Results 1 to 32 of 32
-
07-27-2007, 01:07 PM #1
Pharmacists sue over morning-after pill
Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
"The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.
The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.
The state's Roman Catholic bishops and other opponents predicted a court challenge after the rule was adopted, saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.
Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who brokered a compromise on the contraceptive rule and pressured the state Board of Pharmacy to adopt it, stood behind the regulation Thursday.
"Gov. Gregoire feels the Pharmacy Board went through an extensive public process to come to their decision, and she supports them," spokesman Lars Erickson said.
The plaintiffs are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy.
Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.
Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
The federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available without prescription to adults last year.
-
07-27-2007, 01:08 PM #2
Sad truely sad, being forced to give abortion drugs. Why can't the person go to another pharmacy instead of forcing someone to go against their beliefs?
-
07-27-2007, 02:49 PM #3Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 290
Originally Posted by kfrost06Last edited by m8intl; 07-27-2007 at 02:52 PM.
-
07-27-2007, 02:50 PM #4
I am pro choice and all for the abortion pill but I agree... Its a sad day when the government can tell people to go against their beliefs for something like this...
-
07-27-2007, 02:57 PM #5Originally Posted by soulstealer
-
07-27-2007, 03:10 PM #6
isnt the morning after pill used the very next day after someone ejaculates in side a female. if so i wouldnt even consider it an abortion pill more like a preventer.
I remember i would bang this girl who didnt like to take birth control cause it made her gain weight or some shit. But she kept them on hand and ate a few at a time if i ever came inside her. Told me it was the same as the morning after pill. I thought it was pretty weird.
-
07-27-2007, 03:10 PM #7Originally Posted by m8intl
I also do not think you have to be a "over zealous Christian" or adhere to "such severe beliefs" to be against abortion. They can not force a doctor to proform an abortion why force a pharmacist?Last edited by kfrost06; 07-27-2007 at 03:12 PM.
-
07-27-2007, 03:15 PM #8Originally Posted by kfrost06
-
07-27-2007, 03:40 PM #9Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):
1.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
2.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being—a life that begins at fertilization.)
That is fact!
-
07-27-2007, 03:45 PM #10Originally Posted by kfrost06
-
07-27-2007, 03:48 PM #11Originally Posted by manwithin
-
07-27-2007, 03:54 PM #12Originally Posted by kfrost06
-
07-27-2007, 04:01 PM #13Originally Posted by manwithin
-
07-27-2007, 04:10 PM #14Originally Posted by kfrost06
-
07-27-2007, 04:15 PM #15
its not killing an unborn baby its POSSIBLY preventing a baby from forming.
just like lethal injections in prison. if my understanding is correct, there are 3 buttons and 3 different people to push each one. 1 button releases the poison the other 2 release something non lethal. In the end nobody knows who in fact killed the inmate.
So in the case of the morning after pill, the pharmacist doesnt know whether or not there was even a possibility for a baby to form or not. so why feel bad over it? especially if they sell birth control.
-
07-27-2007, 04:22 PM #16Originally Posted by 305GUY
Your arguement about the lethal injection is ridiculus at best and you know it.
-
07-27-2007, 04:28 PM #17Originally Posted by kfrost06
-
07-27-2007, 04:36 PM #18
[QUOTE=kfrost06]Of course not! no more then if a patient took a hand full of pain pills and OD'd. However the pill is intended(designed and marketed) to abort a unborn baby. Now lets look at an analogy. A doctor is forced to preform an execution, he objects because he does not believe in execution(thinks it's murder), the government needs a doctor to perform the "procedure" and forces him. Is that wrong? I think it is. Some people feel abortion is wrong to and want nothing to do with it, why is the government forcing them to take an active roll in it? Beware: It's a slippery slope when the government dictates your beliefs to you![/QUOTE]
Its slippery slope when some guy forces his beliefs in made up people on you.
The tooth fairy said don't eat candy or you will be eternally damned.
The tooth fairy at least left change under my pillow that's more proof than god.
-
07-27-2007, 04:37 PM #19
Their job is to dispense meds not to choose who can or can not receive it. If the law says that a 6 year old can buy a hammer then they have no right to with hold that said hammer. If it’s against their religion then they shouldn’t be in line of work. No one is forcing them to do anything if they don’t want to do it then quit.
Last edited by manwithin; 07-27-2007 at 04:43 PM.
-
07-27-2007, 07:46 PM #20Originally Posted by kfrost06
Nevertheless . . . it is the State that regulates the practice of pharmacology, not the church. When it comes to medicine, everyone is thankfully obliged to comply with the State Board of Medicine's views, not the Pope's or Billy Graham's or Rev. Jerry Falwell's. And to keep things fair, when it comes to anyone who belongs to the Pope's church, or Billy's Graham's church, or Jerry Falwell's church, they get to set the rules for their membership.
Keeping in mind the record that Religion has had on matters of science and medicine, it's best that preachers stick to their field of expertise, and let the doctors stick to theirs.
-
07-27-2007, 07:52 PM #21
On the other hand, suppose a pharmacist converts to Christian Science, where they don't ever take any medication. Under religious discrimination laws, if this guy refuses to give anyone any medication, can he still keep his job?
-
07-27-2007, 08:21 PM #22Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 290
Originally Posted by kfrost06
Moreover, Plan B is not an abortion. If there was not conception, it can't be an abortion! The pharmacist would have to presume conception had occurred for him to find Plan B reprehensible. However, because one cannot ascertain (short of a pregnancy test, which the morning after may or not be accurate) with any certainty whether or not fertilization has occurred, the point is, and should be considered, moot.Last edited by m8intl; 07-27-2007 at 08:28 PM.
-
07-28-2007, 09:09 AM #23
also i dont know if this was a private owned pharm. But Kfrost do you think if it was a chain like a Walgreen or cvs the pharm should have the choice not to sell it when his corporation carries it and has it for sale. Would that company have the right to fire him for not selling their products and turning away customers?
-
07-30-2007, 07:10 AM #24Originally Posted by Tock
But wouldnt you agree tock that if an entire community decided they didnt want to have anything to do with the drug that the government shouldnt then come in and force them to dispense it?
-
07-30-2007, 08:16 AM #25Originally Posted by roidattack
How would you assume they now the entire community doesn't want it. A door to door survey?
-
07-30-2007, 08:17 AM #26Originally Posted by roidattack
-
07-30-2007, 09:01 AM #27
Let's pretend it's not an abortion pill, just for a second. Someone believes that cigarettes are bad and does not want to sell them can/should the government come in and force that store to sell them? Well, apperently not. That also applies to condoms, you do NOT have to sell condoms but for some reason you HAVE to sell the abortion pill.
-
07-30-2007, 09:03 AM #28Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
-
07-30-2007, 09:13 AM #29Originally Posted by Tock
-
07-30-2007, 09:21 AM #30Originally Posted by kfrost06
As far as cigarettes. I think its different. The pill is medication smokes aren't.
-
07-30-2007, 10:06 AM #31Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
-
07-30-2007, 11:56 AM #32Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
hypothetically speaking of course...
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS