Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Red Curry Lamb Burgers With Goat Cheese Previous entry: Friday Genius Ten “Bend That Gender” Edition

The Unbounded Right To Conscience

PolicyReligion

imageThe Alliance Defense Fund is seeking to expand Iowa’s ill-conceived conscience clause (now limited to abortion) to county clerks compelled to hand out marriage licenses to gays, because the only way to ensure the proper function of society is to make sure that a certain religious segment of it can repeatedly fuck the rest of us over. 

However, a letter sent to county recorders by the Alliance Defense Fund says Miller is forgetting completely about “one of the most foundational rights and liberties we enjoy as Iowans” … “the right of conscience.”

That right, the letter says, is codified in Iowa Code 146.1.

“This right is based upon the simple truth that it is wrong to force anyone to violate his or her conscience,” said the letter, also from the Iowa Family Policy Council.

It cites the motto on the seal of the state, which reads, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

“This noble motto … is emblematic of the moral sentiments of Iowans from the banks of the Missouri to the waters of the Mighty Mississippi. … As citizens of the State of Iowa and thus, the United States, we enjoy the protections of this right guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. This right of conscience protects individuals against coercion by the state authority, and serves as the first line of defense against the cancer of tyranny.”

The letter suggests counties adopt policies that ensure no one will be required to “issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist, or participate in such procedures, against that individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The suggested policy continues: “A person shall not discriminate against any individual in any way, including but not limited to employment, promotion, advancement, transfer, licensing, education, training, or the granting of employment privileges or conditions, because of the individual’s participation in or refusal to participate in the issuance of a marriage license.”

Except that it’s neither foundational nor expansive as a right.  Iowa Code § 146.1 gives a conscience clause as it relates to performing medical procedures which result in abortions; it makes no sense that you’d draft a general right in a specific statute for a specific activity.  What the ADF is asking for is an expansion of a principle to the point where it will have no limit; there is no “right of conscience” (and every April 15th, the government reminds you of that).  To create one, and to create one as broadly as the ADF would have it, would essentially imperil every constitutional right on an issue of first invocation of conscience.  You have the right to petition the government (for, say, some vague conglomeration of anti-tax, anti-spending and anti-Muslim principles), except if the city clerk decides they can’t issue a protest permit because their brother died at a pointless conservative rally sponsored by Fox News.  My conscience says that I can’t rent this apartment to a single mother, which is obviously more important than the Fair Housing Act.

It’s the same problem as the tolerance/intolerance argument: you create an insane recursive loop of oversensitivity, where your conscience violates my conscience, but since you started it, you get to call me a hatemonger and yourself the innocent victim.  If I don’t have to issue a marriage license because of my moral convictions, why should I have to process unemployment benefits or respond to your crime report or deliver your mail?  The entire point of America is supposed to be that, at the very least, we extend rights to all who abide by the law, regardless of who they are or where they come from. 

If you find yourself unable to extend a constitutional right to those to whom it applies because your sky-man told you it was wrong, then go pray for a new job and let someone else serve the public.  It’s certainly an issue for taxpayers to get angrier about than, you know, teabagging. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 01:29 PM • (94) Comments

Even when the government allows pacifists to get out of the draft due to conscientious objector status, they don’t fucking pay them.

Comment #1: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/24  at  01:42 PM

If you think about this bullshit, it is the same as secession and what was called “nullification.”  The only difference is that it is on a personal level and not a collective level.  The second is no more valid than the third.

You have the ‘right’ of civil disobeience and having your sorry ass sent to jail, like Thoreau did.  If you have the personal right of ‘nullification,’ no law has any effect.  It is a mockery of republican government and the whole theory of organized civil society. 

More purile rightwing fantasy.  Maybe we should hire a bunch of Jehovah’s Witness oncology nurses and pacifist fighter pilots.  God grant me the serenity not to punch these people in their stupid heads.

Comment #2: Magis  on  04/24  at  01:42 PM

The extent to which Christians want - nay, demand - special rights never ceases to amaze me.

Comment #3: Entomologista  on  04/24  at  01:56 PM

As always, Fred Clark has the most cogent explanation as to why these crazy people are crazy in their own special way.

Comment #4: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  01:57 PM

Critical thinking and logic had never been their strong point.
I’m always amazed and amused by the tunnel vision these people display.
Set out rational argument or evidence contrary to their “beliefs” and they simply ignore it.

Comment #5: cynickal  on  04/24  at  02:03 PM

Try to diagram that first sentence.  DOES NOT COMPUTE.  A conscience clause about providing abortions to county clerks?  I’m not immune to complicated sentence structure death spirals, but you might want to tidy that up.

Comment #6: saraeanderson  on  04/24  at  02:13 PM

I wonder where my good friends at Pandagon draw the line when it comes to a right of conscience.  Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?  Should a pacifist professor at a private college have the right to refuse to teach a student who came to class in his ROTC uniform?  Does or should a pharmacist at a privately-owned drug store have a right to decline to fill a birth control prescription?  Would there be a difference in your answer if the pharmacy was a publicly-owned facility?  Should the owner of a pharmacy, whether publicly or privately owned, have the right to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill certain prescriptions?  Should the owner of a privately owned pharmacy have the right to decide not to carry Plan B medications, so that the pharmacists there could not dispense such, regardless of their beliefs?  Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages?  Should the administration at a private college have the right to exclude ROTC programs from campus, even though that college accpts public money in student financial aid?

Comment #7: Dana  on  04/24  at  02:14 PM

No*, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, yes.

I’m just one of your good friends, so I speak only for myself.

* Assuming by public hospital you mean county-run - i.e., the OB/GYN is a public employee.

Comment #8: Auguste  on  04/24  at  02:20 PM

No, no, no, no, yes, no*, yes, yes.

*If you’re going to run a pharmacy, you better run a pharmacy, and not Jim Joe Bobson’s House of Medication Shaming.

I’m not your friend, pal.

Comment #9: stogoe  on  04/24  at  02:24 PM

Then again, I doubt that the questions were asked in good faith to begin with, so yeah.

Comment #10: stogoe  on  04/24  at  02:26 PM

The problem, Dana, is that you’re calling it a “right of conscience”.  No such thing exists, except in the general “you have a right to have a conscience” sense. 

You have every right in the world to take a stance and take responsibility for the outcome of that stance, particularly if it means you aren’t going to do the job that you’ve been asked to do.  You don’t have the right to contravene public policy or even an employer’s wholly legal directives simply because it offends you, and to escape responsibility for doing so.

You have every right to opt out of doing a thing which may at times conflict with your moral beliefs, such as being a pharmacist.  We do it all the time.  We don’t have the right to assume the responsibilities of a thing which may at times conflict with our moral beliefs and then not do the parts we don’t want to do without consequence.

Comment #11: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  02:29 PM

If one has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, then one’s religion need not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But Iowa’s ruling is about civil marriage. Religious beliefs don’t enter into it at all.

Comment #12: Orange  on  04/24  at  02:29 PM

Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages?

Ah, yet another person who has never heard of the First Amendment.

Tell you what, Dana—when you find a case where a divorced Catholic successfully sued the Catholic Church and forced them to perform his/her marriage even though it’s against the rules of the Church to allow divorced people to remarry without a Catholic annulment, then you can start worrying about whether or not ministers will also be forced to marry gay couples if that’s against their church’s doctrine.  Until you find that case, though, you’re essentially worrying that Martians are going to abduct you from your office building and why isn’t the government passing laws to make sure the Martians can’t abduct me?!?!

Comment #13: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  02:29 PM

This is utterly absurd.

My cousin is a cardiologist.  And an extremely liberal Democrat who can’t stand wingnuts.  I think if this manages to go through, I’m gonna tell him to move to Iowa and then exercise his “right of conscience” to walk out in the middle of open-heart surgery on any patient he discovers to be contributing members of the Republican Party.  He could argue that it was a violation of his conscience to require him to provide life-saving medical procedures to people he felt had lives that weren’t worth saving.

Comment #14: DTG in STL  on  04/24  at  02:30 PM

If you have the personal right of ‘nullification,’ no law has any effect.  It is a mockery of republican government and the whole theory of organized civil society.

This seems to be the entire argument of the far right though—libertarians to a lesser extent, but more so for tax protesters, the militia movement, and the religious right. It all comes back to a sense of entitlement—they want to be treated as special.

Comment #15: BrianX  on  04/24  at  02:30 PM

Dana, owners of businesses get to decide what is in their employees’ job description, and if a person refuses to do their job, they don’t get to keep it—unless the job description is itself illegal, in which case they have cause for a lawsuit. (For example, a boss can’t insert into the job description that employees must be white, or that female employees owe him sexual gratification)
Clergymen are employed by their churches, and likewise are subject to those rules. No one has ever won a lawsuit against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry divorcees. There are Justices of the Peace and nondenominational clergy who are willing to marry any legal couple.

Dana, question for you. Can a fireman refuse to put out a fire because he has a moral objection to the purpose of the building that’s burning?

Comment #16: Samantha Vimes  on  04/24  at  02:33 PM

Can we deny treatment for people who don’t believe in Darwin ?

Evolution is the basis of modern biology and medicine. So let’s make a deal with fundies: They refuse to bend their beliefs to do their job, they gotta refuse electricity, modern medicine, computers…

What you mean their “conscience” only talks when someone else’s life is at stake ? How hypocritical of them!!!

Comment #17: Renmiri  on  04/24  at  02:34 PM

My conscience says, “First we kill all the lawyers.”

I would argue that any individual invoking a conscience clause must first pass an IQ test, as I would argue that you can’t have a conscience if you aren’t actually conscious.  And these people are clearly dumb to the point that they’re not actually thinking.

“Hey, I would have obeyed the speed limit, but my conscience told me otherwise.”

Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?  Should a pacifist professor at a private college have the right to refuse to teach a student who came to class in his ROTC uniform?  Does or should a pharmacist at a privately-owned drug store have a right to decline to fill a birth control prescription?  Would there be a difference in your answer if the pharmacy was a publicly-owned facility?  Should the owner of a pharmacy, whether publicly or privately owned, have the right to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill certain prescriptions?  Should the owner of a privately owned pharmacy have the right to decide not to carry Plan B medications, so that the pharmacists there could not dispense such, regardless of their beliefs?  Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages?  Should the administration at a private college have the right to exclude ROTC programs from campus, even though that college accpts public money in student financial aid?

Well, here’s the game Dana.  There are certain individuals who are simply actors - the clergyman for instance - and there are certain individuals who are gatekeepers - the school administrator, the pharmacist, or in the original case the county clerk.

If you go to a clergyman with a license to wed and he declines your request, you can always go to a state judge who is obligated to fulfill it.  Likewise, if you go to a private lawyer for legal defense he can turn down your case, but you are legally always afforded some legal council.

But if you go to a county clerk and he turns down your wedding license application, and no other clerks will take up your claim, you are effectively locked out of the system.  You have no other alternatives.  At this point, NO ONE is obligated to fill your request and you are effectively barred from getting a license.  Likewise, if no pharmacist is required to fill your medical prescription, you can’t get it.  Then why have licensed doctors at all?  We’ll just let the pharmacists write the prescriptions.  Why have a legislature?  We’ll just let the county clerks decide what the laws are.

As for ROTC, I believe that has gone to the courts before, and I don’t remember exactly how the ruling went.  If it is simply a part of the curriculum, then denying funding to ROTC would be like denying funding to English or Math.  I don’t know what the rules on that would be.  If it is a club or organization, you could replace ROTC with NASA or the IRS or any other government group.  Should the EPA be allowed to go into any public university, stake out a classroom, and start passing out recruitment material because the school receives financial aid?  Should the HHS go into Brigham Young University and start handing out condoms and birth control pills, administrators be damned?  I don’t know.  But that’s a different ball game entirely.

Comment #18: Zifnab  on  04/24  at  02:36 PM

Jim Joe Bobson’s House of Medication Shaming

That got a big LOL out of me in a quiet office. smile

Comment #19: annejumps  on  04/24  at  02:39 PM

Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?

A right to personal refusal, not a right to prevent the patient from having one at all.  Nurses have the same right—they can refuse to participate, but cannot block the patient from scheduling one with another medical team.

Should a pacifist professor at a private college have the right to refuse to teach a student who came to class in his ROTC uniform?

No. 

Does or should a pharmacist at a privately-owned drug store have a right to decline to fill a birth control prescription?

Yes, but the pharmacist does not have the right to confiscate the prescription to prevent the patient from filling it elsewhere.

Would there be a difference in your answer if the pharmacy was a publicly-owned facility?

Yes, because a publicly-owned pharmacy must serve all customers regardless of the customer’s race, religion, gender or ethnicity.  A pharmacy employee cannot discriminate against the customer on the basis of religion, even if it’s the pharmacy employee’s religion that’s driving the discrimination.

Should the owner of a pharmacy, whether publicly or privately owned, have the right to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill certain prescriptions?

Certainly.  Why do you think an employee should be allowed to stay in a job when they refuse to do the job?  It would be like insisting that Honeybaked Ham isn’t allowed to fire an Orthodox Jewish or Muslim employee who refuses to handle pork. 

Should the owner of a privately owned pharmacy have the right to decide not to carry Plan B medications, so that the pharmacists there could not dispense such, regardless of their beliefs?

Privately owned?  Sure.  But, again, they cannot confiscate the prescription to prevent the patient from filling it elsewhere.

Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages?

See my answer above, and watch out for alien abductions at your office. 

Should the administration at a private college have the right to exclude ROTC programs from campus, even though that college accepts public money in student financial aid?

Frankly, I’ve never even thought about that because I really don’t care one way or the other, so I’d have to do some research first.

Comment #20: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  02:42 PM

I wish laws like that didn’t exist at all because if you don’t want to do something, don’t work there in the first place. Don’t even go to school to become a pharmacist if you are against birth control. Don’t become an obgyn or apply for a position as a nurse in the obgyn department. My podiatrist doesn’t have this problem. Neither does my dermatologist. There are plenty of medical specialties where you won’t run smack up against abortion.

Comment #21: DC Fem  on  04/24  at  02:46 PM

We already went through this in Red CA:

Jun 6, 2008

BAKERSFIELD (AP) ―

As same-sex couples prepare to wed later this month, at least one county clerk in California’s conservative Central Valley is preparing to sidestep the state high court’s legalization of gay marriage by shutting down marriage ceremonies.

In fact, two Central Valley county clerks—Kern County’s Ann Barnett and Merced County’s Stephen Jones—issued statements this week stating they will issue the new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law on June 17, but refused to preside over any of the ceremonies, citing space and staff constraints.

In Barnett’s case, she plans to stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples as of June 14.

And, of course, we-all in Tulare county had to follow suit:

While all counties dispense marriage licenses, some county clerks do not offer ceremonies. Among them are Monterey, Tulare, Inyo, San Joaquin, Calaveras, Amador, Glenn and Trinity. Kern and Butte counties decided to stop performing ceremonies as of this week.

County-by-county breakdown here

Comment #22: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/24  at  02:46 PM

Dana essentially asked two questions:

1.) Should you be able to refuse to do your job because you don’t want to?

2.) Should you be able to avoid those situations altogether by not getting into them?

That he thinks these are the same questions is the entire problem.

Comment #23: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  02:47 PM

Here’s my offer for pharmacists:  you can refuse to fill any prescription you want as long as you put at sign at the front door in large, clear letters stating exactly which prescriptions you will not fill along with both the brand name and generic name of those drugs.  The sign can’t be at the pharmacy window—it must be at the front door where people can see it before they enter the store.

Of course, pharmacists will never do that, because they don’t want to lose business when people find out that their “conscience” requires them to deny care to people.  They want to be able to impose their moral beliefs on strangers without having to suffer any consequences whatsoever.

Similarly, I think restaurants should be allowed to refuse to serve certain people, but only if they post a large, clear sign at the door stating that they, for example, will not serve black people or unaccompanied women.  That would at least be better than the current system where owners ban people on the sly and then try to pretend that wasn’t what they did.

Comment #24: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  02:49 PM

Dana, we saw your questions, and several have answered them.

What are your answers?

(BTW, if my typing is off, it’s because the hunger is making me woozy.  The lady at the checkout stand in my local market found out I hang at Pandagon so now that she knows I’m a dirty, ultra-leftist, America-hating hippie, and her conscience won’t let her sell me any food…)

Comment #25: MikeEss  on  04/24  at  02:49 PM

”...but only if they post a large, clear sign at the door stating that they, for example, will not serve black people or unaccompanied women.”

...and landlords, why should they have to violate their conscience by renting to coloreds, and mexicans, and orientals?  It’s unfair!

And why should you have to stand next to them when you’re out in public?  Why can’t we just make them live with their own kind somewhere?  My conscience is stretched to the limit when I have to mix with those people…

Comment #26: MikeEss  on  04/24  at  02:56 PM

Mnemosyne:

You’re kidding, right?

No a private pharmacy may not refuse to sell certain medicines because they are licensed by the state.  No you can’t as a private restaurant or hotel refuse to serve black people, see Title VII Civil Rights Act.  They are “public accomodations.”

Comment #27: Magis  on  04/24  at  03:02 PM

...and landlords, why should they have to violate their conscience by renting to coloreds, and mexicans, and orientals?  It’s unfair!

Put a billboard on your building announcing to everyone who passes by that you’re a racist asshole, and go ahead.  Better than the landlady who refused to rent to two friends of mine because they might be lesbians.  Sure, they were sisters with the same last name who looked enough alike that they could use each other’s ID’s at bars, but the landlady couldn’t possibly have two women living together in the same apartment in case they were lesbians.

Of course, they could have wandered in with any random guy off the street and she would have given them the apartment in a heartbeat.  It was her fantasy that two sisters would be getting up to naughty porn-movie antics the minute they were inside the apartment that meant she wouldn’t rent to them.

But, then, I’m probably giving people way too much credit, at least in big cities.  (The above incident happened in Beaumont, Texas.)  I can’t imagine too many people in Los Angeles who would say, “Hey, look, that building only rents to white people—honey, let’s get an apartment there right now!” but I’m probably naive.

Comment #28: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  03:09 PM

“No a private pharmacy may not refuse to sell certain medicines because they are licensed by the state.  No you can’t as a private restaurant or hotel refuse to serve black people, see Title VII Civil Rights Act.  They are “public accomodations.””

Magis, that’s old-school thinking, pre-Obama.  In the New America, services are provided if, and only if, the provider okays you to receive services.  If there’s anything hinky, forget it…

Oh, you needed that food?  You needed those medications?  Sorry, pal, you should live in one of those socialist countries like France, and not America where the Rights of the Individual are paramount…

Comment #29: MikeEss  on  04/24  at  03:12 PM

Question for you, Dana: if the state or federal government put in place First-Amendment-redundant laws that protected religious organizations’ right to not recognize marriages that don’t fit their dogmatic definition of marriage as long as they don’t take public money, as Connecticut has done, would you be okay with gay marriage? 

Or do you simply consider that your most effective soundbite in your resistance to the oppression that is gay marriage?

Comment #30: Seraph  on  04/24  at  03:13 PM

Principles don’t mean crap if you’re not willing to sacrifice for them.

That’s the essence. 

People who take sincerely-held moral stances because of their beliefs are willing to pay the price.

Anyone who wants to have the public veneer of pious adherence to a moral code and yet NOT pay any penalty for their beliefs is falsely professing their stance.

In the specific case of Pharmacists, are there any out there who have taken a moral stance against Viagra?  After all, if a man’s willy doesn’t pop to attention, isn’t that God’s Way of telling him not to hide the weasel any more?  If sex is EVILBAD, then losing the ability is a good thing, isn’t it?

I’ll put money down that none of these morally-conflicted pharmacists would blink at passing a bottle of the little blue pills to the next guy who walks up to the window.

Comment #31: tannenburg  on  04/24  at  03:13 PM

You’re kidding, right?

Mostly.  I don’t think that having merchants post signs that they will openly discriminate against customers would go over as well as conservatives seem to think, but, as I said, I’m probably naive.

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  03:14 PM

Second what Magis said: pharmacists don’t know and don’t have the right to know the reasons behind any prescription they’re asked to fill, period. You could use that exact same argument to deny metformin to fat people, because the two disease metformin treats are strongly associated with obesity (type II diabetes and PCOS), and since fat people are only fat because they’re lazy, why should they have any medication to help them (really obviously being sarcastic at this last part). A pharmacists job is simple: fill the prescription, make sure the prescription doesn’t mix poorly with other drugs, answer questions about the prescription. They ARE NOT doctors and don’t have the right to give or refuse medical treatment, which selectively giving and refusing prescriptions effectively is.

Though part of me wants to see what happens when pharmacies stop giving out birth control. I have friends who work in them and they say that 1/3-1/2 of all prescriptions are birth control, so there goes the pharmacy’s entire profit margin.

*****

To answer Dana’s first question, one must realize that most elective abortions occur in clinics, and most therapeutic (life-saving) abortions occur in hospitals. Yes, I believe that a doctor should have the right to refuse to perform an elective abortion, and to my knowledge most OB/Gyns do. But no medical personnel should ever have the right to let a patient die because helping them violates their conscience. Fuck that, you’re in the wrong job if you have a objection to saving lives. If you can’t terminate a pregnancy because of severe early pre-eclampsia, ectopic, placental abruption, molar pregnancy, etc. etc. DON’T WORK IN GYNECOLOGY!

Comment #33: Ashley  on  04/24  at  03:16 PM

I added a couple more scenarios on my own site:

Should General Motors have the right to fire a pacifist employee who was hired to work manufacturing automobiles if he refuses to participate in building specialty vehicles for the United States Army?

Should a marriage counselor in private practice have the right to refuse to counsel a same-sex couple if he believes that same-sex relationships are inherently immoral? If the law held that such a professional could not refuse to so discriminate against a same-sex couple, would he be vulnerable to a lawsuit for not providing good professional service if the couple thought he did a poor job due to his beliefs?

Comment #34: Dana  on  04/24  at  03:33 PM

Oh, and my modest proposal is stemming from the same place that tannenburg’s is:  I seriously doubt that wingnut pharmacists and other service deniers would be willing to suffer any kind of consequences for discrimination.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  04/24  at  03:35 PM

“I’ll put money down that none of these morally-conflicted pharmacists would blink at passing a bottle of the little blue pills to the next guy who walks up to the window.”

Though it would be interesting to see the outcome in a fight between the conscience clause and, say, the right not be discriminated against based on marital status.

Comment #36: preying mantis  on  04/24  at  03:38 PM

MikeEss:

Magis, that’s old-school thinking, pre-Obama.  In the New America, services are provided if, and only if, the provider okays you to receive services.

?????????

Are we talking about the same thing?  I don’t think Title VII has been repealed.  I might be wrong about the pharmacies…but…I don’t think so.

Comment #37: Magis  on  04/24  at  03:38 PM

Mnemosyne:

You’re kidding, right?

No a private pharmacy may not refuse to sell certain medicines because they are licensed by the state.  No you can’t as a private restaurant or hotel refuse to serve black people, see Title VII Civil Rights Act.  They are “public accomodations.”

Hmmm… I have mixed feelings on this one.

While I find the practice of refusing to sell certain medications on “moral” grounds abhorrent, can we mandate what medications a pharmacy is legally required to carry?  There are literally thousands upon thousands of medications out there, and I am unaware of any pharamacy anywhere that carries every medication on the market at all times.

I could be completely ignorant about this, but are pharmacies required to always have in stock any particular medication?  Are they legally mandated to always have Drug X available at all times?

My sentiment lies somewhere in the middle on this.  I do not think that any pharmacy should be allowed to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, but I don’t necessarily think pharmacies should be legally required to keep a supply of any particular prescription on hand at all times.

For example, how much sense would it make to require a pharmacy located in the middle of The Villages, FL, a private community where one must be at least 55 years old to buy a house, to always have prescription birth control readily available, given that virtually no one living in that community would ever need it?

Anyway, I think the proper solution lies somewhere in the middle - require all pharmacies to fill any prescriptions that they are given, but do not require them to necessarily have any particular medication on hand at all times.  They should be required to obtain the medication as quickly as is reasonably possible, with the same level of expediency that they would obtain any other medication they need to order that they don’t have in stock.

An unfortunate consequence of that is that some private pharmacies will never keep drugs like Plan B in stock, but if you mandate that they must always keep Plan B available at all times, wouldn’t you have to mandate that they keep all pharmaceutical-grade drugs in stock at all times?  Otherwise, wouldn’t you open yourself up to lawsuits from say, a clinically depressed person if you didn’t carry their particular antidepressant at all times?  Or a schizophrenic, if you didn’t carry their particular antipsychotic at all times?  Or a cancer patient, if you didn’t carry their particular cancer medicine at all times?

Comment #38: DTG in STL  on  04/24  at  03:38 PM

Should a guy who keeps coming up with pointless hypotheticals for a pointless hypothetical company be fired because he refuses to make up pointless hypotheticals that offend his faith?

Comment #39: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  03:39 PM

I agree with DTG in STL, and that’s why I answered “Yes” earlier. And yeah, being out of stock of something is not the same as refusing to carry it, but even for bleeding heart interventionist liberals there has to be a logistical limit.

Comment #40: Auguste  on  04/24  at  03:42 PM

I kinda go the same way that Mnemnosyne is going but on the whole it’s not a good idea.

I’d be a lot more comfortable with a situation where this discrimination was rampant rather than the one they want. Either protect everybody or nobody from this sort of thing. Then those people who are so filled with hate can feel the effects of their hate boomerang right back at them.

Comment #41: Karmakin  on  04/24  at  03:42 PM

“Are we talking about the same thing?  I don’t think Title VII has been repealed.  I might be wrong about the pharmacies…but…I don’t think so.”

You are right.  Or should be.

I was attempting to use nasty humor to make my point…I guess I failed…

Comment #42: MikeEss  on  04/24  at  03:45 PM

Mr Ess asked:

What are your answers?

In general, if the place of business is private, I believe the business owners should be able to do as theu please.  If a pharmacy-owner chooses not to have a particular medication in stock, I believe that to be his right.  As one commenter put it, the pharmacist should not have thr right to confiscate an unfilled prescription, and I believe that’s absolutely correct: the prescription belongs to the patient, not the pharmacist.

The trouble is that we have these public-private entanglements: a pharmacist may be in business privately, but he is licensed by the state.  A clergyman may represent an entirely private religious organization, but he holds a license from teh state to perform the state function of solemnizing marriages.

Oh, just to make sure no one thinks I’m ducking the answers:

Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?  Yes, but the hospital has a right to discharge him
Should a pacifist professor at a private college have the right to refuse to teach a student who came to class in his ROTC uniform?  Yes, but the college has a right to discharge him
Does or should a pharmacist at a privately-owned drug store have a right to decline to fill a birth control prescription?  Yes, but the owner has a right to discharge him Would there be a difference in your answer if the pharmacy was a publicly-owned facility?  No
Should the owner of a pharmacy, whether publicly or privately owned, have the right to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill certain prescriptions?  yes
Should the owner of a privately owned pharmacy have the right to decide not to carry Plan B medications, so that the pharmacists there could not dispense such, regardless of their beliefs? yes
Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages? Yes
Should the administration at a private college have the right to exclude ROTC programs from campus, even though that college accpts public money in student financial aid?  Yes

Comment #43: Dana  on  04/24  at  03:49 PM

Dana, your answers to your first three questions are like saying that you have the right to mug someone, but the police have a right to arrest you.

Comment #44: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  03:51 PM

WEll, yeah, shit - based on Dana’s answers he and I are in complete agreement. This was a pointless argument…

Comment #45: Auguste  on  04/24  at  03:52 PM

They don’t have to stock any particular drug if there isn’t demand for it, but if there isn’t another pharmacy nearby that does stock it they should bloody well order it for you.  This doesn’t work well with emergency contraception, as time is fairly important, but I don’t know how to write legislation to make sure every woman has access to Plan B, should she ever want or need it.

Comment #46: kaninchen  on  04/24  at  03:53 PM

Seraph asked:

Question for you, Dana: if the state or federal government put in place First-Amendment-redundant laws that protected religious organizations’ right to not recognize marriages that don’t fit their dogmatic definition of marriage as long as they don’t take public money, as Connecticut has done, would you be okay with gay marriage?

Actually, I’ve said in the past that if such churches were protected from lawsuits due to their refusal to perform same-sex weddings, I would not oppose state recognition of same-sex marriages.  That’s slightly different from the way you formulated the question.

Comment #47: Dana  on  04/24  at  03:54 PM

Mr Taylor wrote:

Dana, your answers to your first three questions are like saying that you have the right to mug someone, but the police have a right to arrest you.

In one (strange) way of looking at it, yes: the police do not have a right to engage in prior restraint of you, unless you are already a convicted felon and subject to the criminal justice system, so the police cannot prevent you from mugging someone until you actually attempt (or threaten) to do so.

Comment #48: Dana  on  04/24  at  03:57 PM

I’m getting the sense that the further this debate goes, the more it’s going to be you saying what other people have said, but with much more convoluted opposite words. 

You don’t have a right to mug someone.  That’s why you get arrested.  You’ve defined “right” as “anything you could conceivably do”.  By your construction, I have the “right” to rape and the “right” to murder.

Comment #49: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  04:01 PM

Dana, why can’t you just admit that we’re rubbing off on you? You hold the same basic position as Pandagon, with just a slight veneer of nuance to separate us! Rejoice, Dana, rejoice!

Comment #50: Auguste  on  04/24  at  04:01 PM

MikeEss:

<blockqote>I was attempting to use nasty humor to make my point…I guess I failed…</blockquote>

Couldn’t have anything to do with me being a little dense.  Absolutely nooo chance of that.

Comment #51: Magis  on  04/24  at  04:01 PM

Umm, Magis, they’re being sarcastic…

Comment #52: Ruby  on  04/24  at  04:03 PM

Should a guy who keeps coming up with pointless hypotheticals for a pointless hypothetical company be fired because he refuses to make up pointless hypotheticals that offend his faith?

Jesse, I’m not a troll and I’m not trying to be an ass, it was an honest question.

I believe ALL pharmacists, public or private,  should be required to fill contraceptive prescriptions, regardless of personal “moral objections”.  But what I’m wondering is, can a pharmacy be legally mandated to always keep birth control medication in stock at all times?  Are they legally mandated to keep any particular medication in stock at all times?

I honestly don’t know the laws on this.  Obviously, most pharmacies keep particular medications in stock all the time, but I honestly don’t know if they do that because they are REQUIRED to, or because it makes good business sense to have something as ubiquitous as amoxicillin always available.

Where this becomes relevant is certain morning-after contraceptives, because it won’t do the person requesting the prescription much good if they can’t get the prescription filled right away.  While I would think it would be a pretty shitty practice for a pharmacy to consciously choose not to keep those drugs in stock just out of sheer petty spite, is there really any legal way to mandate them to have those drugs available at all times?  What if the pharmacy contends that none of their clientele is less than 60 years of age (and in a retirement community, that could be a legitimate contention), and keeping those particular drugs in stock is pointless and costly to them, as they will likely never get used?

Anyway, if state laws require a pharmacy to always have certain drugs available at all times, I could see where a reasonable case could be made that they must also keep certain contraceptive medications in stock at all times, but if there is no requirement for them to have any particular medications available at any given time, I don’t know how you could mandate it for contraceptive medications specifically.

Comment #53: DTG in STL  on  04/24  at  04:05 PM

Auguste wrote:

Dana, why can’t you just admit that we’re rubbing off on you? You hold the same basic position as Pandagon, with just a slight veneer of nuance to separate us! Rejoice, Dana, rejoice!

Actually, if you look at my answers, every one of them came down on the side of an individual right to exercise your conscience.  In the case of employment by someone who disagreed, exercising your conscience might get you fired.

Comment #54: Dana  on  04/24  at  04:05 PM

Performing same-sex weddings and recognizing same-sex marriages are not the same.  In the former, I don’t think there’s much risk of the Roman Catholic church being required to perform any weddings they don’t like, ever.  In the latter, I would absolutely require Catholic Community Services to give the same benefits they give spouses of married employees to all married employees, no matter the gender of that spouse.  It is the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.  As civil marriage is a function of the state and carries with it certain rights, that function and those rights should be available to all citizens under the equal protection clause of the constitution of the United States.  As religious marriage is a function of whatever given religion, the government should stay out of those considerations under the first amendment to that constitution.

It has been asked of you many times and I have never seen you answer it: please give us an example of a successful lawsuit brought against the Catholic church by someone divorced who wished to be married again within that church.  If none ever has, why the concern over someone bringing a similar suit against the church with regard to a same-sex wedding?

Comment #55: kaninchen  on  04/24  at  04:06 PM

Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?

I say no.  I don’t believe public hospitals should be allowed to refuse to provide healthcare.  If that means all Catholic hospitals need to be sold to secular entities, so be it and the sooner the better.

It’s the fact that the hospital is serving the public, and that the public is coming in for services that matters. 

Should an individual doctor negotiate employment so that she wouldn’t have to do abortions?  Then she doesn’t have to do them.  But if they are part of the job description, and she doesn’t have an employment contract that restricts that job description, she should perform them or be fired.

Should a pacifist professor at a private college have the right to refuse to teach a student who came to class in his ROTC uniform?

Nope.  Especially at a private school, b/c that student PAID MONEY FOR THE CLASS.  The professor is the students employee, in a manner of speaking, and she doesn’t have the right to refuse service—even less to a member of a private club.

Does or should a pharmacist at a privately-owned drug store have a right to decline to fill a birth control prescription?  Would there be a difference in your answer if the pharmacy was a publicly-owned facility?

You seem to be under a slight private/public delusion here.  It doesn’t matter who owns the pharmacy: it matter whether or not the pharmacy serves the public or if it is a private, members-only deal.

Private clubs restrict their membership in the first place.  The Ku Klux Klan does not have to let Black Catholics in, and they aren’t subject to any legal or civilian redress for discrimination.  If the Klan ran a pharmacy, they would have to serve the public and refusing to serve the Black Catholic would be illegal.

Should the owner of a pharmacy, whether publicly or privately owned, have the right to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill certain prescriptions?

Absofuckinglutely.  Said pharmacist was hired to do a job and is refusing to do it.  Grounds for dismissal.

Should the owner of a privately owned pharmacy have the right to decide not to carry Plan B medications, so that the pharmacists there could not dispense such, regardless of their beliefs?

Again, the public/private ownership is irrelevant—does the pharmacy serve the public or not?

At any rate, no, the pharmacy is not required to stock anything.  I think they should be required to post that they are a limited pharmacy and don’t stock all OTC medications.  But if presented with a script for BC?  Sorry, that’s the role of the pharmacy:  filling prescriptions.  They aren’t in the business of prescribing, just filling, so they should do the job or get out of the business.

Should a clergyman have the right to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding if he is licensed by the state to solemnize marriages?

Clergymen/women do that all the time, Dana, as you know.  While we’re at it, please go review why children of annulled marriages aren’t bastards.  They aren’t illegitimate, even if the marriage sacrament is annulled, b/c only the sacrament is undone.  The children were born under a civilly recognized marriage and are legitimate.  If the bloody Catholic hierarchy understands this, why don’t you?  Or is it just too convenient to forget it when you want to say abortion is teh evil?

Should the administration at a private college have the right to exclude ROTC programs from campus, even though that college accepts public money in student financial aid?

I don’t see why not.  Private colleges are not serving the public, but serving their own private clientele.  They are free to provide what programs they deem worthy. 

It’s the student that applies for financial aid.  Pell Grants and the like are not given to the school, but to the student.

Now, if the Federal government decides that they won’t pay for any research unless it is at a facility that provides an ROTC program, that’s their prerogative.  It may affect whether or not the university decides to offer ROTC.  But that would be a negotiation between the Federal Government and the University, not the Federal Government and a student.

You sure know how to befuddle your questions.

Comment #56: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/24  at  04:07 PM

Dana, you approve of rights that can be violated at will.  They are therefore not rights.

Comment #57: Jesse Taylor  on  04/24  at  04:22 PM

You seem to be under a slight private/public delusion here.  It doesn’t matter who owns the pharmacy: it matter whether or not the pharmacy serves the public or if it is a private, members-only deal.

That gets dicey.

Sam’s Club is a private, members-only institution with a pharmacy.

Currently, anybody can get a membership if they pay the membership fee, but that wasn’t always the case - at one time, you had to be a union member-  and they changed thier membership guidelines to increase their market, not because they were legally mandated to.

What if it was another private, members-only type shopping club that was only available to a certain group?

I would say that ANY pharmacy, regardless of who owns it, and whether or not the customers must be members of a particular group or are part of the general public, must be required to fill any prescription brought to them.

Comment #58: DTG in STL  on  04/24  at  04:23 PM

Actually, if you look at my answers, every one of them came down on the side of an individual right to exercise your conscience.  In the case of employment by someone who disagreed, exercising your conscience might get you fired.

Dana, everyone has these ‘rights.’  Tibetan Buddhists have the ‘right’ to practice their religion and in so doing, exercise their consciences.  They might get arrested, tortured, re-educated, transported, or killed.  The difference—and this difference is key, so you’ll likely miss it—is that the people wanting these ‘conscience’ clauses expanded want to be able to exercise their consciences without the risk of being fired.  Also note that they support exercise of concience only in ways they approve of.  Doctors in states with rigid regulations around abortion—say, being required to perform ultrasound examinations on all women seeking abortion—risk losing their jobs and/or licenses to practice should they follow their consciences and not force women into having unnecessary and unwanted medical tests performed upon them.

Comment #59: kaninchen  on  04/24  at  04:31 PM

DTG in STL, some states require warehouse club stores like Sam’s Club and Costco which have pharmacies to make them available to anyone, member or not.  I know for certain this is the case in California.

Comment #60: kaninchen  on  04/24  at  04:33 PM

I’m pretty sure pharmacies actually can be required to conform to a formulary set by the state, although they may be exempt if they don’t take Medicare. And if they do take Medicare, then as far as I’m concerned they’ve given up their right to object to being required to carry whatever drugs the government wants them to carry - they can stop taking government money if they don’t want to conform to government standards.

Comment #61: magistera  on  04/24  at  04:40 PM

Before we even get to the point of invoking conscience, don’t we have to look at what exactly is being done? Conscience, if it means anything at all, has to only apply to being asked to actually do the thing in question.

A county clerk is not being asked to engage in a same-sex marriage against his personal beliefs. He is being asked to fill out forms, to answer questions, to file paperwork, and to direct people through the bureaucratic procedure. It isn’t as though they have to sexually test drive both spouses.

A doctor, on the other hand, is being asked to actually perform the surgery in question.

Similarly, the pacifist professor is not being asked to haul off and belt the ROTC student, nor (presumably) required to teach hand-to-hand combat. It is not inherently disruptive to teaching physics or poetry or mathematics to have a student in uniform.

It is a little fuzzier about the pharmacist, but I would land on the side that she is not being asked to take the drugs, nor to prescribe them. The doctor and the patient have those decisions to make. Especially since most drugs have more than one effect, and birth control pills are not only used to prevent pregnancy, but again, even if Slutty McCheapwhore comes in and explains her intentions in graphic detail, the pharmacist is not being asked to have premarital/non-marital/non-procreative sex. She is being asked to dispense pills.

The clergyperson is being asked to directly perform an action at odds with her religious belief, assuming that she was approached AS a clergyperson. I worked in manufacturing, over the years, with several people who were pastors or associate pastors in small congregations that couldn’t afford full-time positions with benefits for them. It is not impossible to imagine someone similarly situated having a day job in a county clerk’s office. In that circumstance, they should be required to perform the secular duties without discrimination.

Comment #62: Lymis  on  04/24  at  04:42 PM

DTG in STL:

It is indeed dicey.  Back in the 1970’s the Elks were forced by SCOTUS to admit blacks and the JayCees to admit women.  Both were private clubs.  The logic was that since they were nation-wide they really couldn’t claim the exclusivity that most private clubs do.  Hard cases make bad law.  I’m somewhat dubious of the legal reasoning but the outcome was good.

In my state, do a certain degree private clubs can discriminate but not if they want a liquor license.

Comment #63: Magis  on  04/24  at  04:48 PM

1.) Should you be able to refuse to do your job because you don’t want to but still get paid despite not doing the work and you employer cannot fire you for cause?

There, fixed that for you.

But shorter to Dana:  if you are hired as a county clerk, and if part of your duties as a county clerk are to perform marriages, then you aren’t allowed to refuse to marry anyone who comes into your office and passed the qualifications for marriage.

You don’t think interracial marriages are a good idea?  You don’t like 90 year old geezers marrying 16 y/os?  You think a couple is too damn ugly?  You hate Jews?  Doesn’t matter.  If they qualify, you have to give them the license and perform the marriage b/c that’s your fucking job.

You don’t get to refuse to do your job b/c you don’t like it.  You can protest the change.  You are free to engage in acts of civil disobedience.  But you do not have a right to keep a job you refuse to do.  That’s what ‘conscience clauses’ are all about: they are assholes trying to wiggle around laws they don’t like and treat people they view as a subclass as less than.

Comment #64: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/24  at  04:52 PM

  Should General Motors have the right to fire a[n] <strike>pacifist </strike>employee who was hired to work manufacturing automobiles if he refuses to participate in building <strike>specialty </strike>vehicles <strike>for the United States Army</strike>?

  Should a marriage counselor in private practice have the right to refuse to counsel a <strike>same-sex </strike>couple if he believes that <strike>same-sex </strike> their relationships <strike>are </strike> is inherently immoral?

It’s like helping my son with story problems.  Ignore the irrelevant information.  Should GM be able to fire a worker who refuses to work?  Yes.  Should a doctor in private practice be allowed to choose her patients?  Yes.

As for your hypothetical:

If the law held that such a professional could not refuse to so discriminate against a same-sex couple, would he be vulnerable to a lawsuit for not providing good professional service if the couple thought he did a poor job due to his beliefs?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything.  If this couple believes they were the victim of malpractice, they can sue.  Whether or not they win or should win is a different kettle of fish.

If there is a law mandating professional behavior, they may have additional rights under that law, but since that’s a purely hypothetical law, I’d want to see what it encompassed before providing any further advice.

Comment #65: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/24  at  05:01 PM

people who were pastors or associate pastors in small congregations that couldn’t afford full-time positions with benefits for them. It is not impossible to imagine someone similarly situated having a day job in a county clerk’s office.

Points to Lymis for finally giving Dana a legitimate case where a clergyperson might have to perform a marriage for a gay couple when such marriages are against his/her religious beliefs.

Of course, said clergyperson in his/her day job as county clerk, has to perform these marriages for heterosexual couples who aren’t abiding by the clergyperson’s beliefs anyway, so you’d think that said dayjobbing clergyperson would have already figured out the difference between civil and religious marriage and come to terms with it.

Comment #66: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/24  at  05:07 PM

The trouble is that we have these public-private entanglements: a pharmacist may be in business privately, but he is licensed by the state.  A clergyman may represent an entirely private religious organization, but he holds a license from teh state to perform the state function of solemnizing marriages.

In Dana’s ideal world, see, pharmaceutical licences would be available through competing organizations, not just through the boring old state, so that anybody with the scratch and the will to open up a pill shop could pick the license that best suited his or her needs.  Of course, this would royally screw consumers of medications even unto the point of bringing down death and destruction on some of them (because the only way for a med-purchaser to get clued-in that thus-and-such an establishment might be a dangerous place to frequent would be to inhabit a position from which it would be difficult not to notice that a portion of said establishment’s customer base had worsened in health or died) but, heck, as Dana reminds us, we all have to be willing to pay the price for our beliefs.*

The same would apply to religious organizations.  In Dana’s ideal world, the Church of Scientology would never have had to sue for recognition as a religious institution, because tax-exempt status would be attainable through as many different avenues as the Dana’s Ideal World Free Market would bear.  So that theoretically you could set up a household, have your household certified as a “church” through whatever method pleased you, and from that moment forward, voilà, no more April 15th worries for you.**  The Branch Davidian compound, for example, would certainly have qualified for churchly-kosher status (just like the L. Ron Hubbard guys).

*Oh, yeah, and actions have consequences; let’s not forget that.

**I know I’m simplifying the case here; but I’m trying to capture some of the drooling avidity experienced by Dana-types when they contemplate the infinite leeway which they imagine they can grasp and to which they think they are entitled.

Comment #67: bekabot  on  04/24  at  05:09 PM

Pharmacists and doctors and nurses all are state-licensed to practice. You don’t wanna fulfill the duties required under licensing regulations, whether your employer is public or private? Lose your license. Period.

Comment #68: benvolio  on  04/24  at  05:17 PM

Magis - love your point about nullification/secession and will use in my next piece, if that’s OK.

Comment #69: Rebecca  on  04/24  at  05:32 PM

Jesse wrote:

Dana, you approve of rights that can be violated at will.  They are therefore not rights.

The difference, I think, is how we see rights.  I believe that you have many rights which do not require anyone else to do anything for you.  For example, you have a right to publish anything you wish, a right you exercise freely right here.  But your ringts to publish whatever you wish cannot compel someone else to publish what you write.  You have an absolute freedom of speech as far as I am concerned, but you have no right to compel anyone to listen to what you say.

The things you are agruing about here are things which you see as rights but which require other people to do something for you to enable those things.  You have every right to buy Viagra if you wish, but you have no right to compel someone else to sell it to you.

Comment #70: Dana  on  04/24  at  05:32 PM

You have every right to buy Viagra if you wish, but you have no right to compel someone else to sell it to you.

If the state licenses pharmacists for the express purposes of dispensing medications prescribed by physicians, whyever should they not be compelled to do that?  They may decide to stop dispensing medications entirely, or they may dispense them—as an employee of a public accommodation, which carries certain responsibilities under civil rights laws—without discrimination against either the customer or the medication.  Why is that difficult?

Comment #71: kaninchen  on  04/24  at  05:39 PM

The things you are agruing about here are things which you see as rights but which require other people to do something for you to enable those things.

hmm… so that would logically extrapolate to me having every right to walk down the street unmolested, but I have no right to compel others not to molest me?

Also it’s great hearing about rights and all that jazz, but what about the responsibilities that come from being adult citizens who are bound by the laws of the land and any agreements we enter into? (like for instance a doctor’s oath or a pharmacist’s licensing agreement…) Why aren’t you talking about the responsibilities we have to society at large as well as personal rights? Don’t personal rights change when you enter the public sphere anyways? Because of our responsibilities as members of the community?

That’s where I think your argument is falling on its face. It isn’t just about individual rights when a person is acting as an agent of a public body that has agreed to certain public services. If they hadn’t wanted to take on the responsibility of providing those services they should have specifically negotiated that out of the agreement (implicit or explicit).

Comment #72: kodiak  on  04/24  at  05:42 PM

You have every right to buy Viagra if you wish, but you have no right to compel someone else to sell it to you.

And if people are denied the necessities of life as a result, then what?

Comment #73: Entomologista  on  04/24  at  06:00 PM

You have every right to buy Viagra if you wish, but you have no right to compel someone else to sell it to you.

Actually, you have neither.

You need a prescription for Viagra.  You can only get the prescription from a licensed doctor.  You can’t buy Viagra anywhere, you have to go to a licensed pharmacy/pharmacist.

Part of the license of a pharmacist should make it perfectly damn clear that they have to fulfill prescriptions.  It’s one thing to notice that medications are going to conflict with one another and call the patient’s doctor for clarification or inform the customer that the drug will interact badly with drugs you have already dispensed. 

It’s another to decide that someone’s just a Slutty McSlut Slut and you won’t sell BC to Slutty McSlut Sluts b/c it’s against your religion.  Sorry.  Your job is to sell and dispense restricted medications.  The decision to prescribe and take the medication is between the patient and his/her doctor.

Comment #74: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/24  at  06:04 PM

I think the half of the equation that always goes missing in these complicated conversations - and which a few people have alluded - is that with rights go obligations.  To use the CO-avoiding-the-draft comparison, the COs had to pass stringent examination to verify that their moral beliefs were long-standing and sincere, not just a matter of convenience.  Thus they were exempted from their citizenship obligation to serve in the military, but still required to serve in some capacity.

Furthermore, even though they were exempted from active service, they still faced social disapproval and pressure to conform.  It wasn’t an “easy out” by any means but, again, a sacrifice - a choice made against their implicit and explicit duty to protect the State from external enemies.

A pharmacist has an obligation to serve his patient’s interests as defined by that physician’s orders.  This means that all legal medications prescribed by the physician are not a matter of the pharmacist’s choice.  The physician made the decision.  Previous posters have provided a lot of analogies - public versus private service, and so forth - but the basic fact is that a pharmacist is not obligied and is indeed discouraged by the weight of law from independently making decisions on a patient’s medication.  A pharmacist, for instance, can’t look at a customer and decide to throw in a bag of weight-loss pills, mood enhancers, or Vicodin tablets if the customer looks fat, depressed, and in pain.  That would be illegal and unethical.

Conversely, the pharmacist is beholden not to withhold medication based on anything other than drug interaction concerns - and then the pharmacist is required to contact the physician and verify prescriptions.  Take, for instance, the example of a pharmacist who is opposed to birth control.  The prescription of same might not just be for contraception, but also for other medical conditions - hormonal issues due to hysterectomies, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or other medical issues necessitating hormonal intervention.  Objectively, the only way a pharmacist can know anything about what use the patient will make of the drug as ordered by the physician is to ask - and that, I think everyone can agree, is an invasion of privacy - the rights of the patient.

Ah, you might argue, what about the “morning after” pill?  Again, why split hairs?  Either you perform your obligation to pass on any legal medication to the patient as prescribed by the doctor or you surrender your license.  It’s not a question of “forcing” someone to do something - there’s no coercive mechanism here besides the loss of a job.

Comment #75: tannenburg  on  04/24  at  06:06 PM

I could be completely ignorant about this, but are pharmacies required to always have in stock any particular medication?  Are they legally mandated to always have Drug X available at all times?

My small, privately owned neighborhood pharmacy didn’t carry birth control pills when I first moved to town (“Most of our customers are… older,” he said, “and don’t have much need for them”). But because I lived close and would be a regular customer for him, he was happy to start ordering them for me. So no, he wasn’t required to have them immediately on hand. Whether he would have been required to order them for me had he not been otherwise inclined, I don’t know.

Comment #76: ACG  on  04/24  at  06:31 PM

Actually, I’ve said in the past that if such churches were protected from lawsuits due to their refusal to perform same-sex weddings, I would not oppose state recognition of same-sex marriages.

Whuh-whuh-whuh - they aren’t?

Comment #77: ACG  on  04/24  at  06:34 PM

someone’s probably said it already, but dana, you are being dishonest. you mix public and private like you think you’re going to trick someone. you should know better than everyone here that conservatives are all about the rights of private organizations to do what they want. boy scouts can exclude gay people, and any private school can decide to educate who they want, don’t you think? if you don’t believe both, you are a hypocrite. EOD. how about try to have an honest conversation instead of thinking you’re clever? you’re really and truly not.

Comment #78: chibi  on  04/24  at  06:43 PM

“Nope.  Especially at a private school, b/c that student PAID MONEY FOR THE CLASS.  The professor is the students employee, in a manner of speaking, and she doesn’t have the right to refuse service—even less to a member of a private club.”

Umm, no.  The professor is an employee of _the university_ not the student.  The student is paying the university for the privelege of having the university impart knowledge and training, and then examine the student’s ability to retain that knowledge and training.  If the student was the employee, then tution will automatically convey an A in every classs and a degree, since that is the only sane reason to pay money if the student is an employer; but, they aren’t, and tuition is basically a membership fee, like that which you pay to join a gym (which are not, as far as I know, required to insure you have a perfect body in 6 weeks, but only provide the environment for _you_ to create that body).

Comment #79: phalamir  on  04/24  at  07:05 PM

Whuh-whuh-whuh - they aren’t?

They are.  First Amendment.  The government has no authority to force a religious organization or individual to perform a ritual that violates their dogma - or that fits their dogma, for that matter.  And the wording of the Connecticut marriage equality amendment makes double-extra-super-special-sure of that.  Anyone trying to file a lawsuit like he describes would be laughed out of court.

Dana’s just being dishonest.  If you’re new here (I’m not sure I’ve seen you around before), you’ll get used to it.  It’s pretty much his only method of argument.

Comment #80: Seraph  on  04/24  at  07:35 PM

Actually, I’ve said in the past that if such churches were protected from lawsuits due to their refusal to perform same-sex weddings, I would not oppose state recognition of same-sex marriages.
Whuh-whuh-whuh - they aren’t?

This is a Dana hangup.  He’s convinced that the Gay Dirty Atheist Hippies are going to sue the RCC out of existence because a gay couple will be denied a church marriage ceremony.

It’s not true, and I don’t know why Dana persists in believing it, but there you go…

Comment #81: MikeEss  on  04/24  at  07:36 PM

It’s really very simple. Like Zifnab said, this is about gatekeeping. The wingnuts thought they had a good thing going for a couple of decades or so now, the plan being, training a farm team of pharmacists, doctors, EMTs (yes, even EMTs) etc. at their various faith-based “colleges” and whatnot with the idea of having an ingenious little army that could gatekeep and decide who gets what drugs and why (hint: sluts don’t get assistance). Then they could just dress it up as piety and personal conscience. It didn’t take quite as well as they thought or hoped it would with the public.

Comment #82: annejumps  on  04/24  at  08:45 PM

Not only does the public-accomodation-type employer have a right to fire the employee who refuses to do their job because of “conscience”, they have a duty to do so if the employee continues in that refusal in a way that impairs quality of service for the people that employer serves. Otherwise the boss of the pharmacy chain just decides to place polite warning letters in the files of people who won’t fill prescriptions for plan b or sickle-cell drugs, and that’s the end of the customer’s recourse.

Oh, and by the way, what got so many “private club” organizations in the 60s and 70s was that business was done there. People would discuss projects and bids over drinks or lunch; you knew it was business because they deducted the bills from their taxes (and often employers paid for any membership fees). So the discrimination by sex, race and so forth was pretty obvious.

Comment #83: paul  on  04/24  at  09:34 PM

For many years, blacks in the South were denied the right to vote because the communities they lived in prevented them from registering to vote.  I suppose the clerks and the registration officials felt they had a religious duty to prevent blacks from voting - and could back that up with pulpit fiction.

As a result, the US government ultimately made it a crime to deny others their civil rights through planned actions.  RICO anyone?

Conspiring to deprive people of a civil right is not a “conscience clause” situation - it is RACKETEERING.  We have already been through this bullshit as a country and a body of law during the civil rights struggles.  We don’t need to start it up all over again in bogus pious “conscience” religious bullshit cloaking - racketeering is still racketeering.

Comment #84: Ms Kate  on  04/24  at  10:48 PM

Rebecca:

Thanks!  Sorry I missed your reply earlier.  I’d be honored if you used it.

Comment #85: Magis  on  04/25  at  11:52 AM

Does or should a gynecologist employed by a public hospital have a right to refuse to perform abortions?

What everyone else said.

As a practical matter, however, do you even want a gynecologist who figures he’s entitled to make these decisions for you anywhere near your privates?

Comment #86: Molly, NYC  on  04/25  at  01:18 PM

I had not heard ‘pulpit fiction’ before, and I think I love it to pieces.

Comment #87: kaninchen  on  04/25  at  02:23 PM

As a person who did not take a job because it required me to work on a Sunday, and it seemed wrong to me to work on a Sunday, I am irritated by the people who take jobs they have no intention of performing and use religion as an excuse.  I made a sacrifice over a relatively small religious principle.  They should be willing to do the same for a much larger principle, if they truly hold that principle.

Comment #88: syfr  on  04/25  at  04:00 PM

Once upon a time, people believed that it was sinful to use anesthesia for surgery and any sort of pain relief for child birth.

Can we move on now?

Comment #89: Ms Kate  on  04/25  at  11:13 PM

Praying Mantis I believe human rights are generally considered universal.

Comment #90: banisteriopsis  on  04/27  at  06:51 AM

I wasn’t aware that you have a *right* to purchase birth control pills from the local pharmacy?

Exactly where are your *rights* posted so that I can learn about them?

Praying Mantis (What is with the trolls making stupid Spam knockoff names of regular pandagonians, anyway?), because your prescription has been filled by a doctor (who is regulated and licensed by the state), and is being filled at a pharmacy that is licensed and regulated by the state, the pharmacy has a requirement to not discriminate, and fulfill the prescription.

Whenever your business requires some sort of state licensing, you are being protected by a closed market and you have a duty to provide the goods and services that you are licensed for. Otherwise, the state becomes complicit in your discrimination.

Not that I expect you to understand that, but hey.

Comment #91: Mighty Ponygirl  on  04/27  at  10:44 AM

If clerks are allowed to refuse to perform civil marriage based on sexual orientation, then they must also be allowed to refuse issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, interfaith couples, and even any couples that are both of the same faith, but that faith is different than the employee’s (for example, not making a Christian employee issue a marriage license to a Muslim couple).  These people don’t have to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but then they certainly shouldn’t be paid for not doing it.  If they really don’t want to do it, then they should look for a different job.  They are being paid with tax money, so they have an obligation to provide the service to everyone who is legally entitled to it.

If a Jehovah’s Witness became a doctor, would he or she have the right to refuse blood transfusions to all patients, especially if they worked in an emergency room or trauma center?

Comment #92: bananacat  on  04/27  at  12:35 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.