Re birth control: Which position is more extreme?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Sorry you have to choose. Which in your opinion is the more extreme position?

That pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control for religious reasons be precluded from billing medicare (federal funds) for any reason.

That pharmacists have a right to decline to sell any medication/ treatment that goes against their religious beliefs including condoms, birth control and HIV meds to gay persons/intravenous drug users.


and yes, this refers to a thread in which I was called extreme:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1657300&mesg_id=1657300

[ck4829]

1. Especially refusing contraceptives to unmarried women

That's illegal I believe, but not in Bush (Bizarro) World.

[uppityperson]

2. Most extreme is that pharmacists can refuse to sell legal things.

if you don't want to sell pharmaceuticals, you shouldn't be a pharmacist. Maybe I'll be come a vet and not see animals. Or a dentist and never work on teeth. Or a doctor and refuse to see any sick people (more accurate comparison, life/death stuff).

They should lose federal funding if they refuse, but this is a consequence of their extreme action.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. I'd like to know how individual rights get demoted to "conveniences"

when one is legislating personal morality based on a subjective belief system.

The term convenience always raises a red flag of ignorance and judgmentalism especially when the issue being discussed is women's reproductive rights.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. A tyrant can justify anything

so can a misogynist

[Mandate My Ass]

9. Well isn't that 'convenient?'

And it reeks of the same rationale our dear president employed when he opined that dictatorship sounds like a good idea to the person declaring it one.

[lastliberalintexas]

14. Because it's only women's rights that are involved

Of course if the poor widdle man had been denied service in any fashion, they'd be screaming for the pharmacist's license.

[tech3149]

5. I would consider not providing service OK

as long as they didn't impede the customer from obtaining services elsewhere. I can respect someone who acts on their beliefs as long as they respect the rights of those who don't share those beliefs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. But what if they are the only pharmacy in an area?

Should the only pharmacy in a county be allowed to deny legal materials to people? In some places, especially poor rural areas, there is only one pharmacy to get to easily.

[blondeatlast]

10. Here's the problem with that--I take the Pill for an entirely different

reason than the one for which it is ordinarily prescribed.

When I was NOT on the Pill, my menstrual periods would send me to the hospital nearly every month for a transfusion--sometimes a couple of them. I'm not exaggerarating at all about this; I literally was getting a transfusion a month almost; and that is with 365 days a year iron supplements.

Now I'm on the Pill nad have no problem with it at all. I'm not even taking the iron, for which my digestion is eternally grateful.

Now imagine if I were in a small town with a single pharmacist--say in the Arizona/Utah border area (I'm a Zonie, this isn't a stretch, I can tell you). The pharm refuses to fill my quite literally life-saving prescription.

What would YOU do?

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Maybe if you took an oath of celibacy you could get your lifesaving meds

but if they found out you were one of them fornicating wenches whose irresponsibility might result in the microscopic chance of harming a zygote--well then you'd be SOL.

[blondeatlast]

16. I'm sure my husband would just love that!

But seriously, this thing scares me. Arizona just passed a similar bill. Arizona, with hundreds of tiny farming burgs all over.

It's insanity.

[Just Me]

6. If they refuse to fill prescriptions, they are in the wrong business.

It flattens me that this is even occuring in this country.

WOW!!!

[blondeatlast]

11. Imagine--a Christian Scientist getting a pharm degree!

It sounds far-fetched, but I have insulin dependent diabetes, and there are some wacko theories about even the use of insulin.

I can imagine that Lady Liberty can still manage to hold her head and torch high is her faith in the American people. I'd like to think she's on to something--bit I remain unconvinced.

[alarimer]

15. It astonishes me that anyone defends them

Like in that other thread. I couldn't believe that guy. I bet is he were refused some medication, like, say Viagra, just for example, he would fume about that but apaprently it is okay if it happens to someone else, especially a woman.

[th2techdude]

8. Yeah, the "pro life" argument's BS!

It's just another way to oppress women!

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Maybe, but that's not what this thread is about.

Do you think that it's right for a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for pills that are to prevent a woman from HEMORRHAGING NEARLY TO DEATH on a monthly basis?

I'm not really sure where the "pro life" argument comes in on that question.

[Lars39]

12. Some stats from the ACLU concerning Refusal Clause

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10513&c=224

WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS


The ACLU recently conducted public opinion research – including focus groups and a nationwide telephone survey – on religious objections to providing reproductive health services. This qualitative and quantitative research shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose laws that protect religious objectors at the expense of the patient’s rights and the public health.

The public opposes refusal clauses that threaten access to health care.

· 89% oppose “allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical services they object to on religious grounds.”

· 88% oppose “allowing pharmacies to refuse to fill prescriptions they object to on religious grounds.”

· 86% oppose “allowing employers to refuse to provide their employees with health insurance coverage for medical services the employer objects to on religious grounds.”

· 76% oppose “allowing to refuse to provide medical services they object to on religious grounds.”

The public’s insistence on access reflects its view that religious refusals jeopardize women’s health and lives. Seven in ten Americans are concerned, for example, that if “religiously affiliated hospitals are allowed to limit access to medical services, the health and lives of many women will be threatened.”

The public believes that individuals must be allowed to make health care decisions for themselves. While proponents of refusal clauses often cast the issue as one in which religious liberty is pitted against reproductive rights, the public sees this dichotomy as false.

· 72% agree with the following statement: “Religious liberty is not threatened by requiring hospitals to provide basic medical care. We are not talking about limiting a person’s ability to worship, but access to basic health care.”

Even when the issue is presented as a choice between the religious interests of institutions and the health care decisions of individuals, however, the public backs the patient.

· 79% believe that it is “more important to respect the personal conscience of individuals making difficult health care decisions” than to “respect the conscience of a religious hospital.”

· 69% believe that it is “more important to protect the reproductive freedom of women” than to “protect the religious freedom of religious hospitals.”

Moreover, the public believes that the government’s first responsibility is to protect the public health.

· 72% are more concerned that the government hold “all hospitals – whether religiously affiliated or not – to the same standards” than they are about keeping “the government from forcing religious hospitals to violate their beliefs.”

· 83% believe that “if a hospital receives government funds, it should be required to provide basic, legal medical services, regardless of the hospital’s religious objections.”

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10513&c=224

[Crunchy Frog]

17. What I posted on the other thread.

I don't think there should be any discrimination against hiring in the police forces people who, for religious reasons, object to carrying guns or other weapons, or using any form of physical coercion.

It's simply a matter of respect for individual conscience. Of course, If they arrive at a scene where a crime is taking place they wouldn't be able to really intervene other than to talk to the perpetrator and try to persuade him to stop. And they wouldn't be able to call for backup from cops who believe in physical force, because that would go against their conscience as well. "Sorry Ma'am, he doesn't appear to want to stop raping you. I'm afraid there's nothing more we can do."

There should never be any discrimination in hiring on the basis of someone's religiously held objections to certain actions. If the person being victimized by the criminal has an objection, they can always call 911 again and see if they can get a different cop to come out. That way, everybody's rights are being protected.

[Andromeda]

19. That's easy...

Any pharmacist who refuses to sell birth control pills, condoms or HIV medications using religious beliefs as an excuse should NOT receive any federal funds when billing Medicare or anything else.

In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to work as pharmacists, period.

The doctor is the one who examines the patient and prescribes the medicines, not the pharmacist, and if they can't do their jobs they should find another career.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. That was my point too..religion more important than discrimination?

NO FEDERAL funds...that was what got ME called an extremist

[cynatnite]

20. I didn't vote

Okay, let me get this straight. Refusing medicare funding can hurt a pharmacy and possibly those people who go there for reasons other than getting birth control. Should other patients be punished as well?

I personally don't believe any pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill any prescription for religious reasons. It's not their place and they are not the doctor.

Both are extreme in my eyes.