NoGodBlog.com

I have seen some items on the world news recently that the RR is pushing to allow pharmacists the right to refuse to offer drugs that promote or cause contraception/abortions in people based on biblical beliefs. My issue with this is strictly one of personal/privacy laws. If a pharmacist owns his own business, he should have the right to dispense whatever products s/he wants from his own business. But if a pharmacist works for another company, he must follow the company's directives on what can and cannot be dispensed. Companies are supposedly prevented from discriminating against people based on gender or religious beliefs, and that should extend to the customer. If a pharmacist has a personal moral conflict filling a specific prescription, he should remove himself from being in a position to fill that prescription (I think a circuit court already ruled that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a script based on belief, but only if there is someone else currently working on shift that can fill that script, or something convoluted like that). Anyway, this is starting to ramble, so I await other's ideas on this subject.

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a class action lawsuit! Basically, what these guys are doing is picking a fight. We should just take them up on it, and in the process garner support for our cause.

Arvad,

I see that point, but you are not thinking of the situations where there is little choice. What if there is only one pharmacy in the area, or (as it is in some cases), there are ONLY Christian pharmacists in the area? What of the rights of the people who need the drugs?

I wouldn't say that "moral beliefs" translates to "religious beliefs" all the time. A person can have moral objections to something, without religion being involved.

It seems to me that you would have to be one extreme bastard in order to refuse filling a prescription for birth control. RU-486? I could see a lot of people objecting to that, but plain old birth control? It seems to me that the majority of public opinion would be against such extreme behavior.

I say we just bait them, provoke a confrontation, and make sure the media is there to record it. If it is done in an artful and relatively civil manner the public will side with us and this silly religious grandstanding will be put in its place.

I don't really understand the situatuation fuly in the US regarding this, but it was my understanding that it was legal for a pharmacist to stock/not stock any drugs they liked, unless they were in the position of being the only pharmacist available in a given area whereby the had to by law stock all common prescription medicine.

Is there a pharmacists guild group there? Do they have a code of ethics?

Wow, what a horrible article, and a miserable scenario for these people denied their drugs.

Basically the pharmacist is saying that they have the ability to dispense a product that is capable of allowing their customer to perform an act that contravine's the phamacist's moral values. To ensure this does not happen they will refuse to dispense the drug.

This is reprehensible. Do they also refuse their now desperate customer the opportunity to go to another aisle and purchase a coat hanger??

This seems to me to simply be a case of abuse of power. Their reasons are immaterial, they should not legally be permitted unilaterally to second guess the customer's doctor,s course of action.

Kind of reminds me of a qoute. I forgeot who said it but,

"Keep your Rosaries of my Ovaries"

Why stop at prescriptions? Why don't we let doctors treat only those patients they feel like treating? Surely there will be a doctor somewhere to represent every group, right?

As for the thoughts about 'if they are not the only one in a certain area it's ok': no, it's not okay. Who defines the area? What if I have no vehicle and can only walk about two blocks to the nearest pharmacy? What's my area?

This is a horrible precedent and it needs to be stopped, by legislation if necessary. Pharmacists are providing a regulated public service and should never be allowed to make moral judgements about a patients treatment.

Darrow: this may seem a silly question, but if any of these pharmacies have a "We reserve the right to refuse" sign(s), is this in anyway applicable to the situation at hand?

While waiting on your answer, I'm going to write to whoever is the current spokesperson in my area (S.F Bay Area), & volunteer as an escort to these particular pharmacies.

Because I WILL have a few choice words w/the smock behind the counter. Oh, yes.

syph,
Good points there, what good are these people, who are supposed to help, if they are picking & choosing??? Hopefully litigation stops this really fast, and as I see it, there is no difference between refusing service on religious beliefs, and refusing service on racial/sexist beliefs, and that's just what it is, blatant discrimination. If you don't want to do your job, quit, and go sweep floors at the seminary.

One of the large pharmacy chains, (can't recall), now has a policy where if they have a pharmacist with these objections, there will always be a second one available that does not.

But we have a seeming conumdrum here. Can we force a pharmacist to do something against their religious/moral belief?

In general no, but there is another dimension to this. Do they take government money? If so, I think they can not refuse any prescription permitted by those programs.

Like colleges, if you take money from all, you must admit all.

So if the pharmacy takes no public funding, (unlikely), then they can do as they please. Otherwise, there is an ethical problem here that THEY need to solve.

Do any of the pharmacy chains make it a condition of employment to fill any and all prescriptions presented?

If it is legal for a doctor to prescribe a drug, I see no reason for a pharmacist to refuse filling that prescription. What if we look at all groups, not just the Christians. Are Scientologist pharmacists going to refuse to fill prescriptions of Paxil?

What about drugs that have more than one use? If they agree with one use of the drug, but not with the other use, will they question their customers needs?

Next we will be refused to purchase a property unless we donate a portion of our income to the church....dam....in around about way that around happens...crap

I agree with the previous poster regarding lawsuits. It is not the job of a pharmacist to pass moral judgement on medications and individuals. That is between a person and their doctor.

If any drugstore chain refuses to fill such a prescription, a class action lawsuit should be filed!

And I'm saying this as a person who loathes lawsuits in general

Those Bible nuts have done it again! Even if the pharmisists are devoutly religious, they have no right to inforce their religious beliefs on others. They're supposed to be working for the good of society, not for the good of their god.
Planned Parenthood, an organization that I have NO beef against whatsoever, has a target the size of Montana on their back because of the activism of the Religious Reich. They do nothing but help people, and yet they're employees have to be on round-the-clock fatwah watch because of the people who think God tells them to slaughter the "baby killers". If anything, isn't PP trying to REDUCE the number of abortions by giving out condoms and useful sex-ed information? I'm not kidding, I learned more about sex from their website than I ever did in Mr. X's 9th-grade "Health" class (needless to say, Mr. X was a devout Irish Catholic who had no respect for my liberal-leaning atheist beliefs.)
People need to learn that the USA is not a Theocracy and their PERSONAL faith should have no role in their career services to others. If they feel it is not right to prescripe certain medications to people then why would they even take up this job in the first place (especially if they're performing their tasks in a secular setting)? Hey, if a Hindu employee at a grocery store refused to let me by beef, he'd be out of work in a minute. Is this any different?

Hmm,if I were a pharmacist I might refuse to fill prescriptions for Folic acid for Pregnant women, since it interferes with the natural process of development It seems to contradict the theory of an intelligent designer. What if there are Jehovahs that are pharmacists or those who only believe in holistic medicine. I'm with those above that if a private or govt insurer includes a drug on their list of covered drugs, that to be a participating provider, you must provide all the drugs listed.

I really cant believe what you allow in the US of A.

NO dispensing chemist here in the UK is allowed to decide whether or not you are able to receive medically prescribed medicines. None. Zero and all the rest of the words you can find in a thesaurus.

If they were to tell me they could not dispense the treatment in front of other customers, they would be breaking confidentiality and surely you have that right still ?

arvadaatheist
does it really matter if a pharmacist is the owner ? Tell them to dispense or sod off and let someone else do it. Cannot understand the difference between big company and owner pharmacist. It's a service people, bollocks to their hang ups.

Second thoughts ... great idea for rivals to start a proper service, more time for the idiots to attend their services to the supernatural.

It seems to me that you would have to be one extreme bastard in order to refuse filling a prescription for birth control.

Rainbows 4 Dinosaurs
I was refused birth control. I gave birth to my daughter at a Catholic hospital in 1998. My doctor and I decided to use the Depo Provera shot for birth control and she gave me a prescription to have the injection before I even went home. I was then told by the nurse that they would not fill it in the hospital pharmacy nor were they permitted to administer it. She made it clear she didn't agree with that policy, but of course it's out of her hands. I was pretty aggravated that I would have to make an appointment for after I went home and then have to deal with taking my new baby to my doctor's office just to get a quick injection. I was tired, babies are hard to take anywhere and I had never had to try it before.

jaraw:
"If they were to tell me they could not dispense the treatment in front of other customers, they would be breaking confidentiality"
Another great question! I wonder if Darrow could answer that 1? I'd agree, but there's probably some legal clause the rest of us are unaware of.
Is a pharmacist a legit doctor, bound by a hippocratic oath?
Probably is in the UK. Dunno about out here.

Jeez ra, its like a third world country over there.

I know they are bound by confidentiality rules here, but how you all can stand being dictated to by these eeejuuts is beyond me.

They know what is involved in the career selection when they start, so now they should live with it and confess on sundays if it makes them feel better.

Had a politician here who was offered a ministerial position but turned it down because of allowing abortions to continue. Think she is a dope, but you have to admire stance on this.

Isn't interesting how the exact same crowd who aims to overturn Roe and restrict all types of birth control is also bent on cutting back or eliminating our social safety nets? Who's supposed to take care of all the resulting poor or unwanted babies? Oh I forgot - Faith Based Initiatives. Fucking believer farms.

jaraw: well, it's the 1st I'd heard of it. I'm in the S.F Bay area: I'd like to think that sort of stunt wouldn't fly here.

r4d: Interesting, ain't it? Frustrating, too. Mostly it's WASPs who have no clue as to what's going on in the less affluent neighborhood. Good ole tunnel vision.

r4d: here's yet another infuriating article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5490-2005Mar27?

"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."

So the pharmacists' beliefs trump the patient's health, and their rights? Out-@#$%ing-rageous!

This pisses me off. Seriously. Talk about 'free will'.

to the good.... the more these fascist RR types do things like this, the more they will weaken the republican hold on the voting population. so let them keep it up especially with midterm elections around the corner. i hope the republicans get defeated in every race nationwide.

just work it through the judicial system. as long as roe v wade is in effect these goons will have to perform their jobs or step aside. if roe v wade ever gets nixed, i'm leaving the country for good. it's the only barrier between freedom of religion and religious persecution that we actually have.

Holy crap, I just did a Google on "Pharmacist refuses prescription" and could not believe the number of times that this has happened. This is worst that I thought it could be.

It would of been nice for Planned Parenthood to tell us the otherside of the story. Not very responsible reporting there.

Let's see this aritcle was written to inflame one's emotions about Pharmisists morals getting in the way of there job by an organization that promotes "inter-state" travel for minors to receive abortions and an organization that doesn't repect the role of parents in regards to "Parental Notification" laws. Hmmmm.
Maybe a Google search of ex-Planned Parenthood employees is in order to shed some light on the real truth.


And Dave, with all due respect, I believe you've gone over the top on this one. I didn't see the mention of Christianity anywhere in that article. So why decide to blame it soley on that faith? After all atheists also have morals too, don't they?

Many other religions also have similar beliefs when it comes to birth control. And even though you may not agree with anothers beliefs (I believe thats called tolerence) many view birth control as an abortion.

So what are we to do.......let's see.
Ahhh....Hold on a second and let me get my copy of the constitution out. I'm sure there's a phrase in there somwhere about "seperation of Pharmisists and Birth Control".
Just kidding reluctant.......

Take action against this now (thanks AmericaBlog):

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fillmypillsnow_dontknow2

Gun.....are you in agreement for a boycott?

My Dad's a retired pharmisist and there's another problem. There aren't enough to fill all of the vacancies with the explosion of Drug store chains and the increasing age of us geezers.

Phreedm,

Thanks for reinforcing the point I made in the first post. Yes. It is my assertion that nearly all of these pharmacists are religious Christians -- not Jews, not Atheist, not Moslems, not Pastafarians -- because it is ONLY the Christian organizations who are pushing this agenda.

I wish PP had mentioned this, but they did not.

You are invited to prove me wrong.

phreedm: that IS pretty funny. Did you see my link on the Washington Post?
To skip the possibility of the Unrepresented Example fallacy, perhaps you could give us a (secular) source, that gives a breakdown of the religious denoms. of the pharmacists in question?
Until you do that, it's a safe bet they're all Xtians.
You ARE the majority, after all.

I am a 79 y/o retired pharmacist and attorney and a former college professor who taught Pharmacy Law , Ethics, Hospital Law, etc. There is little law on this issue. It is a delicate Constitutional issue involving religion. The Dean who was hired after I retired is a born-again xian who holds prayer meetings for faculty. Thre is a horrendous shortage of pharmacists and college applications far exceed their capacity. Starting salaries are now in the $100,000 range so they can pick the religious neanderthals. Actually, as it stands now, pharmacists can refuse to fill any Rx for no reason at all. It is based on Contract Law in which there must be an offer and an acceptance for there to be a valid contract. The pharmacist does not have to accept the offer regardless of the reason. This is unfortunate.I think that the Governor of Illinois signed an executive order , good for 90 days, requiring pharmacists to fill all BC and "morning after" Rxs. I don't know what has happened there since. I used to teach my students that they had a moral obligation to the public to fill all legal Rxs, except in cases of forgeries, prescribing errors (plenty of those and docs didn't like to be questioned by pharmacists)such as overdoses, illegibility, wrong drug, etc, or simply being out of stock, in which case they should offer to order the meds. More than 50 years ago, before OCs, I worked for a catholic pharmacist owner who refused to stock condoms and diaphragms. He would tell the patient to try another pharmacy. There were several others in the area...one on every corner. He was a nice guy, but let his religion get in the way of serving the public. I think the the various state boards of pharmacy could promulgate regulations requiring pharmacists to fill all legal Rxs unless there is a valid reason not to so.The question or "moral objection" or "conscience" would have to be eventually decided in the courts. Also, since the huge chain pharmacies now wield so much power, they should require that their pharmacists agree in writing to fill all legitimate Rxs, unless, of course, they are so hard-up for pharmacists, that they are "chicken" on the issue and look the other way because of the acute shortage. Even at my age, I get offers for employment, by mail or phone, for employment at fabulous salaries, a long way from the 50 bucks a week back in 1951. I suspect that some of the new pharmacy schools may be church sponsored and brainwash the students. Other colleges could unknowingly allow some religious nut to teach Pharmacy Law.More problems because of religion!

Once again, most of you folks just don't get it. Does anyone around this blog stop and THINK before they post?

First, for you non-USA folks, we have something here called freedom of religious expression. It is not trumped by other freedoms either. For example, as a property owner if I wanted to deny renting an apartment to a same-sex couple on moral grounds I should be able to. In many states this right has been upheld, in the case of activist judges it often has not.

Now, to the problem with Pharmacists. These are medical professionals just like doctors, nurses, etc.. There are many cases we could examine of Doctors making decisions based upon their ethics. It is the same for Pharmacists! If they have a deeply held belief that dispensing a drug that terminates life is unethical NO-ONE (not even their employer) has the right to force them to do so. Period, end of story.

What are you going to do, hold a gun to their heads? I don't think so. If you aren't happy with the particular pharmacy over this issue you can do what all consumers do... GO ELSEWHERE. Let the free market dictate what happens.

RA,

I see you getting up a head of steam on this one by the look of your posts above. Think about what you are saying.

It seems like most atheists I've come to know here are very big on personal freedoms... UNTIL you get to religious freedom. Then it's all Marxist/Leninist all the time. By that I mean a totalitarian world where people of all faiths can be FORCED to do the will of a secular state and what IT DEEMS is right!

I am so glad this isn't the way America really is, my friend. This is the land of the FREE, not the enslaved P.C.! My beliefs will NOT be trumped simply because they are viewed as old-fashioned or faith-based!

Read it and weep!

As usual, I'll have more to say on this... tomorrow.

This one is simple.

Both the federal and state governments license all pharmacists to dispense controlled substances. The license specifically limits the rights of these professionals to following the order of a licensed medical professional with the legal authority to order the transfer of a controlled medication. Failure to follow the law subjects the license of the pharmacist and the pharmacy to discipline.

Seriously, their licenses should be revoked with just a few complaints to the proper state board. Letting the physicians who write the 'scripts know their 'scripts are no good at pharmacy X will put a real hurt on them, too.

The “moral” limits today are over contraceptives / morning after meds. Will tomorrow’s limitations be on the distribution of anti-viral meds to: (pick your suspect class: Women, poor people, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Native Americans, Hispanics, Democrats) during the next Influenza pandemic? Is it the right of a pharmacist (degree requirement only a B.S. level, though degrees up to Ph.D. do exist) to decide who lives or dies?

Just ask the nice Pharmacist for their list of “no-fill” scripts. In certain cities there is a very limited area of distribution for certain Schedule II meds (Oxycontin / MS / pentazozine / paracetamol) due to certain gun-wielding “customers.” Nevertheless, if the list includes Schedule IV meds (Plan B and other contraceptives) then obtain the nice pharmacists’ registration number and file a written complaint with the FDA/DEA and the state board of pharmacology / healing arts.

In the complaint ask what the pharmacist may be doing with the meds that they refuse to distribute. Point out that you are (insert suspect class: a women, poor, black, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Native American, Hispanic, unmarried, or married) and that the Pharmacy / Pharmacist is discriminating not on “moral” grounds, but on more base and indefensible grounds. Send letters off to the parent of the Pharmacy chain (assuming that it is a chain store) about the denial of service.

Then, hit them where it hurts: report them to the Big Pharmaceutical Companies. While I don’t recommend dealing with these people on general principal – they will put the squeeze on the balls of anybody standing between them and real profit.

Oh, and for a really nice pharmacist, Google "Robert Ray Courtney" (Assembly of God) and check out this Order from the FDA:
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-26385.htm

This sick f**k sold grossly diluted or no-content chemotherapy meds so that he could take all of the profit for himself - he was in the middle of a $1,000,000.00 gift to his local Assembly of God Church when he was caught. They had to give back some of the blood money. At trial there was testimony that nearly 300 people may have been sold diluted CA medications.

How was he caught? Why, the pharmaceutical salesman wasn't getting enough commission and investigated by asking oncologists if they were writing Taxol 'scripts - when he found out that they were writing 'scripts he put his foot down.... and convinced a female oncologist to report the matter to the FBI.

Money makes the world go around....

Tim

This pharmacist brouhaha is once again about Christians using positions of power to force their religious beliefs on others. You seem to be fine with that.
Religious freedom, my ass. You only mean Christian religious freedom.

You are up way past your beddy-bye time.
Get some sleep and try to think more rationally in the morning.

Tim: as usual, you have your panties up in a twist: quit the knee-jerk responses. I think you're the 1 not reading before posting.

I could give a rat's fart in a whirlwind what denominations ANY of these pharmacists are. What they believe means absolutely NOTHING to me.

Read the article: what is happening is that women are being refused birth control as per the beliefs of the pharmacist.

So if you went in to buy condoms from a pharmacist, & he refused to, based on his religious beliefs? Or aspirin? Or tetracycline?

What is essentially happening, is that these pharmacists are imposing THEIR beliefs on others.

"My beliefs will NOT be trumped simply because they are viewed as old-fashioned or faith-based!"

Then don't take a job that conflicts w/your personal beliefs. And furthermore, DON'T FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS!

Breathe deep. Re-read the article.
Get back to me when you get some perspective. This isn't about you and me.

"Then it's all Marxist/Leninist all the time."
I for 1 am sick of your empty rhetoric. Worship whomever you want. Believe as you like. It's the 1st amendment.
It's also called free will.

A couple of other quick observations:

stitico is correct about contract law - but, the "grey" area is far less grey these days. And, as stitico points out - there is a hell of a lot of $$ to go around and anybody who messes with the profits won't last long. The days of "independent" pharmacies are nearly over.

Any pharmacist who "values life" had better swear off filling antibiotic scripts. Those things kill untold millions of helpless bacteria.

No physician is in danger of discipline if a pharmacist refuses to fill a legitimate script - but, the pharmacist's license may be up for grabs (see above).

Yes, there are ethical codes - and a ton of regulations - governing the pharmacists and pharmacies. If a pharmacist wants to explain why they denied X person Y script to their state board and, possibly to a civil jury in a case of religious bias.

I wonder if these guys ever ask their hires if they "believe" in the same god? If they do, it is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e

I'd take one on.

Phreedm

Gun.....are you in agreement for a boycott?

I'm not in the US Phreedm (in New Zealand) and I'm afraid the pharmacists here would think I'm mad if I Boycott them!

Tim

First, for you non-USA folks, we have something here called freedom of religious expression. It is not trumped by other freedoms either.

Believe it or not Tim we have something called freedom of religious expression TOO! We also have a thing called a democracy (Worlds first modern democracy may I add).

In this democracy Health care professionals decide what types of pharmaceuticals are appropriate to prescribe, Pharmacists have a professional guild which also sets standards for members of the guild.

Services provided by pharmacists will be consistent with and
contribute to the development and achievement of Government’s
stated health sector strategies.

If you have a moral objection to the stated health care aims of the majority of health care professionals, then you are not welcome to become a member of the professional guild.

Your religions are creating a huge divide in your society, they are promoting agendas that are at odds with conventional scientific wisdom, at odds with the rest of the worlds modern democracies and in many cases detrimental to the health of your citizens.

I'm sorry that you value your freedom of religious expression above the wellbeing of your people, seems a bit backward to me.

Freedom of religious expression should be independent of what is expected of you professionally. If you cannot fulfill your duties that you signed up for, either find another job or have a sign outside the pharmacy that says "our pharmacist's religious agenda is more important than your health"

Does this mean that police officers can refuse to stop someone from bombing a clinic based on religious belief?

I can't understand why this is such a big deal. Someone doesn't sell me something i want or need i go elsewhere, and they lose my business or I use the system, write letters use the courts etc. as was mentioned.
I would be against a law banning birth control pills.
Is birth control legal in every country in the world?
It is ignorant to be against parents making choices on whether or not have a child. It is stupid to make a woman give birth for the man that raped her. It is sad for a teenager to be forced to have a child from an accidental pregnacy.
Wake up catholics and xtians this is not some ideal fantasy world, we have real issues here and your beliefs are not relevant in the world we live in. Where is the line drawn on world population or is god going to handle that by armeggdon.
I think mandatory birth control is more realistic than outlawing birth control.
Once again the xtians have picked an unwinnable position similar to ID.
These few phamacists will be hung out to dry along with their stupid right to life morals.
If a pharmacist doesnt agree with a drug he or she can choose not to use the drug, they still should respect someone elses choice in the matter.
Who needs pharmacists anyway you can get any drug known to man on the internet probably without a prescription if you searched a little.
/autorant off

"Does this mean that police officers can refuse to stop someone from bombing a clinic based on religious belief?"

Certainly, officers have also stayed silent on priest abuse scandals, even helped cover up such crimes. This religion based bias can be exemplified by anyone. If you apply for a job, and the employer knows you're Atheist, it may be cause to not hire you, or fire you if the employer finds out. All the employer has to do is blame it on performance or some other supposed non-related issue, and the employer gets what he wants. That's why anti-discrimination laws are necessary, to keep this kind of bigotry from happening.

Imagine not being able to get any cures, or medications from a hospital, period, solely based on the grounds that there are religious people who work there who object to helping Atheists. It's sickening how far these things can go.

NYD: re-read the article. Sometimes, those women who have de nada (time off from work they can't afford, single moms, people who simply can't afford even the GAS to go somewhere else) are being put in a bad position. It's easy to say, "hey, go somewhere else" for those of us w/the resources & time to go across town.
Not to mention the implications. Staggering. Once this door opens, who knows? The night nurse decides you're an infidel, & refuses to use the defibrillator?

stitico: BTW, thank you for your informative post. It's great to actually hear from someone who has walked down that particular road, & understands the actual dynamics of the situation. It does clear the air of most conjecture.
Much obliged, sir.

Up for another day in CLE *Continuing Legal Education* and dropped by...

In the US we had dozens (hundreds, really) of white on black murders that were never tried - and we had Jury Nullification of the criminal charge in those few that went to trial.

These cases took place back in the 1960's but the last trials have happened over the last decade, i.e. Medgar Evers (July 2, 1925 – June 12, 1963) was an African American civil rights activist from Mississippi who was murdered by rifle on the night of June 12, 1963. White racist Byron De La Beckwith, was twice acquitted by all-white juries (each jury "hung" - thus no "double jeopardy " attached) and he was finally convicted of murder in 1994.

Will we see the same results in these cases? Does a rape victim have the right to these medications? What about a small community with very, very repressive standards - would a jury there convict an "upstanding" member of the Church & Community of refusing to dispense certain meds to certain people?

A class action targeting Target? Not really possible due to a number of recent changes to F.R.Civ.P. 23 (The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 or CAFA) designed to eliminate these types of cases.

The Courts have been the last refuge from the tyranny of the majority. Today that refuge is showing signs of collapsing in the face of the last 25 years of concerted attacks from Reagan through W.

There is one bright spot: religious bias cases are really on the upswing in employment discrimination litigation. They don't pay very well at the moment, but that will change. The rhetoric of the Christian Right will bring more litigants and those case precedents will apply to Atheists, too.

As usual, some of you want to muddy the waters by bringing up peripheral issues, but I'm not biting.

More to the point. I ahave been accused on other threads of "answering my own questions", "holding court", etc. SO, I'll just post a few questions and let some of you answer them.

First, a real-life case. A man who worked for a company refused to sign a document the company had created which stated that all employees were committed to diversity to include homosexuals. He refused to sign based upon his religious beliefs. The company took action against this employee. Naturally, the employee took exception to his religious freedom being abused so he fought back in court.

What do you think happened?

Tim, you said,

"This is the land of the FREE, not the enslaved P.C.! "

But you deny that freedom to others who would like to receive their legal medication without the embarrassment of refusal and possible extra travel expenses.

In truth, would you not expect to be served with whatever you required to meet your need, in any type of retail outlet, without being subjected to anothers belief.
Not P.C. just basic human kindness.

Comment from: karen [Member]
Tim

This pharmacist brouhaha is once again about Christians using positions of power to force their religious beliefs on others. You seem to be fine with that.
Religious freedom, my ass. You only mean Christian religious freedom.

You are up way past your beddy-bye time.
Get some sleep and try to think more rationally in the morning.

Karen, as I've stated the article doesn't mention any religion at all.
What are your sources for making these claims?

Comment from: David Silverman [Member] · http://www.atheists.org/
Phreedm,

Thanks for reinforcing the point I made in the first post. Yes. It is my assertion that nearly all of these pharmacists are religious Christians

Without proof? Not very responsible. These kinds of comments can inflame those with a bias against Christianity. Very dangerous form of journalism.

Yes blogs are the future of journalism. If you read the posts on this thread it appears many have jummped on board with you without any evidence being presented to them.
Kind of a "cyber lynching".

OK, the article doesn't point out these are xtian pharmacists, statistics shows most will be. The recent rise of the 4th Reich would also lead your logic in that direction.
Tim, I'm not going to answer b/c I lack the legal knowledge, not a fair question to ask anyone besides Darrow.

I anyone in the USA thinks they are free, they should try NOT working. You are free to be a bum, that's all.

Unless you got money some other way...

A small story...you might want to skip it:

I used to drink a lot of alcohol. Now I do something else. One day, after many beers, I dived off the boat into the lake. The water was colder than I thought it would be, and my heart went into arhythmia. This had happened before, usually at the time of such suprises, but the condition always went away after a short period of time. This time, however, the condition persisted, and the next morning I went to the hospital.

After discovering that I was fully covered, they put me in the ICU. A lovely young nurse was sent in to interrogate me. Somehow, the conversation turned to God, and I immediately said it was bogus. I said, "By Christian doctrine, most of the Eastern Hemisphere is going to Hell". She said, "It sounds awful, but that's the truth". I said, "You're a nice lady, but that is bullshit..."

They decided to sedate me in order to give me a jolt with the defib machine, to set my heart straight. The problem was that the sedation had not taken effect before they performed the procedure. When I was jolted, I felt it, and I sprung up and shouted "GODDAMN!" The young nurse literally ran backwards out of the room.

Anyway, I got fixed up at about the tune of $15,000. They put me on Cardizm, which made me feel like a head-on collision would not scare me. But, I still had problems with arythmia, and on several occasions I had to visit with doctors to get it straightened out.

One doctor told me that I could try gagging myself when my heart goes wacky. Guess what? It works. Another doctor suggested that my drinking might be the cause. Guess what? It was. Now that I don't drink much, I have no heart issues.

I guess the point of this story is that the medical system is foobar enough without religion getting involved to screw it up worse.

Another point is that medical professionals are not gods. They are in the posistion to do a lot of things...like make money for thier employers by bilking insurance companies for unnecessary procedures...or to spread the gospel as they see fit. They are really just like everyone else. You can't trust 'em.

My brother lived for 18 years with HIV. He was prescribed a never- ending cocktail of drugs. The side effects were sometimes quite harsh. I know these cocktails were a benefit, but you know what I really think helped him survive so long?

The weed.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Doctor.

Dave....you have an 8 year old daughter.
Do you support Planned Parenthoods position that when she's 14, should the need arise, they have the right and responsibility to take her across states lines to give her access to an abortion clinic WITHOUT your knowledge?

Tim,
after re-reading your post, religious belief does not trump the wishes of others in this country, as certain religous beliefs are illegal as deemed so by this society (and should be noted that they are legal in other societies). This happens to be one case where no legislation is there, as there has not been a prior need.

Doctors do make ethical decisions, but hopefully not based on "morals". Someone help me out here, but if a doctor refuses to transfuse blood on religious beliefs (or morals) (which is not ethical at all) would that person have their license revoked, whether the patient died or not? I sure hope that professionals critical to society do not let their own biases in the way.

Phreedm,

If my 14 year-old daughter needs an abortion, I'll take her myself. If our relationship goes so awry that my daughter believes I'll disown or hurt her if I find out she's pregnant, then I ASK THE MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG to please make sure my teenage daughter does not have an unwanted child, even including transporting her across state lines temporarily to obtain one.

Now, this thread is not about abortion -- it's about pharmacists. You asserted that my assertion was incorrect, yet despite my request provided no substantiation for your side.

Here is my substantiation, which took a google search on "christian pharmacists" and 5 minutes.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/12005mc.asp

The rights of Christian health-care providers who believe in the sanctity of human life deserve to be protected too. This is yet another case where the religious rights of Christians are being threatened today. It's just another example of how liberal activists fight to see everyone's rights are protected -- unless, of course, those individuals happen to be followers of Christ.

Here's another:
Christian Pharmacist Still Fighting Charge of Unprofessional Conduct over Contraceptives
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/sep/04092904.html

Here's an excellent article on about.com
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/169442.htm?nl=1

And from http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/541/541_06_LiberalsSilence.shtml

In a battle now raging in at least 23 states, the Christian Right has expanded its crusade against abortion to include these “killer” birth control pills. Pharmacy by pharmacy, members of “Pharmacists for Life” are refusing to fill doctors’ prescriptions for emergency “morning after” pills and other oral contraceptives.

In addition, these pharmacists of conscience refuse to refer patients to other pharmacists to perform the deadly deed. Karen Bauer, the group’s president, stated plainly, "A pharmacy should be for healing. It should not be for killing."

There are pro-life orgs from other religions, but none are leading an active push to pharmacists like the Christians are.

This seems like an awful simple problem to avoid as far as I'm concerned. There is no legal requirement by a pharmacy to carry contraceptives at all.

If pharmacists wish to avoid the problem, don't stock what you don't want to fill. If you happen to work for a pharmacy that does stock it then it is discrimination to choose to not provide those products on the basis of religious belief.

If I were to work at a bookstore that stocked copies of the Bible and refused to sell it to a customer because of my disbelief then it would be an outrage to my customer - and rightfully so. If I, however, own a bookstore and do not stock copies of the Bible it becomes a moot point because I can't sell what I do not have.

Dave

Thanks for providing the proof about the pharmacists being christians. I got on here late and just saw PHREEDM's challenge to me to do just that.
I am confident that your relationship with your daughter will remain close and interactive; that she will be able to come to you w/any problems and you will be comapassionately open to her.
However, I will help her to get an abortion if the need arises and something drastic has happened to your communication skills.

My daughter has been on BC since about 14...FOR MEDICAL REASONS...and I would have blown a gasket if some pharmacist refused her meds because if religious beliefs. It's none of the pharmacist's business and s/he shouldn't make presumptions.
Even if she hadn't needed the BC for health reasons, when she was of age to be sexually active, I would have suggested to her that she use it.

You go Dave! :)

This is a religious agenda against women! The conservative christians leading this agenda is male dominiated and do not want women to have any sexual freedom what so ever! They want men to have all the say over how women choose to live their lives. Men will always be able to fuck whoever and whenever they want without any worries! Women do not have that benifit without BC and other medical procedures. That is why these people want to ban it all. They want to force women into unwanted marriages and even worse unwanted motherhood! If men had to worry about BC, this would not be an issue!

And as a mother of two daughters,
I would not object to them having an abortion without my concent. But, I know that would never be an issue for my daughters cuz they know that I would be there holding their hand NO MATTER what they decide! They know I would not judge them or look down on them and that they will always be able to look me in the eye with the same dignity that they had pryor.

I have also taken further steps to make sure my daughters will always have their sexual freedoms, by educating them and myself in herbal birth control methods cuz weather we want to see it or not women are loosing their freedoms and fast! The RR agendas are in full swing and our whole government is corrupted by it and if you think voting can save us think again! Bush NEVER won an election and neither will the next religious nut that becomes president! If I could leave this country I would, but my husband is military so for now my daughters and I are stuck. We have to outthink our fascist government for now. I could be wrong and the next president could be a liberal, but I'm not holding my breath and taking any risks when it comes to my daughters!

PS: Herbal BC does work! The women in primative societies are still practicing herbal BC effectively.

Tim

Who's bringing up peripheral issues?
This thread is about pharmacists denying medications, not about homosexuality.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, Please lets try to keep from turning this into an abortion thread.

BTW, I got a form letter from Target, saying they have a policy that gets EC to customers one way or another. Good to read, but do they mean it?

Can we refuse to pay the percentage of our taxes that go to building bombs if we don't agree with bomb dropping?

Dave

How does Target know every time a customer is refused? Suppose the woman has become too embarrassed to report the action to the store manager?

I'd strongly suggest that non-participants be excluded from this conversation. David, your daughter is potentially at risk. You are at risk by disclosing your full name. You are an adult. She is not. Be careful - loonies with guns abound. Paul Hill killed two and wounded a third. He did not know his victims, save that his "religion" gave him the duty to kill.

Please be careful.

I do not say this because of any of the present posts...

It seems to me that there is some dishonesty about the real issue here. At first it was claimed that the pharmacists were seeking control over their own lives: not to be forced to dispense something they disagreed with. But now it seems that they are intentionally seeking out and taking jobs which would normally require this. This action implies a desire to control others, not retain control over oneself. It seems immoral to me in a very basic sense when ones actions and ones words are not in agreement.

But ignoring that, there is still a basic principle here which I am curious about: If one finds oneself in an organization with which one has strong ethical disagreements, what is the allowable range of actions? Does one have to go along or leave? Or can one try to force internal change? If so, by what means? Is going behind the leaders backs OK, or does moral behavior require open opposition?

Tim: at the risk of another thread-hijacking, per your example:
I would say that he lost.

I actually do understand why Xtians do these sort of things. I think it was Paul, who told Xtians to obey all laws of the state, unless they were in direct conflict w/their beliefs (or somesuch thing - paraphrase). Can't say I'm much of a fan of this view, myself.

Now, for counter-example.
I'm a mormon polygamist. (polygamy is legal, for the hypothesis) I have 5 wives, & 2 kids per each wife. My religious beliefs allow me to do this. However, the pharmacist, a staunch fundie baptist, refuses to sell me any diapers, because of HIS religious beliefs.
Who is right?
I am a muslim, I get a job at a butcher's shop. I refuse to touch pork, even though the shop has an 80% inventory of ham. Should I be able to keep my job?
I am a buddhist. I get drafted into a war. I refuse to fight for my country because it violates my religious beliefs. Should I get court-martialed?
I am a wiccan. My religious rites require that I & my coven dance naked around fires at night, in keeping w/the solstice. But the town I live in has indecent exposure laws. Should I be arrested?

Refusal to address any of these questions would expose your 'my way or the highway' philosophy.

I await your response.

Tim

Add this example to RA's list:

I am an atheist. My president (who swore to uphold the Constitution) announces publicly that because of my beliefs, I should not be considered an American citizen or a patriot.
Do I have cause for redress?

Tim: pre-emptively, this is NOT about Shrub Sr.'s statement.

karen: is that okay?

A little off topic but I want to know why the RR fights so hard save life before birth but does squat after. Is this a punishment thing, you make a mistake are forced to have a baby and then are punished for the rest of your life trying to care for said baby. If the RR is so against abortion then they should also have a few good programs up their sleeves for taking care of the unwanted children after they are born. Maybe they are just meant to end up fodder for Catholic Priests, mmmmm fresh meat.

Also, letting the population expand out of control is not the smartest of moves these days with dwindling resources etc.

RA

O...k...a...y. (She said, quite confused.)

karen:
Was referring to the quote from Bush Sr., 1989, where he said "Atheists aren't citizens. This is 1 nation, under god, after all." (paraphrase).

RA
I know. That's where I got it from. But why are we now going with the approach that that is not what it's about? I'm willing to go along for the ride, just want to understand. :)

Just as a general arguement to throw in the mix with the above scenarios, here is a general one.

Why is it that xians want the right to be able to express their personal moral attitudes with blatant discrimination regarding Women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc, but it is then wrong for someone else to express their moral outrage against xians (this is the classic example of the hypocracy that xians refuse to address). I.E. xians fight for the right to refuse service to people that they feel are outside their moral beliefs (be it the topic of pharmacists or tim's example of someone refusing to rent to a gay couple), but if someone tried to turn this around and deny service to someone because of their religion there is suddenly a big stink that people are trying to outlaw religion (am I making any sense here).

And just as another conundrum that is a bit off topic but still kind of fits (sorry for all this) - Why is religion a protected class in EEOC legislation (when it is clearly a choice - they have yet to show any genetic keys that shout "this person will be xian, that person will be muslim), and yet they turn around and tell other people that they cannot gain protected status because the xians feel their status is based solely on choice (though there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is biologically derived, possibly as a natural control to overburdened populations)? Just wondering at this logic.

karen: well, for 1 thing, Shrub Sr. wasn't president at the time. The resident Xtians are quick to point out examples like that.
If it's okay, can we make the example the current president?

RA

yes, of course. Current president. Sorry for being so dense.

karen: s'alright, dear. Everyone's human.

If my daughter needed an abortion, and went with someone else to get it, I would have failed to be the wise, trusting and loving father I try to be. It would be her choice in getting it or not, and I would support her decision 100%.

I do have a 14 year old daughter, and I agree with David. If, for some reason I can't be the one to take her for an abortion, BC, whatever she needs and chooses, I hope someone else will!

can a xtian doctor refuse treatment to a prostitute, drug abuser, homosexual, muslim, atheist, etc. on the grounds such people are offensive to his/her religious beliefs? i think not and pharmacists are really no different in this regard.

Hello everyone:

This is not related to the thread topic, but I did want to share it. Readers of this blog of long-standing will recall that theists like jcc insist that all people have souls which have been divinely created and existed without the body. Many atheists such as myself will disagree and say that a person's existence (though less romantic to perceive it this way) is really based on a "continuous series of responses to stimuli". While this article is not conclusive, and not human based it does seem to infer support for my position rather than that of theists:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20051019/hl_hsn/hormonelinkedtoaggressioninmice

RA,

First the answer to the case: The man I mentioned above won his case in court and was awarded damages. The principle the company violated was freedom of religion. There was no legitimate requirement in his job that would have required him to sign the "diversity pledge." His rights as spelled out explicitly in the U.S. Constitution were violated.

To your examples:
1) "I'm a mormon polygamist. (polygamy is legal, for the hypothesis) I have 5 wives, & 2 kids per each wife. My religious beliefs allow me to do this. However, the pharmacist, a staunch fundie baptist, refuses to sell me any diapers, because of HIS religious beliefs. Who is right?

You are in this case. There is no decision the Pharmacist can make which has a compelling moral dilemma to solve. No one's life is at stake. No one will be harmed if you are sold the diapers.

2) "I am a muslim, I get a job at a butcher's shop. I refuse to touch pork, even though the shop has an 80% inventory of ham. Should I be able to keep my job?"

No. As long as you were provided the terms of your employment at the outset, which included cutting meat you have no case. Cutting meat is a "bonafide occupational qualification" in this case.

3) "I am a buddhist. I get drafted into a war. I refuse to fight for my country because it violates my religious beliefs. Should I get court-martialed?"

No. You can get a conscientious objector discharge.

4) "I am a wiccan. My religious rites require that I & my coven dance naked around fires at night, in keeping w/the solstice. But the town I live in has indecent exposure laws. Should I be arrested?"

It depends on where you are. If you are on your own land and not in plain view of anyone, you should be left alone. If you think you can do this in public, you've got another thing coming!

I for one do not believe nor disbelieve that we have souls. Do not believe nor disbelieve that there will be an afterlife. There is no proof either way, so, it is the great mistery that we will all meet, someday. I do feel confident that if there is a hell, it would be in a place with a bunch of self righteous christians.

I've been reading up on these cases. Not only Ec and BC were refused for filling, but also diet pills and Ritalin.
In some cases, the pharmacist not only refused to fill the Rx, but also refused to refer the patient elsewhere AND refused to give the written Rx back to the patient!
Karen Bauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, even lied to a customer, saying the drug wasn't in stock when it was. She says you don't have to obey the law if it contradicts God's law. (paraphrase)

Hmmm. Technical difficulties here...

Explain please what is the difference between a pharmacist refusing to sell a prescription, and an emergency clinic doctor refusing to sell his services to an injured person after they revealed they are an atheist? The physician could claim it is his belief that god doesn’t want him to treat atheists, because they are evil or otherwise unworthy.

Tim:

Good answers.

"There is no decision the Pharmacist can make which has a compelling moral dilemma to solve. No one's life is at stake."
& herein lies the crux of the matter. Purchasing birth control isn't always about contraception. Sometimes it's about the woman's health. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?
I did.

& I quote: "In Washington State, Christine was denied birth control pills, even though she was using them as part of medical treatment for ovarian cysts."
Also:
"In West Virginia, Catherine was prescribed EC by her doctor but was unable to find a pharmacist to fill her prescription in time. A few weeks earlier, she had been treated for a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy."

Can you honestly tell me these 2 pharmacists were right?

Go back. Read the article. Think before you post.

Test...

RA,

I am speaking specifically about the morning after pill, but for a Catholic in particular BC pills are considered in the same light.

Say Tim, do you have any citation to the case you describe? I'd settle for a year and a state.

I'll take all that you have, though.

David,

Are my posts being restricted in some way?

Darrow,

I believe I may still have it at work. It came in a professional journal e-mail newsletter, which I usually archive.

I'll look it up tomorrow...