having another pharmacist fill the prescription" Nobody is forcing an individual pharmacist to sell it.
Posted by: Erik at April 6, 2005 09:09 PM
Uh, it doesn't prevent conception. It prevents implantation.
But, here's an easy solution that I am sure that people like Erik will still object to because their true motive is not to get the Rx filled easily and asap. Here it goes: Have the Md who wrote the Rx dispense the pills. See? Easy.
Posted by: julie at April 6, 2005 09:43 PM
I have a motive other than people being able to get their prescribed meds without a hassle? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me just based on the fact that I don't like people being inconvenienced when they go to buy legal meds. What is my true motive, Julie? Care to share? I can assure you that I have no interest in this case on the basis of religion. Having someone go to the doctor's office every time they need a refill? Sounds like an expensive solution to me to avoid the very rare situation.
Regardless of what the pill actually does, which I could argue, but won't right now, it has been legal in this country for decades, and that isn't going to change. If this were a case of certain clerks at bookstores refusing to sell certain books about Christianity, would that change your position? Personally, I think the same rule should apply. If the bookstore carries the books and is silly enough to hire an atheist that refuses to sell these books, there should be someone else there at all times that can do it.
Posted by: Erik at April 7, 2005 05:12 AM
Erik
I have two options on how to consider the Gov's words (and I quoted HIM and said HE was having the hissy fit)... either he is TOO DUMB to know what his own law says (which, if not aimed at individual pharmacists it will not run afoul of Title VII) or he knows but doesn't care and just wanted to make a BULLYING statement that he was out to slapdown individual pharmacists.
In either case, it does betray HIS bigotry because he doesn't give a rat's ass about the First Amendment rights of religious individuals.
Should Catholic hospitals be forced to offer abortions? Should Catholic doctors be forced to perform abortions?
And let me tell you this is NOT a new thing. When I was a kid we had a Catholic GP. He would not write a prescription for birth control even for married women. Did my mom make a fuss? Did she or other women patients take to the streets screaming "me me me me I I I I!"?
No, she just saw another doctor in the practice.
And there was also a time that condoms could only be purchased by walking up and asking the pharmacist. No one NO ONE questioned the right of the pharmacist to peer over the counter into the face of a sweating, nervous 16 y/o and say
"No."
The Church of Secularism is aghast when people politely refuse to join.
Posted by: Darleen at April 7, 2005 07:46 AM
Since the law doesn't in fact run afoul of the First Amendment if it is as reported, your comment about him "not giving a rat's ass" about the rights of the religious makes no sense at all and sounds like even more "they're out to get religious folk" rhetoric, bordering on hysteria. If it runs afoul of the Constitution, it will likely be struck down, but this law does not seem to be one of those.
Your arguments about Catholic hospitals is not relevant, because they don't offer those services, period. If a pharmacy doesn't want to carry BCPs, they don't have to, and still wouldn't under the new law. Your comparison to Catholic doctors is also irrelevant because nobody is forcing individuals to violate their beliefs in this case.
Posted by: Erik at April 7, 2005 08:24 AM
Let me tell you what worries me.
Suppose pharmacists get to choose whether to distribute birth control. (Here I refer to either the contraceptive or the anti-implantation kinds of birth control.) Suddenly religious leaders and conservative groups in small towns start putting pressure on pharmacists to not distribute birth control. Even if the pharmacists are personally fine with giving out birth control, they're threatened with boycotts and public sanction. Looking at the occasional violence of the anti-abortion movement, pharmacists may be threatened in other ways too. The end result is that contraceptive options for rural women vanish.
This is a situation that I'd like to avert.
Posted by: Neil the Werewolf at April 7, 2005 11:58 AM
I have a motive other than people being able to get their prescribed meds without a hassle?
Yes, yes you do. First, both you and Blagojevich are deliberately being deceptive. The pharmacist refused to fill the morning after pill – not routine birth control pills.
As far as going to the doctor's office, it's a one dose prescription, not a refillable one. No one is arguing to make it illegal. But you can't force individuals to dispense it. And if it means some people are going to be “inconvenienced” – tough. And, I will be, gasp, ecumenical about it: No matter what the subject, that you are being inconvenienced - tough.
And, we are not talking about bookstores. I don't have to work in a bookstore that sells material I object to. Obviously, a pharmacist doesn't have to work in a pharmacy that does something similar. However, in this instance, the owners of the pharmacy are backing up their employee.
Blagojevich didn't solve a problem – he created one. And that is where you and your views are so apparent – you're not interested in solving a problem – you just want to create one.
Since the law doesn't in fact run afoul of the First Amendment if it is as reported,
Oh, yeah, how's that?
Your arguments about Catholic hospitals is not relevant, because they don't offer those services, period.
Sure they do. They offer ob/gyn services, they prescribe b.c. pills, they do curettage – just not for contraception or to terminate a pregnancy. So, it is your argument that is not relevant.
Your comparison to Catholic doctors is also irrelevant because nobody is forcing individuals to violate their beliefs in this case.
Ahem, you may not think so, but they sure do!
Posted by: julie at April 7, 2005 06:19 PM
Let me tell you what worries me.
What if ? What if ? What if?
Half the country is on birth control. If there is a demand, there will always be someone selling it. Also, b.c. pills have other uses than contraception so a pharmacy will always carry and dispense it. Also, they can be bought over the internet without a prescription.
Most importantly, the controversy was over an individual refusing to dispense the morning after pill. And again, one can have the morning after pill, which is what they are actually objecting to, filled by the doctor writing the prescription or they can go to another pharmacy.
This is all a red herring.
Posted by: julie at April 7, 2005 06:28 PM
I actually had no idea that it was "morning after" pills, as you oddly assert that I did without knowing, though that changes nothing. Your continued guesses about my motives are frankly just bizarre. I don't want people to be forced to violate their beliefs, but on the other hand I believe that patients should have an expectation that if the medication that their doctor prescribed them is available at a particular pharmacy, then they can get it there when they need it, especially something as time-sensitive as the morning after pill.
I "want to create a problem"? No, I really don't Darleen. I have to be frank with you. You are really "out there" with your various accusations about the motives that you guess that I have. I have only posted a few messages here, so you can't know me that well. This gives the appearance of having a big chip on your shoulder, and it makes debate with you rather pointless I'm afraid. It's up to you, but I suggest you just stick to the facts, and why you believe as you believe, rather than assuming I'm here to put religious people down. I'm not here to ridicule anyone Darleen, religious or otherwise. I just want to see what you think. Maybe you could ask me why I think as I do without making assumptions about my beliefs? I'll just wait for the next topic at this point.
Posted by: Erik at April 7, 2005 06:47 PM
Sorry, replace "Darleen" with "Julie" on my last post. My fault. *;-)
Posted by: Erik at April 7, 2005 06:48 PM
This talk about going to another pharmacy or getting the doctor to hand them out misses the point. A sufficiently powerful anti-birth-control lobby, which will be present in the rural areas, will pressure these doctors and pharmacists into cutting birth control out of their offerings. It's a lot better for business to stop selling a small range of products than to lose all your hard-right-wing customers. So there'll be no birth control options in rural areas.
This isn't merely a what-if. Abortion clinics are regular targets of protests in many conservative areas. And against doctors and pharmacists, the right can wield boycotts, which don't really work against abortion clinics, since anti-abortion people are pretty much out of that market already. I'm looking at the chessboard and seeing the obvious next move for the anti-abortion forces, after they make this one.
Posted by: Neil the Werewolf at April 7, 2005 07:39 PM
I actually had no idea that it was "morning after" pills, as you oddly assert that I did without knowing, though that changes nothing.
So, what's your defense again? That you didn't know the facts of what you were arguing about? Okay.
Your continued guesses about my motives are frankly just bizarre.
No guesses.
I don't want people to be forced to violate their beliefs, but on the other hand I believe that patients should have an expectation that if the medication that their doctor prescribed them is available at a particular pharmacy, then they can get it there when they need it, especially something as time-sensitive as the morning after pill.
Well you can't always have it your way. The inconvenience of going to another pharmacy vs. being force to violate a serious belief. Hmm. It's a no brainer. If time is sooooo important, I suggest, one, calling ahead, or two, have the doctor give them a pill. My God, how hard would that be? But, noooooo, better to make a ridiculous political issue of it.
I "want to create a problem"? No, I really don't Darleen. I have to be frank with you. You are really "out there" with your various accusations about the motives that you guess that I have.
Sure you do. [Poor Darleen!] What's out there is that you are either deceptive or stupid. Which one would you like me to believe? Choice is yours.
I have only posted a few messages here, so you can't know me that well. This gives the appearance of having a big chip on your shoulder, and it makes debate with you rather pointless I'm afraid.
How can one debate you when you are willing to lie about the facts? Even more priceless is that when you get caught, you try to blame the other person! You say, “ You're odd! You're bizarre!” Translation, “ You caught me cheating! “
It's up to you, but I suggest you just stick to the facts,
Oh, but I have. You haven't. That's the problem. Love how you try to turn it around to deflect your own wrongdoing.
and why you believe as you believe,
I believe what I believe based on your mischaracterizing the facts.
rather than assuming I'm here to put religious people down.
I'm not here to ridicule anyone Darleen, religious or otherwise. I just want to see what you think.
More victimhood.
Maybe you could ask me why I think as I do without making assumptions about my beliefs? I'll just wait for the next topic at this point.
No assumptions on my part. You had the opportunity to explain. You could have simply said, hey I screwed up. I'm wrong. I'm sorry. But, nooooo, you went on and on about how you are some sort of victim. Talk about odd and bizarre!
Posted by: julie at April 8, 2005 12:07 AM
This talk about going to another pharmacy or getting the doctor to hand them out misses the point.
No, you're missing the point. You can not force people to go against their deep seated beliefs.
A sufficiently powerful anti-birth-control lobby, which will be present in the rural areas,
Yooo hooo! We're not talking about birth control but the morning after pill. Powerful anti birth control lobby? That's more than a bit delusional. Oh, yeah, people who live in rural areas are not rubes. Could you be any more prejudice?
will pressure these doctors and pharmacists into cutting birth control out of their offerings. It's a lot better for business to stop selling a small range of products than to lose all your hard-right-wing customers. So there'll be no birth control options in rural areas.
This is truly insane. lol!
This isn't merely a what-if.
Right. You convinced me. You're delusional.
[snip irrelevant rant]
I'm looking at the chessboard and seeing the obvious next move for the anti-abortion forces, after they make this one.
Oh, yeah, you're nuts all right.
Posted by: julie at April 8, 2005 12:09 AM
OK, we're really not getting anywhere here Julie. You seem incapable of friendly debate, because you've already decided that I'm evil for my position and/or a liar. I'm a "victim" of nothing as far as I can tell. You do seem to be an awfully angry person, but I hardly claim to be victimized by every indignant conservative that comes along. Hehheh. Maybe it would be worth your time to take a glance at my blog to get to know who I am a little bit first? Just a friendly suggestion, since you say you already know my motives after just a few posts. If you have a blog I would be happy to read it as well. I see no link to it.
Is this bill forcing an individual pharmacist to prescribe something that is against his or her religion. ***Yes or no?*** It's that simple. From what I can tell from reading these stories, the answer is no. If that is the case, then the first amendment arguments and your calling me a liar, and the rest, is just silly. Which is it? If it is the case, and the individual pharmacists are being forced, then I think that the law is unconstitutional, and I actually would agree with you that it's a bad law.
Posted by: Erik at April 8, 2005 06:43 AM
Let's see, you clearly misrepresented the facts or didn't know them yet refuse to admit to it when confronted. Instead, you chose to whine that you are a victim and change the subject. Of course, you are not a victim, but that does not stop you from whining.
Am I angry? No. I just caught you between a rock and a hard place which you repeatedly refuse to address. Instead, you attempt to deflect attention from it. Old trick. Never works.
Is this bill forcing an individual pharmacist to prescribe something that is against his or her religion. ***Yes or no?*** It's that simple.
Well, obviously the answer is no since pharmacists do not prescribe drugs. Try asking an intelligent question.
It's clear that you have never read the text of the emergency rule. Yet, here you are giving an opinion on its constitutionality. Talk about odd and bizarre!
Posted by: julie at April 8, 2005 08:13 AM
I already *told* you a couple posts ago that I didn't know that it was specifically morning after pills. Read what I wrote. Of course if I had made the same mistake you would have called me some middle school name, right? I have several conservative blogger friends, and none of them act like you. Well, everyone has their own debate style I guess, right Julie?
Yes, of course I meant "dispense" drugs not "prescribe". Like I said, I already answered your question. So now can you answer that one, instead of wandering off into meaningless personal attacks? I mean, you can call me anything you want, and that's fine, but it makes your argument look weak when you fall back on it. Did you take my advice and take a look at my site? You probably won't since you seem to be a "don't befriend the enemy" type of cultural warrior, but the invitation remains open.
Posted by: Erik at April 8, 2005 09:19 AM
I already *told* you a couple posts ago that I didn't know that it was specifically morning after pills. Read what I wrote. Of course if I had made the same mistake you would have called me some middle school name, right?
I didn't make a mistake. I read what you wrote. But, it is not my job to decipher your sentences. What you wrote is not intelligible.
I have several conservative blogger friends, and none of them act like you. Well, everyone has their own debate style I guess, right Julie?
I don't consider relying on verifiable facts, reading what you criticize first, choosing correct language, et al, a debating style. But, yes, that is what I do.
Yes, of course I meant "dispense" drugs not "prescribe". Like I said, I already answered your question. So now can you answer that one, instead of wandering off into meaningless personal attacks? I mean, you can call me anything you want, and that's fine, but it makes your argument look weak when you fall back on it.
Oh, my argument is not the one that is weak, peanut. You are the one that got the facts wrong. You are the one who has not read the statute, yet you assert you are qualified to interpret it. And you are the one who calls other people's arguments weak? Lol!
Did you take my advice and take a look at my site?
That's not advice, that's simply being annoying.
You probably won't since you seem to be a "don't befriend the enemy" type of cultural warrior, but the invitation remains open.
You can't get things right on this website, therefore, why wd I want to go see you get things wrong on another website? There were a lot of important lessons for you to learn here, primarily, know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. But go ahead, fight it. Eventually, you will learn the hard way.
Posted by: julie at April 8, 2005 06:25 PM
There are things you could've said, julie. Perhaps some things about how the Christian Right isn't really motivated to do stuff like that (despite the fact that that's what they do at abortion clinics), or some things about how this kind of local pressure wouldn't actually work. Obviously, I've disagreed with those views, but perhaps you could cite evidence to convince me.
But all you did was make the mocking noises characteristic of someone who has nothing left to say. This doesn't speak well of you or the position you're trying to defend.
Posted by: Neil the Werewolf at April 9, 2005 12:12 AM
It's a waste of my time to attempt to reason with a person who exhibit delusional thinking.
Posted by: julie at April 9, 2005 03:56 AM
In other words Neil, people that disagree with Julie are wasting their time. She keeps not answering the most critical question of the debate and throwing every red herring imaginable. If you want to debate right-wingers that actually like real debate Neil, email me or post on my blog and I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. The links on my blog will give some direction I hope. Hope to see you there!
I was hoping to hear more of Darleen's thoughts at some point on it, but that doesn't seem to be in the offing. I'm done with this topic.
Posted by: Erik at April 9, 2005 04:13 PM
No, Erik, people waste *my* time when they never bother to learn the facts or argue in support of a law they never bothered to read. Sound like anyone you know? And what you term “ throwing out every red herring imaginable” is actually sticking to the issues and to the facts supporting the issues. It's called focus. Try it some time.
Posted by: julie at April 9, 2005 10:01 PM