Congress Trying To Force Pharmacists To Fill Perscriptions They Have A Moral Objection To

The Whistler • December 24, 2007

Birth control medications and devices, specifically.

RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) A congressional attempt to make pharmacists fill prescriptions for birth control pills and other drugs they find morally objectionable does not have the support of Senator John Thune.
A bill pending in Congress would make pharmacies ensure that customers receive requested contraceptive drugs or Food and Drug Administration-approved devices “without delay” and would ban pharmacy employees from trying to intimidate customers into not getting a prescription filled or interfering with a prescription transfer.

This is how I see it: If you’re employed at a pharmacy that sells birth control and your bosses say that you have to be able to sell the pills/devices the same as the rest of the employees your choices are to sell the pills/devices or quit.
However, if you own a pharmacy or are otherwise in a position to decide not to sell birth control pills/devices that should be your decision. Congress should not be able to force you to sell things you do not want to sell, just as Congress shouldn’t be able to force Jewish or Muslim grocers to sell pork products.
And there really is no need for Congress to do this, either, other than to impose the liberal will of the Democrat majority on these pharmacists. Between internet prescriptions and even the smallest towns having two or three pharmacies, there just aren’t a lot of convincing reasons to have Congress pass a law like this disrespecting the moral beliefs of a portion of pharmacists.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Lestat

Lestat, I’m fairly certain that the Constitution was never intended to apply to state regulation of medicines. If the founders had intended that, they would have put it in the document.

They did. It is called the Commerce Clause. If this regulation is rationally related to interstate commerce, than it is valid. If it is not, it isn’t.
http://genericspecialist.com/eriacta.html eriacta

i agree completely. pharmacies should carry the entire line of medication
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

IF they had not accomplished both those things? The would have done us all a big favor!
Bat One

Zsa Zsa,

Congress is trying valiantly to make it seem as if they are accomplishing SOMETHING.

As George Will noted this morning, the first Democrat controlled Congress in over a decade has managed two things: to raise the federal minimum wage to $5.85 per hour, still less than the starting wage at McDonald’s, and to ban the incandescent light bulb.

That Mr. Will managed to say this with a straight face is even more of an accomplishment than anything the Democrats in Congress have managed in nearly a year. And in the greater scheme of things, that’s a good thing.
Neiman

Despite your characterization of there only being a minority of pharmacists with moral values against dispensing certain medications; I agree that, Christians are often called upon to either compromise their deeply held spiritual – moral values or face the consequences of refusing to follow the rules of their employers.

For Christians, if we believe, even in error, that something is a sin and do it anyway, we are guilty of sin. So, if these pharmacists cannot work out a reasonable accomodation with their employer, then they must refuse to dispense these medicines and willingly suffer the consequences. The issue is between them and God and they should not knowlingly disobey the law or the rules of their employer.
skh.pcola

A pharmacist who owns his own pharmacy should have absolute control over what he chooses to dispense. That pharmacist, if he chooses to not abide by federal or state law, should also be unable to collect insurance payments from any government agency. It’s great that people stand up for what they believe, but there are consequences to actions.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

Does Congress not have enough to do without nosing around in everyones business? They are really starting to look more pathetic than normal. Do they just sit around thinking up things to annoy us all?
http://ewebsmith.com/ ews48

Ask your Federal Representatives if the Constitution gives them the power to do this.

If people do not have the courage to knowingly disobey the law or the rules of their employer when they have moral objections, 6,000,000 Jews will be gassed or, in this case, 40,000,000 babies will be murdered.
Neiman

ews48:

If people do not have the courage to knowingly disobey the law or the rules of their employer when they have moral objections, 6,000,000 Jews will be gassed or, in this case, 40,000,000 babies will be murdered.

There is no argument against what you have said, evil can only prevail if good men and women do nothing. You provided a factual statistical basis for that argument!
pparets

EWS48: Birth-control is not the same thing as abortion, since the former prevents the creation of a life, while the latter murders it. Both may be repugnant in one form or another to various groups, but birth control does not equate to 40 million murdered pre-born infants.
Bat One

There would appear to be a very interesting lawsuit brewing here. On the one hand are those on the Left who instituted this legislation, despite the moral and mostly religious opposition of some on the Right.

Pharmacists are licensed by by each of the 50 states, so I submit that federal legislation forcing a state licensed pharmacist to dispense certain drugs in violation of his religion would ultimately violate that pharmacist’s rights as follows:

Art 1, Section 10:
No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
pparets

Rob: Actually I’m troubled by the whole notion of people bringing their personal beliefs to the work place. A pharmacist is opposed to dispensing birth control. A teacher objects to teaching Darwin’s theory. A cab driver objects to transporting dogs [even seeing-eye dogs!]and people carrying alcohol. People who hold such deep convictions should not take jobs where their views will be put to the test or adversely affect others.
Lestat

There would appear to be a very interesting lawsuit brewing here. On the one hand are those on the Left who instituted this legislation, despite the moral and mostly religious opposition of some on the Right.
Pharmacists are licensed by by each of the 50 states, so I submit that federal legislation forcing a state licensed pharmacist to dispense certain drugs in violation of his religion would ultimately violate that pharmacist’s rights as follows:
Art 1, Section 10:
No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I tried to limit the above quote to what you were wrong about. But the whole post just proves that you are an amateur lawyer who doesn’t understand shit.
Bat One

But the whole post just proves that you are an amateur lawyer who doesn’t understand shit.

How typical that the one individual here who has yet to demonstrate that he/she knows anything at all about anything, has to resort to personal invective rather than discuss or argue a subject on its merits. Even at that, your petty insult is no more imaginative than what one might expect from the average 7th grader… hardly grounds for critiquing the knowledge of someone else.
http://lifetrek.blogspot.com/ LifeTrek

I think the main issue is the fear that people will be forced to dispense abortive medications (RU-486, Plan-B) not just contraception. In Illinois our Governor decreed (yes, you heard that correctly) that all pharmacists were required to dispense all medications including Plan-B pills. He was sued (perhaps he should have been driven to exile instead, more appropriate for a dictator?).

Here is what the Chicago Tribune says about the result:

A Solomon-like settlement reached in a lawsuit over access to “morning after” pills would allow pharmacists with moral objections to opt out without preventing women from getting their prescriptions filled.

Under the settlement, filed Friday without fanfare in the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois pharmacies must fill prescriptions for Plan B and other emergency contraceptive pills “without delay,” as Gov. Rod Blagojevich decreed in 2005. But individual pharmacists who believe dispensing the pills would violate their religious beliefs don’t have to get involved. Instead, the customer can receive the medication from the pharmacy owner or another employee after an off-site pharmacist approves the prescription by phone or fax.

Plan B — a high dose of regular birth-control pills — can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Most doctors consider it a contraceptive, unlike RU-486, which induces an abortion.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-morningafteroct11,0,1905373.story

DKK
http://oracleofjim.typepad.com/tooj/ Jim

I really do agree with Rob (and skh.pcola) that this really she remain with the owner of the individual pharmacy.

Bat One, I differ with your constitutional interpretation, albeit more respectfully then Lestat. Please forgive me, as I am but an amateur lawyer as well.

It is true that the Constitution disallows any state from “pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” however this would not prevent the federal government from enforcing regulations under the Commerce clause:

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress of the United States shall have Power to …To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes

As to the First Ammendment, I do believe that has ever been held to be so stringent as to require the state to effectively absolute state endorsement of religious practices. The idea of the First Amendment’s religious clause was that a person would be able to practice their religion (including in public the public domain, but not on private property) without legal restriction.

As to the Fourteenth (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws), the key part of this is due process of laws, unless there is something unconstitutional (for example, without “equal protection of the laws”) then it is not illegal; which is not to say I don’t have a problem with it.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

IF the pharmacy is owned by the Federal Government then and only then should the employees be required to sell or complete the transaction. Big GOV should stay the heck out of independent owners business. The drugs are regulated by the fed gov. BUT that does not mean they can dictate to the owner what they can & cannot sell… (At least until Congress FORCES them too.) Congress should be like a good referee. They do their best job when seen and not heard.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

pparets – People who hold such deep convictions should not take jobs where their views will be put to the test or adversely affect others.

It’s all between the employer and the employee. In this freedom comes diversity.

Diversity is the natural result of freedom. True diversity is a good thing. The people who preach diversity never actually like it when they see it, and hence we get this kind of legislation.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Pparets:

Birth-control is not the same thing as abortion, since the former prevents the creation of a life, while the latter murders it.

I think the real issue here isn’t so much “the pill” as it is the “morning after pill.”

Lestat, I’m fairly certain that the Constitution was never intended to apply to state regulation of medicines. If the founders had intended that, they would have put it in the document.

Nobody’s rights are being violated here, except the rights of the states violated this federal overreach.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Congress Trying To Force Pharmacists To Fill Perscriptions They Have A Moral Objection To

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments