Redstate

There was a debate on this very issue in Arizona not too long ago, with a flurry of editorials flying and, if I recall correctly, a promise by the governor to propose legislation forcing pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill whether they wanted to or not.  Unfortunately, as the law stands now, there is nothing really out-of-bounds about such legislation.  Access to abortion at any time has been held as a fundamental constitutional right by every court in the land, and the pharmacists' concerns for the unborn child, whether we sympathize or not, have no medical basis under current law.  Such are the unintended consequences of Roe v. Wade.  

It truly is a peculiar element of the liberal worldview that all rights are absolute and that they can be enforced practically without contradiction.  Yet, strangely, reality intervenes.  Every time a new right is created or an existing one expanded, someone else's rights inevitably contract or suffer.  The violation of the fetus's right to life is the obvious one in this situation, but the violation of a pharmacist's right of free expression is another.    When confronted by this reality, the hypocrisy of the left is staggering - physicians suddenly have a right of conscience when they are engaging in activities approved by liberals, but the moment they act contrary to the left's wishes, the hammer comes down.  They can't have it both ways, but to admit that rights cannot be absolutely protected for all citizens everywhere and anytime by the government would undermine their entire worldview, so the cognitive dissonance plays itself out over and over again.  It's now the pharmacists' turn to pay for it.

California is not that simple. It was a set up deal from the beginning. We had a delay while the medical personel underwent special training for this specific purpose. They didn't have a problem with the conscience until after the training and it was time to act. They had already swung the agreement to go forward with the execution. This is pure and simple ANARCHY. The judge should be impeached and thrown off the bench for mocking the constitution and the medical persons responsible should be required to reimburse the state for the expense they conned them out of and charged with a criminal offense.

Physicians are also allowed a conscience objection for performing abortions. This is something Planned Parenthood and NARAL don't kick up any fuss about, because the support of the AMA is a very important part of their social legitimacy, and they know that if they start pushing that button, the AMA is gonna shoot back in a serious way.

On the other hand, the APA is apparently not an entity to be concerned about, in their eyes.

Congress passed the Weldon Amendment to protect pro-life healthcare workers' rights of conscience.  It merely says that if a state wants certain federal money, including healthcare funds, it can't discriminate against pro-life healthcare workers who refuse to provide abortions.  Simple enough, right?  Who can object to that?

Well, in California v. U.S., Atty Gen. Bill Lockyer of California, with the urging of Planned Parenthood, is trying to get the law declared unconstitutional because it will force the state to choose between those federal $ and applying a state law that makes it a misdemeanor for a doctor not to perform an abortion in a "medical emergency."  A "medical emergency," however, is interpreted in California law to virtually all the time (whenever another doctor will say her mental health was threatened).  

And in another case now in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales), that organization is arguing that it violates a pro-choice doctor's right of free speech to not be permitted by the Weldon Amendment to force their nurses to provide abortion referrals.  Yes, you read that correctly.  They claim a doctor has a First Amendment right to force others to speak on his behalf.  Arrogance maybe?  Thankfully, they lost in the District Court (a Clinton appointee ruled against them) in September, 2005.  

So, no.  Planned Parenthood is NOT above forcing doctors and nurses to assist in abortions against their consciences.

It's not just about pharmacists being fired for not filling prescriptions.  In Illinois, pharmacies are not PERMITTED to accommodate their pharmacists who object.  (and of course, Wal-Mart is being sued because it as a corporation didn't stock the medication).  Some pharmacies in Illinois actually did accommodate before the Emergency Rule with no apparent problems.  For instance, some permitted objecting pharmacists who received the prescription when they were the only on duty pharmacists at the time to send the prescription over to another nearby pharmacy.  The Illinois law prohibits those pharmacies from doing that.  

This despite the fact that Illinois even has the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act that unequivocally protects the right of all PERSONS not to provide or be subject to any health care procedure to which they have a conscientious objection.  Gov. Blagojevich claims that the law doesn't apply to pharmacists.  Evidently, they aren't "persons" under that law.

This arguably appears to be a case of workplace discrimination or harassment, state-sponsored in this case. Also, wouldn't the EEOC be interested in the lack of "reasonable accomodation" - especially with respect to accomodating religious practice?

This won't be what you are thinking. I'll address the government issue first.

1) Why does any government (local, state, or federal) believe that it can tell a company: "you must sell this product?" Who owns the company? The owner or the government?

Let's say I run a small grocery store. I have everything you'd expect - with the exeption of P--si brand soft-drinks. I don't like P--si so I don't stock it. One day the State legislature passes a law stating that all grocery stores MUST stock all soft drinks normally purchased by consumers. (There are laws relating to pharmacies which say exactly the same thing.)

Now, why exactly did the government need to do that? My competitor down the road sells P--si. Customers who can't live without P--si are free to shop there instead, aren't they? Furthermore - who owns this business anyway? I can understand the government telling me that I can't sell certain things (like marijuana or shoulder-fired missiles), but not that I MUST sell certain things.

To conclude the 1st point: there are about 100 pharmacies in my home town and I guarantee one of them will sell what I need.

2) The conscientious objector. My next point is this: who owns the job - the employer or the employee? If you answered "the employer" then give yourself 10 points and a pat on the back.

At my grocery store I hired a new butcher and a new register clerk. After only one day I saw there was a problem. When I went to the meat department I saw plenty of steaks and chicken, but I couldn't find any fresh-cut bacon or ham. I went to speak to my butcher and he told me that - in his religion - the pig is a filthy animal and he would be unable to touch any pig products. I was in the process of telling him to clock-out and clear out his locker when I heard the PA system: "ViperTrunk please come to register 3. ViperTrunk to register 3..."

What now, I thought? I found, much to my chagrin, that my new register clerk was refusing to ring up my customer's order. "What seems to be the problem here?" I asked. Solemnly the clerk pointed to a 12 pack of soft-drinks and a 6-pack of beer sitting on the conveyor belt. "In my religion," she said "caffeine and alcohol are forbidden. We do not pollute our bodies with these substances." I was in shock and turned to apologize to my customer, but unfortunately he was walking out the front door.

Now, I am a generous and accomodating person - so rather than firing both of my new employees I transferred them to areas of the store that didn't conflict with their religious beliefs. However, their jobs do belong to me and if they fail to do their jobs - I should be able to fire them. I don't care whether they can't perform because they are incompetant, lazy, or because their religious beliefs prevent them from doing so. I hired them to do a job and they can either do that job or find employment elsewhere.

Now, these last comments are not meant to disparage pharmacists. However, I believe it is possible to have a moral objection to a variety of medicines - and if you are someone who might have those objections, pharmacy might not be for you. If I had a pharmacy in my grocery store, I might be willing to accomodate some objections in order to keep the services of my pharmacist (they are more difficult to come by than checkout clerks). However, I might NOT choose to be accomodating and I would be entirely within my rights as an employer to do so.

I am not arguing - for or against - the "morning after" pill. I'm simply saying that the government should not be forcing businesses to sell things they don't want to sell. I'm also saying that jobs are owned by the employer and not the employee. If someone's personal beliefs prevent them from doing their job - that is their problem, not mine. I also believe that it would be wrong for the government to force me to accomodate the religious and moral beliefs of my employees.

My 2 cents...

hasn't gone anywhere.

I remember back when my brother in law was in medical school and later his residency in the early 90's there was a move to require medical residents in their OB rotations to perform abortions.  There was a huge outcry and the push pretty much faltered and died, when several students and residents stated they wouldn't do OB at all, if abortions were a required part of the residency.

But I do think there is an overall hypocrisy in this whole debate that those on the left pretty much argue a pharmacist should either have to dispense medications contrary to their conscience or lose their proffession.

In the first I absolutely believe that the state has no right to interfere with what products a company chooses to stock or not stock for whatever reasons (the local pharmacy I use doesn't carry some of the big pain medications like oxycontin, because of the risk of theft-I haven't seen the governor trying to write a law requiring them to carry the drug so the poor pain sufferer who wants the scrip doesn't have to go across the street to the store that does).

I do think a company has some right to require those they hire to dispense certain medications, although I think companies should do more to accomodate these pharmacists rather than fire them.  Also, at least when it comes to morning after pills and RU (whatever the numbers are) I think more accomodation is in order-mostly because the moral objection involves a pharmacist who doesn't not want to be involved in killing what they view as a life, and this is different from accomodating a religious belief that isn't connected to the loss of life.  

Back to the execution thing-prisons only use volunteers on the execution teams-prison employees who are morally opposed to the death penalty are not forced to participate in the execution of inmates.  

I think the reality is that companies should work to accomodate at least some of the objections of their pharmacists to the best of their ability.

I think the state and federal governments should have no ability to interfere in determining what products a company must carry or requiring that pharmacists who refuse to dispense must lose their jobs.

All of these decisions should be left up to the company.

If a pharmacist chooses not to dispense any medication that a pharmacy decides to stock, then that pharmacist should be fired (if the company so chooses).  Government should not force any private business to retain the employment of an individual who refuses to sell a product the company desires to sell (expressing its desire through availability).  This is no different than a car dealership wanting to fire an environmental nut that won't sell SUV's or as viper says a butcher who won't cut yummy bacon.  If you trained to be a pharmacist, then you knew going in that you may have to dispense drugs you do not believe in or that you can look for an employer who also shares your views, but your views should not force a company to accomodate you.  We are the business party.

An excellent article.  The pretzel-like contortions that the modern liberal has to tie themselves up in for their moral justification reminds me of the old saw about telling the truth and lying.  Telling the truth about a situation is always easier than lying, as you don't have to try to remember what you said last time when you tell the truth.

But if you can't determine the difference between a cashier and a Doctor/Pharmacist - in terms of training, specialization, replacability, fungibility, professional ethical standards, etc. then I can't help you. Just keep right on pressing this totally inapplicable metaphor.

for the same reasons that the ACLU doesn't get involved in 2nd Amendment cases.

is still, should not the employer determine who he/she decides to hire and retain based on his business model.  Pharmacies want to sell products, the corporation determines what products they want to sell, if the  employees refuse to sell said products, the employer should absolutely have the right to terminate said employee.

(1) Prior to Illinois' meddling, there were pharmacies in Illinois (and Wal-Mart) who WERE accommodating pharmacists' rights of conscience.  They had obviously come to the business conclusion that they could hire better employees, etc. if they accommodated their consciences -- and the American Pharmacists Association recognizes a right of conscience for pharmacists.  ILLINOIS prohibited those COMPANIES from accommodating.  

(2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has, for over 30 years, required businesses to make an effort to accommodate their employees' religious practices.  This doesn't mean it must ALWAYS be done.  In fact, if it would place more than a de minimis burden on the employer Title VII doesn't require an accommodation.  All it requires is that an employer provide an accommodation if it can do so with little burden on it -- i.e. allowing employees to flip work schedules or in the case of morning after pill prescriptions allowing them to tell a customer that they will need to have that prescription filled at the other company store a mile down the road.  Title VII places a rather small burden on the employer, it just basically requires them to make an effort.    

WITHOUT an accommodation requirement, we force sincere people of faith out of certain professions.  Do we really want a medical profession completely devoid of sincere people of faith?      

So, by this logic, a cashier also has the right to ask every single woman "Is there a slight chance you might be pregnant?" if she is purchasing alcohol, tobacco, etc. Correct?

But really, this repeated analogy is ridiculous.

First, see this.

Second, a cashier is not a doctor, or a pharmacist. Doctors and pharmacists, being people who are supposed to have a decade or so of specialized training, are required to ask if women are pregnant before dispensing various substances to them. Not so much with cashiers.

Wonder if that has to do with the various positions they occupy, level of training they have had, or the substances they are generally asked to dispense - or perhaps a combination of all three.

I'm getting a blank page.

It points to comment number 15 in this thread.

the intended purpose of alcohol and tobacco isn't to harm a baby, but the intended purpose of the morning after pill or abortion pill certainly does have the intended purpose, and not only is the pharmacist expected to dispense it, but the pharmacist is also expected to tell the person with the scrip how to use the drug.

There is a difference here.  

[Must be a problem with Akregator since it opens fine in Firefox. Sorry about that.]

Back to my previous comment. So is your actual concern with the unborn fetus or the employee?

I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm simply trying to understand a perspective other than my own.

Although the one at issue in this post is the one for the employee.

..but for all scientific purposes, a fertilized egg less than 72 hours old is not a baby.

a 5 year old an adolescent - are we going somewhere with this?

A more relevant analogy might be that you are opening a small grocery store and your personal religious beliefs dictate that you cannot eat pork.  In this case the Illinois bill would force you to stock and sell pork because you are a grocer.

Also say at that same grocer you hired a Hindu who could not prepare beef products.  As the owner you decided to have him prepare chicken, fish and the like but accomidated his wishes not to prepare any beef.  The Illinois law would force you as the employer to either make him prepare beef, or force you to fire him for sticking to his beliefs.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should push for a bill that would force an employer to keep a pharmacist who does not wish to sell morning after pills.  And to my understanding repealing the Illinois law would not bring about that effect.

to the argument that the employee should not be able to dictate the terms of their employment to an employer.  An advanced degree does not give you carte blanche to decide how you are going to work or what you choose to sell, your employer does.  If someone does not want to dispense certain drugs then they a) should not have become a pharmacist, or b) find an employer who agrees with their views.

You're wrong on this one.

If I hire you to work in an aortion clinic and suddenly you decide not to perform the abortions you were hired for.  I'm not going to keep you.  Period.  I don't care about your specialty or training or whatever.  That's just what it took you to Get the job.

If I hired a master electrician to make bombs and he refuses, he's fired.

If I hired a pharmacist to dispense medications my pharmacy stocked and he refuses, on ANY grounds, Goodbye.  Have a nice day.

Granted, all of the above are affected by replaceability of the employee and my personal preference for keeping him in a different capacity, but it Is the employer's decision to hire.  And it is the Employer's decision to fire.

This is also where I stand on Affirmative Action in the workplace.  If I'm not a government employer or contractor, I'll hire only Asians and fire all those I find out are straight if I want to...

Hypothetical situation:

An obviously pregnant mother walks into a liquor store and wants to purchase a pack of smokes and a bottle of Jameson. It is known and proven to most people, even with a basic education, that alcohol and tobacco will more than likely cause harm to an unborn child. Is it within that cashier's rights to refuse to sell these to the pregnant mother?

...isn't one for legal purposes either.  That does not change the fact that several religions and a large portion of the US population views it as such.  

That's not the issue here. The issue is this.

But even so, I brought this up to show that cashiers and pharmacists are not in any way analogous. There are reasons that certain professions have codes of professional responsibility, and while employers should be free to fire whoever they want, employers who want to actually hire qualified doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers, will sure as heck respect those codes, for the sake of having the employees they desire.

What the Illinois law does, in effect, is say that an employer cannot, by law, respect the conscience of their pharmacists - not even if they want to. How comfortable are you with that?

And it's within the store owner's rights to fire that employee. However, if the store owner says, "You know what, Cashier X made the right call, and I've decided not to fire them," the effect of the Illinois law would be to MANDATE that the store owner fire them anyway.

Most people reading my previous post would realize that I was talking about the timeframe prior to the actual birth of the child.

He specifically mentioned that if the employer wanted to accomodate the employee, that was the Employer's choice.  After all, he even did it in his own situation.

As to your 2nd point, he wasn't arguing how the law IS, he was arguing How It Needs to Be.

While we're discussing this, as a matter of pure hypocrisy, how does it come to be that the left applauds the doctors in California for disobeying a court order, but chides employers for voluntarily respecting the conscience of their employees?

business open on Sunday, even though you believe Sunday should be a day of rest.  The state says you have to keep your business open, because some people who want to shop on Sunday may be inconvienienced by having to drive to a different store.

Also, I remember the restaurant I worked at through high school and college didn't require people to work on Saturday whose religious beliefs required them to rest (I worked with two seventh day adventists, and they observed sabbath on Saturday, and neither was required to work on that day).  

not sure if the cashier should be able to keep her job, but then the cashier isn't required to advice the purchaser on how and when to use the alcohol and cigs, and a cashiers training doesn't require college and pharmacy school along with a state board exam either.

I would much rather have law and decisions based on actual science instead of religion.

Science says that a 5 year old is not an adolescent, or a septuagenarian.

Is that relevant, w/r/t whether the law should protect the life of a 5 year old?

life?  After all, if left do develop on its own, in about 40 weeks it will be a human baby.

Not to mention I don't recall at any point in my four pregnancies ever calling the life inside me "the fetus" or "the mass of cells" or "the potential life."

Pretty much from the moment I knew there was a life inside, I called it a baby.

This is a law that explicitly forces businesses to fire employees who follow their conscience and refuse to dispense medications that they believe bring about the destruction of a human life.

And the point at which a fertilized egg or fetus or 5-year old is considered to be fully human and deserves protection isn't a scientific issue, it is a moral one.

or human?

See the problem for your POV is that you have to deny what is actually there, because you see at some point every human alive today was at one point a very small teeny tiny cell-none of us skipped that stage and went right to adulthood or infancy.

So how exactly is it less human than you or I?

Not because I think I'm incorrect, but because once religion gets thrown into the mix it becomes a completely illogical and never-ending argument.

And I'm sure you'd be completely fine with a Muslim cashier refusing to sell you pork and alcohol.

into the debate?

I think you listen too much to the NARAL side of things, they would like you to think the debate is about religion, but it isn't.

So is it your argument that religious beliefs shouldn't be tolerated or accomodated in the work place?  And even more, that the state should mandate companies can't do so, if they choose?

The left is always wrong and full of hypocrisy.  And I agree that the Illinois Law is bad, as businesses alone should be able to determine who they choose to hire and fire, which also goes for the proposed Missouri law that would prevent employers from firing or even not initially hiring pharmacists who would not dispense legal and prescribed drugs.  Government is best when it leaves business alone.

between abortion and contraception. There is a tendency to conflate the two issues where the dispensing of medication is concerned. It's disingenuous.

Plan B is a contraceptive and works in exactly the same way that birth control pills do (a double or triple dose of conventional pills will have the same effect). RU486 is indeed an abortifacient.

This is a larger issue, though, although many who enter the debate like to pretend it is not. When you start to give a pharmacist, for example, the right to choose what medications he will dispense for concientious reasons where do you draw the line? Dispensing an abortifacient or not is a fairly simple and obvious choice. But... and here's the big but - what other conciensce issues are you prepared to accomodate?

And will you draw the line at religiously originating moral decisions - or is a general moral objection valid? There are some who object to giving children medication for ADD/ADHD. Are you prepared to support a pharmacist who doesn't believe in that?

How far is an employer required to go to accomodate that conscience before the person is really not doing the job they were hired to do?

Yes, it is an interesting problem, and one which can only be corrected by using the exact right word for what you are talking about.

There can be no absolute rights, only fundamental rights. Any absolute right automatically trumps all other rights regardless of the situation. Fundamental rights can be in conflict, and people can weigh where the balance between the two ought to be. As the situation shifts, so can the balance point.

But I suppose that's also what good judgement is about, as opposed to rote law.

...the woman is buying them for herself and not her husband, her mother, or a friend?

Perscriptions by definition are for a particular person, even if someone else picks them up for that person.

if an employee (pharmacist) tells a customer to get their prescription filled down the street the employer loses income.

Fair or appropriate? You tell me.

Why does a doctor/pharmacist have more right to excercise a conscientious objection than a cashier?

up to the employer, not the state to determine, and some accomodation is reasonable, others not so reasonable.

The point is not whether or not the morning after pill causes an "abortion."  It's whether or not the pharmacist dispensing the medication has a sincere conscientious objection to filling that prescription.  

The AMA defines a pregnancy as beginning AFTER implantation of the fertilized egg.  Thus, the AMA defines an abortion as occurring after implantation.  With that background: (1) the morning after pill, in many cases, acts AFTER implantation -- thus it CAUSES an abortion.  It just does so at a much earlier stage than RU-486, and (2) That is irrelevant as to whether a person can object to participating in the destruction of the pre-implanted human embryo -- or in the case of Illinois whether government can prohibit employers from accommodating those beliefs. Whether you call it an "abortion," or a destruction of a pre-implanted fertilized human egg (which already has every piece of DNA it will ever have to grow into the person it will be) that doesn't advance the argument at all.  

Please note: no religion in this post.  All science.          

 Is there anyone reading RedState that would actually disagree with the general principles that:

 1. Government has no right to dictate whether a private business can or cannot sell a legal product - neither can they require the sale of said product against the business's wishes.

 2. Government has no right to dictate whether a private business may or may not fire an employee who refuses to perform the job duties required by their position.

 So I completely agree with what appears to be the point of your article, or rather the position (I think) you take and that most here appear to echo.

 On the other hand...

The end result will be that 1) fewer Pharmacists will enter the profession, 2) more currently in it will leave or relocate, and the final result is going to be that average customers in need of life saving medicine in localities that are hostile to Pharmacist conscience are going to suffer as a result.

<...>

The result? NO pharmacist for everyone in that rural South Dakota town -- including the woman who wants her morning after pill as well as the grandmother who wants her heart medications.

 I don't think these are the most likely outcomes. It is at least as likely if not more that with a marginal number of pharamcists opting out of the career, the resulting shortage will drive up the income scales for pharmacists, resulting in increased interest in the career by younger persons and increased willingness by existing pharamcists to relocate to areas with increased demand for their expertise. The effect on local areas would be the same - the hypothetical outlet in South Dakota is going to put out the call nationwide for the opening that was created, perhaps at a premium - and a pharmacist working elsewhere in the same chain or a newbie is going to answer it. Anytime there's a gap in provision of service or product where demand exists, businesses are going to exploit that gap and fill it.

 This all assumes the business in question doesn't decide to work out some plan to keep the current pharmacist. Perhaps in rural S.D. the business may only be able to employ one pharmacist at a time but certainly most pharmacies have multiple staff and when one refuses, the other could fill it. Then again, since some number of objecting pharmacists also refuse to refer customers to a competing business, I'm not sure they'd find it any more palatable to stand alongside a co-worker who they must direct the customer to, either, would they?

 One could even see this movement altering the way pharmacy chains operate. Mail order with overnight delivery? Could we imagine a system by which a central hub pharmacy staffed with non-objecting pharmacists prepare and review "pre-packaged" prescription bundles that a regular cashier is authorized to hand over? I'm aware that might be impossible but in my ignorance, I've always assumed birth control pill prescriptions are fairly standard and maybe only come in 2 or 3 "varieties" at most, so such a central pre-packaging system might be possible.

 What about automating some portion of the pharmacy's operation - almost a vending machine style dispensery for certain common and basic prescriptions based on reading a barcode? Perhaps there are government regulations that would prohibit such a scenario, at this time, but in the future? As we shrink the size and scope of government interference? We can hope...

 The bottomline is, demand will always find a supply given the nature of business - one group of pharmacists deciding to leave the business is not going to create a long term problem. I suspect it wouldn't even create a very big short term problem.

The pharmacist sells only what he wants to sell. If he has a religious objection to antibiotics, so be it. Of course he's probably not going to get a lot of business as people go elsewhere to get their prescriptions filled. What right do you have to force someone else to carry something in their store?

Wouldn't you just go elsewhere? Or would you yell and scream and stomp your feet then get out the cell phone to call the ACLU (which you have, of course, on speed dial)? Somebody not wanting to sell me pork or alcohol isn't violating my rights.

or folly of this particular law. I was commenting on the issues behind it.

Actually, if left to develop on its own the fetus/zygote would die almost immediately.  Left to develop inside the mother's womb, THEN it will mature into a baby.

In other words, the woman is more important than the fetus from a biological survival perspective.  The woman can survive without the fetus.  The fetus cannot survive without the woman.

I'm not getting into a debate here about the zygote being a human life or not (it undoubtedly IS from the genetic standpoint).  I'm just clarifying that the fetus isn't an independent human who would do just fine on its own.  It REQUIRES the womb of the mother to survive.

The abortion issue is simply one side saying that the woman has the right to decide whether her womb continues to act as a life support unit, and the other side saying she doesn't, that she committed herself to providing that womb-support for 9 months when she made the decision to have sex.

Not trying to derail the thread.  So to contribute a new point I haven't seen yet, the woman goes to the DOCTOR for medical advice and treatment, not the pharmacist.  The pharmacist is nothing more than a gumball machine to the patient.  She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.  If her DOCTOR prescribes a medication for her (as long as its legal, and it is in this case) then the pharmacist has a moral, ethical, and should also have a LEGAL obligation to provide the medication (or equivalent substitute) for what the doctor has ordered for the patient.    

At the same time, I don't think state law should require the BUSINESS to either fire or force the pharmacist to do anything.   Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.  Public safety is the reason for it.  What if a pharmacist had some sort of ethical problem dispensing antibiotics, and everyone got hepatitis because of it?  IMO, this is a public safety issue, and not a pro or anti abortion issue.

What if a Fireman had an ethical problem fighting fires in churches?  Should the state say "gee that's ok, we should accomodate you?".  No, they should jail him for public endangerment at the first event where he opted not to fight the fire because of his religious/moral/ethical views.

From the website of the FDA:

3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

So... no, Plan B does not cause an abortion. It is not an abortifacient. And unless your pharmacist has an objection to contraception in general he should have no moral qualms about dispensing Plan B.

The difference between abortion and "preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg" is not significant, for the objections raised.

It's not like it's the process of detaching the child, pardon, egg, from the uterine wall that upsets so many. It's the logical consequence of so doing.

And unless your pharmacist has an objection to contraception in general he should have no moral qualms about dispensing Plan B.

Who are you to determine what qualms the pharmacist should or should not have? Do we need some kind of government body to determine whether his beliefs are consistent and within guidelines established by the state?

So to contribute a new point I haven't seen yet, the woman goes to the DOCTOR for medical advice and treatment, not the pharmacist.

There's a reason you haven't seen this point made yet. It's not very bright, as discussed infra.

The pharmacist is nothing more than a gumball machine to the patient.

This shows that you have no actual recognition of what a pharmacist does, or how a pharmacy works. I would wager to say that less than 1% of all prescriptions are actually "filled" by a Pharmacist. They have people who work in pharmacies called "Pharmacy Techs" who actually perform the "gumball machine" function.

The reason the Pharmacist is there, and the reason he goes through years and years of training, including more biochemistry than I can even fathom, is to perform a lot of vital functions. They often act as the final measure of defense against adverse (and potentially fatal) reactions caused when multiple doctors unknowingly prescribe the same patient medication. They are also there to counsel patients upon the proper usage of their drugs, and the potential side effects, and what over-the-counter medications should be avoided while taking their prescriptions. I could go on and on and on, but if there's one thing the pharmacists generally don't do, it's act like a gumball machine.

She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.

Which is why, if she doesn't like them, she can go elsewhere. I go to the BP down the road for gasoline, not for the travel plans of the gas clerk. I always get them anyway. One day, if I get annoyed enough, I'll start crossing the street to the Shell station.

If her DOCTOR prescribes a medication for her (as long as its legal, and it is in this case) then the pharmacist has a moral, ethical, and should also have a LEGAL obligation to provide the medication (or equivalent substitute) for what the doctor has ordered for the patient.

This betrays yet further ignorance of anything connected with this issue. Did you know that pharmacists are subject to liability if they fail to notice doctor-shopping? Did you know that they are supposed to report doctors who are suspected of irresonsibly dispensing pain medications (and it would shock you to learn the frequency of this)?

As the husband of a woman who worked as a pharmacy tech for a good long while, I can tell you that there are lots, and lots, and lots of situations when a Pharmacist not only does not fill a prescription which a doctor sends over (for various reasons) but has liability reasons for not filling. Which is what makes this:

Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.

The most ridiculous proposition in this thread.

Given some of the other ones I've seen, that is a truly noteworthy achievement.

I based my reply on the previous poster's definition of pregnancy by the AMA - and the incorrect factual information about how Plan B works.

So the real objection is to contraception in general then, since your pharmacist certainly has no way of knowing if or when there may be a fertilized egg in play.

It has been decided that we need a diary promoting the benefits of corporate welfare as a means of subsidizing certain goods and services that society deems necessary.

It's your turn. How soon will you have it up?

the mother wants the pharmicist to dispense a medication to kill it, my statement pretty much stands, that if left to develop, it will be a baby, and that a pharmacist that doesn't want to be a party to the death, shouldn't be required to do so by the state.

I think a business has the right to determine whether they want to hire somebody with this type of moral opposition, although I think in the end a business would do well to do what they can to accomodate the objections.

Also, your comparison to a fireman isn't so good-considering the pharmacist is objecting to involvement in what they view as the taking of another life, which is what those of you who think pharmacists should be required to dispense medications seem to be ignoring.

And while a pharmacist isn't part of the decision to prescribe the medication, they certainly are expected to advise people on how to take the medication, and if something goes wrong, they get their names added to the lawsuit, just like a doctor does.  

Really, the state law should DIRECTLY make the PHARMACIST have to dispense all legal medications (or equivalent substitutes) prescribed by the physician.  If the pharmacist refuses to do so, they should be at risk of losing their license and/or jail time.

That's a great idea. What about things they don't stock because they aren't commonly prescribed? Is that a criminal offence also? What if they run out of something they normally stock? Jail time again?

Public safety is the reason for it.  What if a pharmacist had some sort of ethical problem dispensing antibiotics, and everyone got hepatitis because of it?

How does one pharmacy deciding not to sell antibiotics mean that "everyone gets Hepatitis." You are free to get your prescription filled elsewhere. The clinics even have their own pharmacies. Using the same "logic," I guess if one gas station doesn't stock condoms, that means everybody will get AIDS.

I don't mean to suggest that pharmacists don't have a difficult job requiring tons of training.  They do.  But to THE PATIENT, the pharmacist is nothing more than the dispenser of medication (ala a gumball machine).

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.  

If the patient is getting more than a realistic dose of pain medication because she is jumping back and forth between 20 doctors, then the PATIENT should be subject to jail time.  However, in all of those cases, the pharmacist should STILL have to dispense the medication.

The counter-actions of various medications is one of the key reasons why pharmacists need to be so educated.  They usually have a whole family of 'substitute' medications they can prescribe to do the same thing but without bad interactions.  I alluded to that in my post.  

Everyone posting under this topic has suggested that the woman can just go to another pharmacy.  Has anyone here actually lived in a small town?  In small towns there IS only one pharmacy.  What do you suggest a patient do in the case where there's only one pharmacy in town?

I'd be personally indebted if you could name one, just one mind you, pharmacist who would not dispense antibiotics for ethical reasons, or one fireman, just one mind you, who would not fight a church fire.

Just one, any one will do.

When that one pharmacy goes out of business? Should the state step in and keep it open with a public subsidy? Most small towns have no pharmacies at all. Once you get to any kind of reasonably sized town you get lots of choices, though... since all the discounters and grocery stores are in the business, as well as the clinics themselves.

Pharmacies obviously cannot issue medicine they do not have.  In the vast majority of cases there is a substitute medication that does the same thing.  Pharmacists still have to make the call as to what is an appropriate way to implement the doctor's prescription.  But they DON'T have the medical perogative to COUNTER the direction that the doctor is indicating he wants the patient to be treated.

A pharmacist failing to fill a prescription because of lack of stock supply obviously doesn't fall under this argument.  He hasn't CHOSEN to countermand a doctor's orders, he merely cannot implement it for lack of available drugs.  Therefore he would not be criminally (or ethically) liable, unless he INTENTIONALLY wasn't stocking legal medications that are standard medications that could reasonably be expected to be prescribed merely because of his 'ethical' objections.

I don't mean to suggest that pharmacists don't have a difficult job requiring tons of training.  They do.  But to THE PATIENT, the pharmacist is nothing more than the dispenser of medication (ala a gumball machine).

So the law should be based upon a patient's gross misrepresentation of what Pharmacists do? Seriously, you should stop.

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.

I'm guessing that the tort law of all 50 states disagrees with you. Regardless, you should really think about whether that principle should apply to everything, not just pet causes of yours.

The counter-actions of various medications is one of the key reasons why pharmacists need to be so educated.  They usually have a whole family of 'substitute' medications they can prescribe to do the same thing but without bad interactions.  I alluded to that in my post.

So your basic contention is that there are circumstances where Pharmacists should refuse to fill the prescriptions the doctors send them (a la a gumball machine), and should in fact fill a different prescription without consulting the doctor? I'd say you've surrendered your argument en toto.

Everyone posting under this topic has suggested that the woman can just go to another pharmacy.  Has anyone here actually lived in a small town?  In small towns there IS only one pharmacy.  What do you suggest a patient do in the case where there's only one pharmacy in town?

Actually, I did mention this in the original post. The pharmacists in these suits will not fill these prescriptions - the end result is not that the State will force the pharmacist's hand, it is that the rural town will have no pharmacist - for abortifacients or heart medications.

I have posted my vehement distaste for corporate welfare in other posts.  This post has nothing to do with that topic.

I might write a diary on how insane most corporate welfare actually is.  Or I might not get around to it.  Its my choice.

So who is to determine if he is intentionally not  stocking "standard medications" (whatever those are)? Who is to determine if he is intentionally charging too much for a medication so he doesn't have to fill it? Or maybe he is creating a hostile environment by making people wait an extremely long time to get a certain script filled or giving them a stern look when they come up to the counter?

Sounds like we could use a whole new government body to enforce this. Wouldn't it just be simpler to put them all out of business and open state run pharmacies? These decisions are far too important to be left to anyone but the state.

Substitute medication isn't going against the doctor's direction.  It implements the SPIRIT of what the doctor intended, after taking into account all of the medical knowledge available.

That is what I should clarify:

The pharmacist should be bound by law to follow through with the SPIRIT of the doctor's orders.   Going completely counter to the doctor's orders as in the case of the morning after pill is NOT keeping in line with the spirit of what the doctor's orders suggested.

Now I'll await everyone critiquing the logic of how the pharmacist is supposed to know what the doctor is thinking.   Well, that's their job even under current law.  That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Now we really are going far afield. So is this "implementing the spirit of the doctor's orders" applicable in all situations, or only in morning-after pill situations?

I just want to be clear on exactly how broad the reforms you are proposing are. You've already basically reformed the entire prescription medication system, and tort law system, so don't feel gunshy at this point.

That would be a difficult situation to prove.

Just like it would be almost impossible to prove that a woman intended to abort her fetus by drinking pennyroyal tea, yet the majority of posters on this site want to make abortion illegal.  

Does the lack of enforcability thus mean that a law shouldn't be passed?

No, it's not your choice. We voted that we need a diary promoting corporate welfare. Are you a RedState poster or not? If you are, you have to write it. Just because you have a vehement distaste for corporate welfare, that doesn't mean you can get out of promoting it.

I must, as an initial matter, commend you on learning the value of argument.

I must weep, however, for your inability to discern the difference between the willful failure of an agent of the sovereign to discharge his duties, and the willful decision by a private actor not to undertake an act.

Thus, this:

What if a Fireman had an ethical problem fighting fires in churches?  Should the state say "gee that's ok, we should accomodate you?".  No, they should jail him for public endangerment at the first event where he opted not to fight the fire because of his religious/moral/ethical views.

Is stupid.

Oh, I know, it's due to licensure. That bridges the gap.

Lawyers refuse clients and causes all the time. Doctors refuse patients and procedures. Both are licensed. Neither set of actions carries a legal penalty.

We've already had this argument at length around here, so let me short-circuit the second-stupidest part of your comment:

She goes to him to get a pill, not for his ethical views.

You're right. Which is why, if she doesn't like those views, she can go elsewhere, to, oh, I dunno, the competition.

And to jump your shark before you do, having actually lived in rural America, I'd ask that you kindly refrain that There Is Only One Pharmacist For Thousands of Miles, or that this should make a difference.

Thanks.

I'm not sure who certifies pharmacists, is it the state medical board?

What if the board made it grounds for license revocation if a pharmacist failed to act in a manner consistent with the spirit of a doctor's orders?

Remember state medical boards are regulated by government (i.e. they ARE the government).  In other words, we're already living under a nanny state which says which people can practice medicine and how they can do it.   And that's seemingly ok with everyone, nobody wants unlicensed hacks doing surgeries on people.

lol at your comment :)

Well now I would just opt to stop posting at redstate if that was a requirement and I would face jailtime if I didn't follow through.

Your analogy is weak though.  If redstate issued a writers license to me for the purpose of writing articles in the best interests of redstate, then they would have the right to revoke my license if I chose not to write something that was required by me and my writers license.

Pharmacists are part of a government regulated profession.  Therefore it is reasonable that the government be able to define their responsibility to ALL citizens of the state, not just those with whom their views agree.

That either you are completely unaware of how the Doctor/Pharmacist chain works, or tort liability, or you are aware, and think the whole system as it currently works should be scrapped. And that, ironically, your system would give pharmacists leeway to make decisions they're not qualified by training to make.

Which is it?

I hereby nominate this for paragraph of the day:

In the case of doctors issuing painmedicine like candy, that is a problem with the doctor not the pharmacist.  It should still be a requirement that the pharmacist dispense the painkilling medication, and THEN also report the doctor.  If proven, the state should revoke the doctor's licese and/or jail them.

In the case of attorneys filing motions that violate FRCP 11, that problem is with the partner, not the associate. It should still be a requirement that the associate files the sanctionable motion, and THEN report the partner. If proven, the state should revoke the partner's license and/or jail them.

We'd have to carve out an exception for the associate's bar license. Other than that, rock and roll!

Of all the ones here, although I've heard other very good ones.

Lawyers refusing a client does NOT create a public safety concern.  Doctors are actually somewhat restricted to turning down patients.  They certainly can refuse patients because they're not qualified in a particular specialty.  They can refuse them because of too high a patient load.  Neither of those reasons flies in the face of a public safety argument.  In almost ALL cases, a life-threatening case that winds up in an emergency room gets treated, regardless if the person has medical insurance, etc.  In other words, once public safety becomes a concern, then the state (or business) can mandate that licensed professionals do their job.

Pharmacists issuing medication falls into the public safety zone.  Now you could argue that a woman won't die if she doesn't get the morning after pill, but in some cases a woman MIGHT die if she gets pregnant.  There are certain medical conditions for which pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition for the mother.  The pharmacist knows NOTHING of the woman's overall medical condition.  All he knows is that the doctor wants to prescribe her an abortive medication.  To have him second-guessing the doctor by directly acting in opposition to the doctors orders is very dangerous.  It says the pharmacist can act completely in opposition to what the patient's doctor considers the best medical treatment for the patient.

I agree, even in Wyoming or MT, pharmacists are probably 20-60 miles apart.  However, if you're alone, you're vomiting with diarhhea (sp?), and a fever of 103F, isn't it a public safety concern to have you drive 50 miles to the 2nd nearest pharmacy because the first state-regulated pharmacy wouldn't give you the medicine they had on their shelf?

I still get the general essence of your point.  The frivolous lawsuit would still be frivolous.

However, its not up to the attorney to disbar the other attorney is it?  Its up to the state bar.  Therefore in the event that someone's medical well being (public safety) was at stake, the doctor's medical advice should prevail and not the pharmacists.  That is the big difference.

Your analogy would be better constructed this way:

Attorney says "file this (seemingly frivolous) lawsuit".  Paralegal says "I have never talked to the client for more than 1 minute, and I really have no idea what the details of their case is about, but I won't file this lawsuit, I think its frivolous".

I do have a pretty fair understanding of the pharmacist/doctor chain.  

I have very little knowledge of tort law, but who cares, I thought most redstaters want to scrap tort law and start over anyway.  ;)

Lastly, I fail to see how a pharmacist having to follow through with the essence of what medical doctors prescribe, JUST AS THEY DO NOW IN 99.99 percent of cases, would give them leeway to make decisions they're not qualified to make.

If anything, making them report doctors for overprescribing or making them report patients for doctor-hopping is actually making them make decisions for which they have not been properly qualified to make.  We ALREADY make them do that.

And the point of the person Leon was arguing with initially.

The point I'm Still getting from Leon is that regardless of whether the employer is willing to risk not being able to find employees that he needs to be Required to accomodate those employees when no such requirement is appropriate...

As attorneys are all licensed (and not just the partners) you can be in a deep load of crap if you file a sanctionable motion, even if your partner threatened your job if you didn't file it. The idea is, if you pass the bar, you are required to exhibit a certian level of professional responsibility, regardless of what pressure may be applied.

Now, as you have already pointed out here, pharmacists are also licensed. And part of the responsibility that comes with being a member of their equivalent of the bar is sometimes not filling prescriptions that doctors order. Such as the abusive prescription of painkillers. Or a negligent prescription that may cause adverse reactions. Or a prescription for a patient that the pharmacist believes is doctor-shopping (the pharmacist being the only one in the position to notice, most times). That's kind of why they get paid handsome money to be something a lot more sophisticated than a gumball machine.

What's fascinating to me is that you want to take that level of professional responsibility away, while at the same time granting to pharmacists the discretion to substitute, say, Celebrex for Wellbutrin, on the theory that it fulfills the "spirit" of the doctor's prescription.

Mind. Boggling.

This:

If anything, making them report doctors for overprescribing or making them report patients for doctor-hopping is actually making them make decisions for which they have not been properly qualified to make.

Falsifies this:

I do have a pretty fair understanding of the pharmacist/doctor chain.

Full stop.

That's a stupid situation that the Left is known for.  My point was requiring employers to retain employees who ether cannot or will not do te jobs they were retained for.  Which is all about the stupidity of Affirmative Action and EO in the Private workplace.

That is neither the question at issue, nor what I was intending to advocate. Sorry for the failure of communication.

I guess I forgot that course Pharmacology 506 that all medical schools require where they make you decide intent of the doctor and/or patient when prescribing medication to someone you've never barely spoken to.  That course teaches that some legal medications create side-effects with the law.   I forgot too where they teach you to do a better job than a polygraph at determining whether someone is lying.

certain highly addictive pain medications, because of the risk of theft.

Is it your position that the state should require them to carry these medications?  Why?

she should be doing something a little more reliable than taking a morning after pill.

And I don't see at all where the right to kill your baby is a public safety concern.

Would you care to enlighten me beyond the "she is going to die, if she doesn't get a morning after pill" reasoning.

that noone is in a better position than a pharmacist to identify doctor shopping (although anyone with half a brain would just go to a different pharmacy for each doctor - of course people abusing drugs aren't top-notch thinkers to say the least).

However, if a woman goes to 10 different doctors and gets valium from each one, how does the pharmacist know anything?  For all he knows her husband changed jobs 5 times, 2 of her doctors changed the location of their practice, and she sought out a referral and then a specialist for back pain.  Or perhaps she's doctor shopping.  He hasn't examined her back, nor has he seen even one single x-ray or MRI.  He doesn't know, and he is NOT QUALIFIED to tell if she is lying.

In other words, even though he is in the best position to identify doctor shopping, he cannot CONCLUSIVELY determine that is what is going on.  Therefore HE SHOULD still prescribe the medication and report the situation to whichever state authority investigates such things.  To do otherwise, to let him withhold prescribed medication puts the burden on the health of the innocent person.  I favor a system where we err on the side of the public health and safety of innocents and THEN do the best we can to identify the system abusers.

Do you ENJOY having to sign your life away to get some freaking pseudophed?  IMO, ALL of us have to suffer because of the 0.01 percent of abusers of the over-the-counter medication.  I'd rather have 99.99 percent of us be able to buy pseudophed without a 15 minute legal ordeal and come up with a different way to catch the 1 in 10,000 people who have a methlab set-up.

that they stock medications in that same family of drugs, of course not.

As I said, this would be a hard case to prove (that a pharmacist was intentionally not stocking something because of an ethical objection).  However, if something is hard to prove is that grounds for not passing a law against it?

Has to do with the general idea that pharmacists can willy nilly act completely counter to and against the spirit of a doctor's orders.  The morning-after pill is merely one example where a pharmacist has actually done so.  There's lots of lawyers here, so they can lecture you on the idea of setting precedents and how hard they are to overturn once they gain momentum.

There are very few 100% effective anti-pregnancy measures.  Hysterectomy is one.  Are you saying that you would tell the woman whose condom wasn't effective (ripped or slipped off) that she should have had a hysterectomy?

businesses, they should determine what drugs they want to stock, and what drugs they do not want to stock, and let those who want drugs they have refused to stock go elsewhere.

The state shouldn't be mandating type or class of drugs a business must carry-the state should only mandate what safety standards must be followed to maintian the integrity of the drugs that are dispensed.

As to what a business should be required to do regarding an employee with objections-I think pharmacies should strive to accomodate deeply held moral beliefs whenever they can, but they shouldn't be required to do so either.

And of course I am somewhat laughing at you, because my husband is a disabled veteran, and the medications he needs aren't carried by the VA pharmacy here in this state-a government run pharmacy has opted to not carry all of the drugs my husband needs to maintain his health.  I haven't seen the feds or the state step in to require the VA pharmacy to carry those drugs (and yes they have similar drugs, but he is either unable to take them, or they do not control his asthma and allergies).  So, when are you going to advocate the VA clinic carry advair and zyrtec?  Those drugs pose far more of a health threat to my husband than a 72 hour old possible pregnancy in a woman.

First of all, your hypothetical assumes a situation where a woman will suffer severe physical complications immediately from becoming pregnant.  Please provide realistic examples of this.

Second, I'm a lawyer and most lawyers can also lecture you endlessly (really: try us) on the extent to which a pharmacy could get sued for refusing to give needed medicine to someone who would suffer severe physical harm from not being sold such medication.  Beyond that line, slopes don't slip.  To compare the refusal to provide life-saving medicine to the refusal to sell an abortion pill requires you to remove the situation from the context of the actual world in which it occurs.

is what I would probably reccomend.  As a matter of fact, we had good friends while in the Navy, and she had a hysterectomy because she had serious enough heart problems that pregnancy would pose a life or death situation.  She opted to not have to worry about abortion, and opted for the sure fire method to prevent it.

But if it is absolutely 100% important that a woman have an abortion, because her life is at risk, I was thinking that she probably needed to do something a little more certain for the abortion as well, outside of just taking a morning after pill.  

deliberately disingenuous and irrelevant.

You are making an assumption that every woman who needs emergency contraception does so because of her own negligence. That is just not so.

It is also reasonable to assume that some women do have serious health concerns affected by pregnancy.

You are also equating contraception with abortion.

"suffer severe complications from pregancy" in order to be entitled to contraception?

This could indeed be the case, however, and the pharmacist is in no position to judge whether it is so without an unwarranted invasion of the woman's privacy.

making Plan B contraception available over the counter - a proposal that was on the table at the FDA already.

That should take the issue out of the pharmacist's hands - and relieve his conscience.

a place that sells them? What if they passed a law requiring all bars to offer strippers? A person could use your argument to suggest that they should be able to go to any bar and see strippers. It could be an inconvenience to require them to go some place else.

No one suggests women disclose why they are getting an abortion. They are only insisting that every person should not be required to assist them. I don't think all businesses should be required to sell this stuff. It would be an entirely different matter if it could not be bought elsewhere. This is not about choice. It is about no choice being forced on people by the ones who argue in favor of choice.

accountable for "personal responsibility" in California. First, we have to find some responsible judges to enforce it.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription they should quit thier job.

What if, in the case of Wal-Mart, they don't want to stock the drug, and even if they did, they would be willing to allow their pharmacists to not distribute it, if they wish?

It's up to the FDA... and that decision should be based on safety, not politics. In any case it doesn't solve the problem. You will still have chains that don't want to carry it and commissars that want to order that every store carry it. Oh yea, make sure it is prominently displayed so as not to create an undue burden on the purchaser. And the price should be dictated as well, so stores don't charge so much that the poor can't afford it.

Or indeed that every "Catholic" is Catholic.

So the real objection is to contraception in general then, since your pharmacist certainly has no way of knowing if or when there may be a fertilized egg in play.

Not even on the broadest reading of what I said does that make sense.

Lawyers refusing a client does NOT create a public safety concern.

Clearly you should have started your comment with IANAL.

In many States, a Court can require you to do criminal defense; nevertheless, you are still bound to evaluate whether you can prosecute that claim to the best of your abilities. If you cannot, as a matter of conscience, you are ethically bound to do your damnedest to withdraw.

So, let's assume there's a fellow out there who is accused and indicted for the vicious rape and murder of over 100 little girls, ages 4-9. The evidence is overwhelming, but by law, not dispositive. No public defender on staff will take the case, because they have an ethical duty to only take cases they can prosecute, and they all have little girls that age, and can't prosecute the case. The Court then begins going down the Bar rolls, and every private criminal defense lawyer vomits and says no. And so on.

You've got one hell of a stretch to assert that a lawyer's refusal to undertake client representation is somehow less of a public safety issue than whether a doctor will give some lady a way to off her kid in the early stages, or, if you prefer, to provide "emergency" contraception.

Doctors are actually somewhat restricted to turning down patients.  They certainly can refuse patients because they're not qualified in a particular specialty.  They can refuse them because of too high a patient load.

If memory serves, the Thirteenth Amendment also keeps them from having to work on that vicious child murdering rapist described above.

In almost ALL cases, a life-threatening case that winds up in an emergency room gets treated, regardless if the person has medical insurance, etc.

Because the doctors choose to treat that case, and not forego federal funding. Keep trying.

In other words, once public safety becomes a concern, then the state (or business) can mandate that licensed professionals do their job.

No, in other words, the State can make future funding dependent on certain activities. Note the distinction.

Pharmacists issuing medication falls into the public safety zone.  Now you could argue that a woman won't die if she doesn't get the morning after pill, but in some cases a woman MIGHT die if she gets pregnant.

There are a few more steps in there, and you're really gonna have to overcome the 13th Amendment issue and the analogy to the death penalty. In other words: Weak.

There are certain medical conditions for which pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition for the mother.

There are certain criminal charges that are life-threatening conditions to defendants.

The pharmacist knows NOTHING of the woman's overall medical condition.  All he knows is that the doctor wants to prescribe her an abortive medication.  To have him second-guessing the doctor by directly acting in opposition to the doctors orders is very dangerous.  It says the pharmacist can act completely in opposition to what the patient's doctor considers the best medical treatment for the patient.

Well, the problem of course is that by now he's kidnapped the woman and is holding her in his basement, and keeping her from seeking alternatives to get her prescription filled. Once we free her...

What's that? He's not? Oh, wait, never mind, then.

I agree, even in Wyoming or MT, pharmacists are probably 20-60 miles apart.  However, if you're alone, you're vomiting with diarhhea (sp?), and a fever of 103F, isn't it a public safety concern to have you drive 50 miles to the 2nd nearest pharmacy because the first state-regulated pharmacy wouldn't give you the medicine they had on their shelf?

Having seen early stage pregnancy more than a few times in my life, I'm gonna have to disagree with your characterization there.

Hey! Did you know that most hospitals have pharmacies? And that doctors with privileges there can prescribe from them? No? Just wondering.

seeking emergency contraception has a life threatenin pregnancy.

My point was that if there is an issue where there is a life threatening pregnancy, something other than emergency contraception is probably in order.

Also, I make no assumption regarding the negligience issue, but either way, I do not think somebody who believes that a 72 hour old pregnancy is killing a human life (which is a group I happen to fall into) shouldn't be compelled by law to participate in its killing.

If a woman wants to end the life, then she can go someplace that will fill the scrip, but I don't think the solution to her choice is to remove somebody else's choice.

One of the favorite lines of the pro choice crowd is "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" apparantly they don't believe that line should extend to those who also don't want to participate in one.

Exactly where is the choice of the pharmacist in all of this?  Or is it your contention that they should have no choice?  And in that case maybe you should think about changing your name back to pro abortion, since apparantly choice doesn't apply to everyone.

All of the budget cuts targeting veterans is crazy - probably extending through the pharmaceutical portion of the VA.  For long-term medications there of course is usually the option of mail-order or the pharmacy can special-order the medication.  In the case of medicine which is needed IMMEDIATELY (like antibiotics, athsma medication, heart medication (for a new patient), etc, there SHOULD be a mechanism to get pharmacies to carry such medications, imo.  Of course in your husband's casee you said the substitute medications don't work as well so that's a tough situation.  It means the pharmacy was stocking something considered equivalent.  (I'm personally familiar with having certain medications work while others of the same type dont).  However, I don't like the idea of the state mandating specific medications (i.e. they shouldn't be told that Celebrex MUST be stocked), just that pharmacies stock something from the family of medications for athritis that act similar to celebrex.

My thought is that the vast majority of pharmacies do that anyway.

The woman had 3 previous ectopic pregnancies.  Such pregnancies can be very dangerous to a woman.  The fetus cannot possibly survive in the case of such a pregnancy anyway, so the whole fetus is a human life and must be saved at all costs is removed from the picture ---- it simply can't be saved with even the best modern medicine has to offer.

So she calls her doctor who prescribes that she takes the morning after pill to greatly reduce the risk that she may have gotten a 4th ectopic pregnancy (obviously she is prone to them) after her husband's condom broke the night before.

My point is: THE PHARMACIST HAS NO IDEA OF HER PAST MEDICAL HISTORY OR PERSONAL SITUATION, therefore he should NOT have the authority to countermand her doctors orders simply because he has some ethical concerns over the use of the drug.  He simply cannot say that her life ISN'T threatened by the pregnancy.  He is NOT a doctor.  He does NOT have her medical history.  Therefore he should not be making decisions about matters that REQUIRE such knowledge.

nt

First, the contortions of circumstance you had to invent to even make your argument plausible.

Second, there is no legal obligation - statutory, regulatory, or common-law - which mandates that Wal-Mart (or Albertson's, or CVS) has to include a pharmacy in their store at all. They can have a pharmacy, or not - makes no difference to the law either way. It's solely a question of profit, a business decision.

Your contention is now, if they voluntarily choose to have a pharmacy, the government can dictate

1. The drugs that they will carry, and
   
   
2. That they must have these drugs on hand, or face criminal penalties.

Despite the fact that they are not required to carry any drugs at all. Or even have a pharmacist.

you are equating contraception with abortion and basing your objections accordingly.

Another poster posted the AMA definition of pregnancy - when a fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Plan B does not cause an abortion - it prevents pregnancy. I posted a link elsewhere on this thread from the FDA site explaining the workings of Plan B. Its primary purpose (like birth control pills) is to prevent the release of an egg - no egg, no baby - no 72 hour old pregnancy. Is there something in that concept you don't grasp?

Or am I to assume that you and your pharmacist also have an objection to contraception?

My point is: THE PHARMACIST HAS NO IDEA OF HER PAST MEDICAL HISTORY OR PERSONAL SITUATION, therefore he should NOT have the authority to countermand her doctors orders simply because he has some ethical concerns over the use of the drug.  He simply cannot say that her life ISN'T threatened by the pregnancy.  He is NOT a doctor.  He does NOT have her medical history.  Therefore he should not be making decisions about matters that REQUIRE such knowledge.

You clearly don't understand the term. What you mean is, He can't choose not to obey the doctor. Why he can't send her to the Walgreen's down the street is lost on me.

We have issued you a license to post here. If you don't think so, watch what happens if we revoke it.

Now it is true that at the time you signed up, we did not inform you that advocacy of corporate welfare would be part of your duties. But just as a State can unilaterally change the terms of a pharmacist's license, so we too can change the terms of your posting license.

This site is private property. It is reasonable that we are able to define the responsibilities of ALL visitors to the site, not just those with whom our views agree.

Thats correct.  The state cannot mandate that people become doctors (or pharmacists).  Nor can it mandate that they open businesses revolving around those fields.  However, in the event those businesses do open, it CAN and DOES mandate how those businesses can run and operate in matters where public health and safety are concerned.

Its not a new concept.  It goes back to the very reason why there is a state medical board.  The state wants to control what can and can't be done with regard to matters that affect public health.

Based upon people's responses here, I'd suggest that you all petition to have the state medical board where you live disbanded.  Its horrible to have the state tell doctors how they have to function.  While you're at it, disband the state bar, its certainly less of a public health and safety issue than the medical board.  There's absolutely NO REASON for a state bar to exist (according to the implied standpoint of the posts I've read here).

8)

Is "State action." Research and see who polices the state bar, who is responsible for disbarring, etc. Then return.

I didn't go through any contortions.  I was essentially asked (by Crank) to provide a realistic example of how not giving a woman her morning after pill would threaten her health.

Do you deny that there are women in this country who have had multiple ectopic pregnancies?  Do you deny that condoms occasionally don't prevent pregnancy either because of slipping off or breakage?

What does a 'realistic' example mean?  It doesn't mean 'typical', it means something that could reasonably be expected to happen.  By no means does my example represent the majority of morning-after-pill cases, but it IS realistic.   Its as realistic as the fact that 100% of us seem to have meth-labs in our basements and therefore the state regulates how much of a non pharmaceutical drug we can buy (pseudophed).

That I might live on Gravina Island, Alaska, and hot have access to a pharmacy whatsoever, even if I need penicillin. Sure, I'd be one of only 50 such situated people in the United States, and sure, they have mail order pharmacy these days, but I think a preferrable solution is for the government to mandate, by law, that there be a pharmacy on Gravina Island, and further that it stock Penicillin. And Imitrex, in case I get a migraine. And, basically, any medicine that might ever be needed to prevent any possible harm to me.

open my own legal practice without passing the bar exam or having a law degree, the state I live in would have no problem with it?

Its state regulated whether you like to think of it that way or not.  Some states regulate it more strictly than others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_association

As I said, state bars don't have the issue of public safety looming in the background.  State medical boards DO.  Therefore one should naturally expect that for medical issues the state regulates them more tightly.

the state should require a pharmacy to open there, but I would disagree with you on that point.

However, if there WAS a pharmacy there, and it failed to provide any antibiotics at all(certainly antibiotics are a routine medication that general public health and safety depends upon), there certainly WOULD be grounds for the state to intervene.

Its not a new concept to have an industry that is regulated be regulated.  Thus far in our nanny-state system we haven't gone to the extreme of the state MANDATING the formation of commercial enterprises.  Maybe that's next, but I'm opposed to it.

In some jurisdictions, that is exactly the case.

As I said, state bars don't have the issue of public safety looming in the background.

You obviously have never been privy to the amount of damage an unregulated lawyer can do.

State medical boards DO.  Therefore one should naturally expect that for medical issues the state regulates them more tightly.

Yes, and what you seem to be missing is that the universal consensus is that medical professionals can refuse both patients and treatments, full stop. One treatment that is always refusable, in every circumstance (per the strictures of the Weldon amendment) is the provision of abortion.

You're also incapable of understanding that not only are pharmacists perfectly capable of deciding numerous circumstances in which they should not dispense a valid prescription, they are required by law and the ethical strictures of their own profession not to do so.

Now, you can argue for a change of that law if you want, but your argument is pretty much a non-starter with everyone, so good luck.

The government can't mandate that a pharmacy exist. We agree on that. In other words, Wal-Mart is not obligated to carry any drugs at all.

However, if they decide to carry Imitrex, they must also carry Mifepristone. Is that correct?

Pharmacists who are Catholic and still subscribe to the philosophy that birth control is a sin.  Therefore they should be allowed to deny issuing women their birth control pills and/or other prescription birth control measures.  In at least one store in our area, condoms are in the prescription area because of high theft by the nearby school.  So in that particular store the pharmacist would be within their rights (as argued by the people here) not to hand over the condoms to people who have a legitimate need for them.

This doesn't represent my opinion, I'm answering with the same logic that people here have applied.

So first its the morning after pill.  Then its condoms.  Then its regular birth control pills.  then its heart medication (think of a scientology pharmacist).  Then its vaccines (think of how many parents are anti-vaccinations).  etc etc.  It won't end.

When the pharmacy goes out of business.

Really, given that you seem opposed to market function, I wonder why you care if the state mandates commercial activity?

of posters here are from the state I live in.

Its a non-starter for redstaters, but that's hardly syonymous with being a non-starter for the public at large.

For example, redstaters definitely seem to side generally with the 'intelligent design' approach to teaching biology.  But that's hardly a starter for most of the people in this country as recent events have shown.

Don't confuse the myopia of being contained within redstate as to what the rest of the country wants.

That said, I really don't care that much about the issue, it was simply a fun distraction to the day to try and argue it.  Generally I'm for less nanny-state control.  But the medical field is so highly regulated anyway its ridiculous to allow a person to intervene between the doctor-patient relationship and suggest that they know 'better' than either the doctor or the patient.   BECAUSE pharmacists are regulated, that makes them the chokepoint for distributing drugs, and therefore they have a legal OBLIGATION to dispense those drugs to the best of their ability to the public.

it is improper for a person to interfere with a choice made between a women, a doctor, the father and the baby...seems some inputs are left out of the equation. Nothing like fair and balanced decision making--NOT!

Prior to 9/11, it was REQUIRED that a there be security screening at airports (I think that's a federal mandate by the FAA).   They didn't force companies to form, they forced airports to provide security screening.  Those airports put the task out for bid and companies either formed or expanded into the new area.

So in essence the government (and not just state governments) already has examples of situations where a commercial enterprise is required to exist to serve a location and need.  Redstate wasn't formed before 9/11 but I daresay none of you would have been for removing the requirement for security screening at airports.

I'm just using that as an example of where the government HAS previously mandated the presence of a commercial business (in practice anyway) yet which makes perfect sense to most people.

The state could say "If you're going to open a grocery story or drugstore larger than size x in county/township y, we require the presence of a pharmacy".  That doesn't force anyone to open the grocery store in the first place, it merely puts a restriction on what they have to do in order to open the business.

The issue of input from the father is a whole huge can of worms in itself (worthy of a whole separate diary).   I'm not getting into that here.  Suppose the father is completely on board with what the woman/doctor have decided and I already gave the example that the pregnancy is ectopic so the baby will die even with the best that modern medicine can offer.  

My points haven't been about an abortion discussion, they've been about the legality/ethics of whether a pharmacist can choose not to issue a medication that is prescribed.

Not so much.

An airport is a State-delegated function, a commercial enterprise subcontracted out by the sovereign. The sovereign decides, admittedly with lobbying by some company that wants to make money, that they want an airport. As such, the sovereign has explicit control over what goes into and comes out of the air; it merely delegates this authority to a private actor for convenience, or whatever moves it moment to moment.

I'm just using that as an example of where the government HAS previously mandated the presence of a commercial business (in practice anyway) yet which makes perfect sense to most people.

Unless you're really stretching salus populi suprema lex, and truly arrogating that power to the sovereign, then your analogy is awful. Try again.

The state could say "If you're going to open a grocery story or drugstore larger than size x in county/township y, we require the presence of a pharmacy".  That doesn't force anyone to open the grocery store in the first place, it merely puts a restriction on what they have to do in order to open the business.

Actually, that's a result of zoning and private commercial regulation, and has nothing to do with airports. It's also conditional, in that it does not mandate market function, but rather places conditions on it.

In other words, yet again, I don't see what this has to do with my point. Then again, under Leon's direction, you've rewritten vital elements of centuries-old tort law, so I guess the sky's the limit here.

determining what drugs a company must carry, if they want to leave out the entire class of bcp's they should be able to do so.  

I think the individual pharmacy has the right to decide what they expect their pharmacists to dispense-if the pharmacy chooses to carry the MAP pill, bc pills or other abortion related medications, and it has pharmacists who are morally opposed, I think plan A should be to do what they can to accomodate that pharmacist, and if they can't then plan B should permit them to fire the pharmacist.

But I don't think the state has any role at all in what a store choose to carry, and whether or not a store choose or doesn't choose to accomodate a pharmacist who doesn't want to be a party to something they view as immoral.

And you haven't convinced me yet that a pharmacist refusing to dispense or a pharmacy refusing to carry these pills results in a major health threat to the city or state.  

Doctors, that's who. They know darn good and well that Pharmacists form an important shield to their liability, and if Pharmacists are unable to refuse to fill prescriptions, that's going to make their career a whole lot dicier.

I like your first part about public defenders, and I had considered that aspect but didn't bring it up specifically.

So what happens in that case?  Does the client not get a lawyer, or does the state mandate that someone HAS to defend him?  Since people have a right to an attorney, presumably he couldn't be tried in a court of law if noone would defend him.  Would you therefore suggest that the state set him free?

Its strange but it seems that you're suggesting that the state should have the right to force an attorney to defend a client but on the other hand you're arguing that the state doesn't have the right for force a pharmacist to issue prescribed medications to a patient.  

skipping responding to the middle only because this topic is almost 2 days old now, I want to comment on the last part.

There still are pharmacists associated with hospital pharmacies that approve things based upon drug interactions, etc.  What if those hospital pharmacists declined to issue the medication that the doctor called for because of 'ethical' rather than medical reasons?  Should the doctor then have to drive across town to the Safeway pharmacy to get the medication he needs for his patient?   Assuming the patient is hospitalized, they can hardly get up and go do it theirself.

So what happens in that case?  Does the client not get a lawyer, or does the state mandate that someone HAS to defend him?  Since people have a right to an attorney, presumably he couldn't be tried in a court of law if noone would defend him.  Would you therefore suggest that the state set him free?

I was responding specifically to your contention that

Lawyers refusing a client does NOT create a public safety concern.

which in turn was in response to my remark that

Lawyers refuse clients and causes all the time. Doctors refuse patients and procedures. Both are licensed. Neither set of actions carries a legal penalty.

The thrust of all this is that you are imposing, because you want women to have access to emergency contraception/early miscarriage drugs, restrictions and requirements on pharmacists that no other licensure demands. And my point was, given that I can't revoke a lawyer's or doctor's license for refusing to care for someone, and assuredly cannot fine them, the Thirteenth Amendment still being in force; and their roles in society also having public safety ramifications, your argument is bunk.

Your argument about, for example, firemen, is therefore beside the point, as they are State actors, not private actors working under State license.

So what happens in that case?  Does the client not get a lawyer, or does the state mandate that someone HAS to defend him?  Since people have a right to an attorney, presumably he couldn't be tried in a court of law if noone would defend him.  Would you therefore suggest that the state set him free?

Interesting question, and given the Thirteenth Amendment, the answer to at least part isn't hard to get at.

Its strange but it seems that you're suggesting that the state should have the right to force an attorney to defend a client but on the other hand you're arguing that the state doesn't have the right for force a pharmacist to issue prescribed medications to a patient.

This would only be true if you carefully ignored everything else I wrote.

There still are pharmacists associated with hospital pharmacies that approve things based upon drug interactions, etc.  What if those hospital pharmacists declined to issue the medication that the doctor called for because of 'ethical' rather than medical reasons?  Should the doctor then have to drive across town to the Safeway pharmacy to get the medication he needs for his patient?   Assuming the patient is hospitalized, they can hardly get up and go do it theirself.

I'm pretty sure that doctors rarely prescribe large doses of birth control to bed-ridden patients.

Like I've said elsewhere, if you want to toss the Thirteenth Amendment, we can just add it to the rest of the pile you've created. However, in a world with free will and law protecting most exercises of that will, you and all the others who think the Eschaton can be properly accelerated by forcing certain professionals to do things you like are going to have to take a back seat and wait.

Licensure isn't indenture -- not for anyone. Why pharmacists should suddenly be the exception, except for the fact that they neither tend to make as much as lawyers and doctors, nor enter politics as often, is lost on me.

If left on its own, a baby will die.  If cared for by a mother, the baby will develop into a child, and eventually, and adult.

Does this mean that a woman should have the right to dump her baby in a dumpster, if she decides that the baby would be an undue burden on her way of life?

a little more serious than that. Emergency surgery

is usually required because the female is usually

in pain and bleeding before diagnosis. At least, when they go to the emergency room. Injection of methotrexate can be given by the doctor if diagnosed early enough.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

My emergency medical training insisted I straighten that out. "First, do no harm."

Having said that, don't you think that whether or not a pharmacist can be forced to sell any drug should be between him and his employer? There are plenty of people willing to sell the stuff. It's not like there is a shortage.

It would be easier on all concerned if abortion pills were dispensed in a clinic or doctor's office.

So you seem to consider that a professional who is required to fulfill the requirements of their state-granted license is somehow being made a slave?  Absolutely not.  The state is NOT forcing that person to be a pharmacist.  The state would merely be saying "if you're going to use this license we're granting, you've got to follow these rules".  And one of the rules would be that the pharmacist's ethical conniptions over legal medications will not result them denying public citizens access to such legal medications.  

Its a ridiculous stretch to call that slavery.

Other people here (and I presume you agree with them since you haven't jumped up with 13th amendment rhetoric) have pointed out that under current law pharmacists are required to report doctor shopping and/or doctors abusively overprescribing to state authorities.  Does that mean the pharmacist is a slave of the state then because the state is requiring him to perform certain acts as part of his licensing?  You'd better file a case claiming violation of the 13th amendment then.

Its a ridiculous stretch.

The only reason I mentioned that Lawyers do NOT represent a public safety concern was other analogies to the legal profession that other people were bringing up.  Yes, I suppose the argument could reasonably be made (and therefore I am wrong on that point) that lawyers for criminal cases could tie into the whole public safety argument, in which case their state bar license would be subject to more state control than for a civil case lawyer.

Once an ectopic pregnancy progresses, it requires emergency surgery.

However, on day 1 after fertilization if the woman who is prone to having ectopic pregnancies were to take the morning after-pill presumably the egg would never implant and emergency surgery would not be required.

Since emergency surgery would imply there is a significant threat to the woman's health/life, by refusing to dispense the prescribed medication, the pharmacist WOULD be putting the woman's life at risk.

In fact, from your link, a woman who has had a previous ectopic pregnancy is WAY more prone to having future ones, which agrees with what I have been arguing (that she has a history of ectopic pregnancies so she and her doctor decided to use the morning after pill).

From your link:

"The likelihood of a repeat ectopic pregnancy increases with each subsequent ectopic pregnancy. Once you have had one ectopic pregnancy, you face an approximate 15% chance of having another."

Your last suggestion might have merit, do dispense them at the doctors office, but I'm not sure about how that would interfere with the process by which the pharmacist is the one looking for drug interactions.  I do know that doctor's often will give out 'free' samples of medicine directly from their office, so the practice of doing something like that is fairly common (although probably not for that particular medication).

So you seem to consider that a professional who is required to fulfill the requirements of their state-granted license is somehow being made a slave?

No, I contend -- and unfortunately for you, the law of fifty States agrees with me -- that it amounts to involuntary servitude. Note the difference. Both are prohibited by the Amendment in question.

The state is NOT forcing that person to be a pharmacist.

Nor is it forcing the doctor to practice medicine, nor the lawyer to practice law. Keep trying.

The state would merely be saying "if you're going to use this license we're granting, you've got to follow these rules".  And one of the rules would be that the pharmacist's ethical conniptions over legal medications will not result them denying public citizens access to such legal medications.

I say again, all you're asking is that pharmacists be held to a standard that no other licensed professionals be held to; that you hold them to a standard that the law of the several States has forbidden; and that you make a hash of over a century of common law and statutory reliance. Now, considering what you've done to the chains of causation and liability in tort law elsewhere in this thread, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Its a ridiculous stretch to call that slavery.

Fortunately, I didn't.

Just for reference, Google "'specific performance' + 'thirteenth amendment.'" Then explain how parties taking advantage of the State's ability to enforce private law can nevertheless not be compelled to work, even when they have agreed to do so.

Good luck.

Other people here (and I presume you agree with them since you haven't jumped up with 13th amendment rhetoric) have pointed out that under current law pharmacists are required to report doctor shopping and/or doctors abusively overprescribing to state authorities.

And lawyers are required to report ethical violations. Bravo.

Does that mean the pharmacist is a slave of the state then because the state is requiring him to perform certain acts as part of his licensing?

No, the State is placing an condition external to the performance of his job on his being licensed, unless you're suggesting pharmacy students spend their time learning to dial 911. This is like the requirement (see above) that lawyers report ethical violations to the Bar. It has nothing to do with their job, and everything to do with the license. You would tie together licensing requirements and the elections of will that go fundamentally to the performance of the job, and pretend that they are identical. You would also do so in a way that we do not require of lawyers, do not of doctors, do not of nurses, do not of P.E.s. You do so either out of desire to achieve a policy goal, idiocy, or sheer bloody mindedness.

Either way, I'm keen to see what you would have the other folks do. Should a Catholic doctor be required to perform an abortion on an ectopic pregnancy where the mother might live, but probably won't? If so, why? If not, distinguish between the doctor and the Catholic pharmacist being required to provide emergency contraception which, Cafeteria Catholics notwithstanding, is also contrary to his enlightened conscience.

You keep dodging that. I don't think you can answer it.

You'd better file a case claiming violation of the 13th amendment then.

I don't have standing.

The only reason I mentioned that Lawyers do NOT represent a public safety concern was other analogies to the legal profession that other people were bringing up.  Yes, I suppose the argument could reasonably be made (and therefore I am wrong on that point) that lawyers for criminal cases could tie into the whole public safety argument, in which case their state bar license would be subject to more state control than for a civil case lawyer.

Ridiculous. You know nothing of civil law. Injunctions are the method by which a host of real and potential harms are stopped, and they belong to equity, which is to say, civil law.

You don't have the faintest idea about that about which you're rambling. You don't even understand simple arguments when they're summarized for you. Do you actually have a point?

Re: The pharmacist sells only what he wants to sell.

Correction: the pharmacy OWNER sells what he wants to sell. His employees do not make that choice. Of course they should be made aware that selling this or that product is part of their job duties so they may freely choose not to work at Pharmacy X if that violates their conscience.

Every time this debate comes up I wonder what people would think of a waiter at a bar who refused, on grounds of conscience, to serve alcohol. Now, conscience is a wonderful thing, but keeping to one's morals is something one must do for onesself: no one can expect others to do the work for them. If you find something unethical about your job, go get another one.