January 07, 2005

• It hasn't been the land of the free for several years. America has been fascist for some time. This legislation has quite a chance of getting thru. I mean, this is a country which proposes incarcerating people for unlimited time without trial, without access to legal council, all on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. This is a country who's highest legal authorities sanction torture, the overturning of the Geneva convention, and the invasion of sovereign countries based on suspicion. This is a country in which several states refuse to teach kids Darwin's theory of evolution, opting instead for creationism. You're surprised?
• And everybody knows that a woman's body is not her own property.
• and everybody knows that now pharmacists can refuse to refill a woman's birth-control pills on moral grounds.
• proposes incarcerating people for unlimited time without trial And by who's people such proposals, overstated for effect as they are, are roundly vilified. all on suspicion of involvement in terrorism Those suspicions typically being along the lines of being party to an actual terrorist act and/or declaring oneself a terrorist. highest legal authorities sanction torture Well, it happened, and they looked the other way, and they were roundly vilified for it and the perpetrators are being tried and punished AND the new AG has declared himself to be fully against torturing anyone, even those people who like to film themselves cutting off the heads of civilians. overturning of the Geneva convention The geneva convention is not America's to overturn, and we are still signatories to it, we just have questioned the whether a non-sovereign paramiltary force's people, who typically do not wear uniforms nor restrict their targets to military objectives, have a right to the protections under that convention. invasion of sovereign countries based on suspicion While the Iraq war could conceivably (and debately) be understood this way, the role of the Afghani Taliban and their succor of bin Laden is pretty much cut and dried. several states refuse to teach kids Darwin's theory of evolution, opting instead for creationism Not true. All states teach Darwin, the Creationists want equal time, is all. Not that they should have it, but nevertheless. In any event, I think this legislation is designed to address people who purposefully cause themselves to miscarry or are the victims of crimes that cause them to miscarry, not women who have miscarriages at home. Even so, the 12 hour time frame is ludicrous, and as we can see, the uninteded consequences onerous enough that it seems likely that either this bill will be greatly modified or quietly allowed to die in committee.
• and everybody knows that now pharmacists can refuse to refill a woman's birth-control pills on moral grounds. at which point the woman in question drives the half-block to the next, more amenable, pharmacy. If someone has moral issues regarding contributing to certain behaviors, we do not have the right to force them to do things in contradicition to those morals. There employers have a right, of course, to fire these people for not being able to do their job, and the consumer has a right to take their business elsewhere.
• I don't want to start a colossal ruckus, it's just that these isues are not even remotely as cut and dried as the terse points seem to make them, and do not indicate that America is a fascist state, or even approaching a fascist state. Overstating the case, or ignoring the realities and complexities of the issues and situations, does nothing to solve them and only puts one's entire case in question and, consequently, dismissable.
• Oh goddammit now I'm angry. This fucking garbage is why I plan to stay on the pill for life. If I want kids I'll adopt. Fuck you John A. Cosgrove.
• so a liquor store employee can refuse to sell booze to an alcoholic, and a candy store employee to an obese person and a drug-store cashier who views condoms as "spilling the seed" may also refuse to sell those, and a CD store clerk may also refuse to sell a CD with lyrics he considers objectionable? whoa, life is becoming complicated.
• Not to mention the state which has passed one of the a href="http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=18373&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm">most stringent anti-gay-union laws in America. Making your same-sex sweetie the beneficiary of your will or life insurance? Giving them power of attorney in case you wind up in a coma? Seeking to make them official co-parent of your child? Not in Virginia, you're not. So, while I hope this idiotic bill never sees the light of day, I wouldn't put it past VA's political troglodytes to vote in the fool thing.
• and remember, folks, it's a state bill in a state house of reps, not a senate, obviously this is being done for political gain, believe it or not...
• bugger bugger bugger. except that's probably illegal in VA too.
• Just saw the same article on DailyKOS before coming over to MoFi (with a small update not in the posted link above, in which the legislator rationalizes the bill as "an attempt to reduce the number of 'trashcan' babies that are born and then abandoned in trashcans, toilets, or elsewhere to die from exposure or worse"). Hmmm. Doesn't fly with me. What I have learned, through initial research, is that the legislative agenda of numerous anti-abortion groups includes increased reporting of fetal deaths and issuance of death certificates for miscarriages. The point is to advance the legal recognition of "personhood" for all "products of conception". Oh, so that's why. Yeah. Unbelievable. What kitfisto said.
• so a liquor store employee can refuse to sell booze to an alcoholic, and a candy store employee to an obese person and a drug-store cashier who views condoms as "spilling the seed" may also refuse to sell those, and a CD store clerk may also refuse to sell a CD with lyrics he considers objectionable? Of course! At the same time, those employees have to answer to their employers (and ultimately, the marketplace) for their actions. We have no right to force someone to do something that is against their personal moral code (think wartime pacifism). Conversely, if we have a personal moral code and we refuse to do something based on it, we have to be willing to accept what consequences come from that refusal. A moral code, after all, does not exist until tested.
• The proposed next AG is Al Gonzalez who, despite being given ample opportunity to do so, did NOT deny that he believes that the President can indemnify individuals for the use of torture, nor that he can, if he so wishes, break the law.

  but for most of Thursday's nearly nine-hour hearing the committee's Democrats wanted an answer to just one question: Does Gonzales think the president has the power to authorize torture by immunizing American personnel from prosecution for it? During the hearing, Leahy called this idea, which comes from the August 2002 document dubbed the "Bybee memo," "the commander-in-chief override." And by hearing's end it was clear that Gonzales believed in it.

  More here
• Which is a derail I know, but anyway.
• but the interesting this, fes, is that why now? why all of a sudden all these people have these morals that prohibit them from respecting the rights of others? no one is forcing them to take birth-control pills; others choose to do so. and have, for generations. in 2004, pharmacists start doing this. it's just weird.
• i guess i'm of the mind that my rights end where yours begin. in other words, i think it would be perfectly fine if when the pharmacist filled the prescrip, he/she included a sheet of paper stating how birth control is evil. but to attempt to restrict someone else's right to practice birth control is going too far. and, no, in many small towns there are no drug stores down the street.
• Ha! One thing I don't get though... If our Father who art in Heaven in his Infinite wisdom sees fit to bring the little unborn angels up to play harps and prance among the daisies before they're brought to term, why can't he notify the local authorities... Oh yeah... he's not real. hrm. Also, the whole standpoint of the "stopping the trashcan deliveries" is bullshit. Any doctor worth his salt can determine cause of death in a fetus or infant. If you bring a baby to term or rip it out of your uterus with a clothes hangar, and then abandon it to die, they'll find out, and you'll get raped with broomsticks in jail. If you are the unfortunate recipient of horrible luck, then they'll be able to tell that as well, and hopefully you'll have a better experience in the future. I sincerely doubt that this is serious or will get passed. If a miscarriage occurred from drug use or extreme negligence (i.e. bungie jumping during your third tri-mester, daring local thugs to punch you in your stomach for fun) then yes, Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
• oh! nearly forgot. a press release crossed my desk this week, titled, "Consumer Reports must get facts straight on birth control pills, they cause abortion."
• psst - polychrome
• SideDish, that's why I want to stock up on RU-486. After they repeal Roe V. Wade, I'm going to be raking in the fuckin' dough. Since it's kind of hard to obtain for me, being a guy and all, here goes: "Ahem..." "Any ladies up in dis piece who have connex wit da cooch doctorz, holla back, I needs me some baby killin' pillz. Come 2008 this mofo mofi be rollin' on 24s wit da bass up loud biatches! I'm gonna build me a phat crib in Malibu wit dis shizznit. (Satisfaction not guaranteed, est. retail price $500)
• pharmacists can refuse to refill a woman's birth-control pills on moral grounds Sometimes I take BC pills to control endometriosis ... I dare a pharmacist to refuse to fill it. I would kick his or her ass.
• "invasion of sovereign countries based on suspicion While the Iraq war could conceivably (and debately) be understood this way, the role of the Afghani Taliban and their succor of bin Laden is pretty much cut and dried." What part of this description is debatable vis-a-vis the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq? I can't believe that a smart, informed person would still believe there's a debate, here. Iraq is an absolutely failed move by the U.S. administration. Read the news much?
• Still, Fes, nice effort to bring some perspective to things. But let's not apologize for shit just to be polite. If it stinks, it stinks.
• I can see the point of having to report miscarriages. For statistical analysis for one thing: you might find that Town A has way more than Town B because Factory C is putting Chemical D in the water supply. This seems more of a common good than an invasion of privacy: in the same way as doctors have to report various types of death, or flu, or infectious disease, to the CDC. Obviously there are limits to amount of information that needs to be collected, and how backtracable it should be. But twelve hours? WTF? In case people forget? That's just inhumane. Is there an office you have to visit? Do you have to take a number? Is there a queue? Is it open on the weekends? What sick fuck thought of this? Has he explained it to his mother?
• Has he explained it to his mother? That is the best legislative idea I've heard in a long time. No member of any Congress, federal or state, may introduce a bill until he/she first describes it to his/her mother. If she doesn't chide him or beat him with a spoon, then it may be introduced.
• hear hear
• There's another glaring problem with this - many women have miscarriages and don't even know about them (no linky evidence: my doctor told me that one). So, information gathered would be incomplete and misleading.
• that's some real bullshit.
• I've tried three times to write a response to this that is coherent, worthwhile/adds to the discussion, and expresses my feelings. I don't think I can do it. Wow, this makes me angry. What a wrong-headed, badly-designed, nasty piece of legislation, for so many reasons already expressed in the thread.
• I should point out that I stole the link from MsVader, but that that's not illegal yet.
• but the interesting this, fes, is that why now? why all of a sudden all these people have these morals that prohibit them from respecting the rights of others? First, I don't know that it's a right, exactly, to purchase birth control pills. I'm not sure that it infringes on someone's rights to have someone not sell them something. Most stores of nearly all kinds still have the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign gathering dust on the wall behind the counter. It may be an old idea, but it's one that's put in practice every day in bars across the nation: "You've had enough, pal, time to go home." Birth control pills are a product like any other, and while the analogy is not exactly apt, I don't see that anyone has a right to go into any store and demand they sell them any product, if the person selling decides for whatever reason not to. It is an infringement on one's convenience, certainly, but not their rights, in my opinion. That said, it is the buyer's right to request that the pharmacist's employer chastise or fire them, and it is also their right to take their business elsewhere forever, and advise all their friends to do the same. As for "why now"? I'd guess that people who hold more traditional, religiously-based values feel more comfortable under current political and cultural times exercising those values publicly. America has, in the last few years, seemed to show a more overt sense of religion, and I suspect that this environment prompts people who, in the past, felt uncomfortable asserting such morals publicly, a more friendly climate to do so. What part of this description is debatable vis-a-vis the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq? We've talked of this before, but I believe that, as a step in the long term goal of eradicating terror, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. I feel that the marketing campaign to sell this idea to the public was flawed, and the eventual post-war aftermath both unplanned for and handled incompetently. But - again, in my opinion - if one wanted to defang international mideastern terror, invading Iraq definitely helps accomplish that goal, by placing a long term western military presence in a central location, whereby to threaten/coerce terror-sponsoring and supporting states into not doing so, as well as introduce democractic ideals to the region. I would, obviously, have liked those things, especially that last one, to have been better accomplished. But I think the point remains sound: control terror not by fighting individual terrorists but by cutting of their supply and safety, while showing the non-fundamentalist Arab citizen the benefits of democracy. To that end, I think the Iraq invasion, even discounting the idea of removing a horrific despot, makes reasonable realpolitik sense.
• many women have miscarriages and don't even know about them Which brings up a point I hadn't thought of - hopw, exactly, do they propose, in the unlikely event that this law passes, to enforce it? Go door to door and ask, have you had a miscarriage today? Nah, this is political grandstanding, not actual legislating.
• Hehe... Nice troll, Fes! (Yes, it's snarky, but that's better than open hostility to such nationalistic/ imperialistic arrogance.)
• I mean the comment before the comment before mine.
• Those suspicions typically being along the lines of being party to an actual terrorist act and/or declaring oneself a terrorist. Unless, of course, they were brought in by Northern Alliance bounty hunters.
• How is that troll? I'm not seeking to flame out, I'm stating my opinion, I've stated it without hyperbole or trying to be in anyone's face, it is an opinion that I've stated several times here, and one that I personally hold. The idea I described is not imperialistic (America is not now, nor has ever been, an imperial nation), and even if we were doing such a thing solo (which we're not) and in furtherance of purely American goals (I don't see that "reducing global terror" is an American-only benefit club), since we are the largest military power in the world, aren't we uniquely qualified - and perhaps, uniquely obligated? - to do so? I've no desire to derail the thread, so if my posts seem antagonistic, I apologize and will refrain.
• no, fes, i don't think you're out of line at all. i'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. say i go to the doc for hideously irregular periods (as i did back in my early 20s ... i know, i know, too much information) and the doc says, here, get this filled. so i take the scrip to the drugstore, and my friendly pharmacist refuses to fill it on "moral grounds." huh? the thing is, birth control pills are prescribed for everything from irregular periods to overly heavy periods and acne. so, technically, what the good pharmacist SHOULD be doing is saying, "are you using this for birth control?" and then and only then refusing to fill the scrip. which, of course, is ludicrous.
• It's frustrating and depressing. These people are more concerned about punishing women than addressing the root causes of the problem. Pregnancy and especially miscarriage is an intensely personal thing--what an assholish move to force a woman to report such a thing to the police. And honestly, I have trouble seeing how this would do anything other than to punish women. What's next, requiring a registry for those who purchase a birth control test? If a person is honestly concerned about reducing abortion rates and the chance a baby being abandoned, why would they want to deny birth control access? Women take a lot of shit in this world just for having a uterus.
• Fes, you seem determined to take reasonableness to the point of unreasonable. Yet, let the Duel of Words continue!! First, I don't know that it's a right, exactly, to purchase birth control pills. Ah, but they're not a product like any other. They're a medical product, allowing a woman control over her own body, which everyone must agree is one of the most very fundamental rights. (Though we might argue about how far that control extends, etc, abortion, etc.) A pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills in entirely analagous to a KKK doctor at the only hospital in town refusing to set the broken leg of a black man. The latter is certainly frowned upon, not least of which by the Hippocratic Oath, and a doctor engaging in such behaviour would not be a doctor for long, were the rules enforced. And Debaser... that was the most offensively funny thing I've read in a while :)
• I'd like to propose that nobody ever use the damn t-word on this site ever again. It seems like fully 70% of the people who use it here have absolutely no idea what it means.
• I absolutely agree, it IS ludicrous. Denying someone a doctor's prescription based on one's belief that a magical being that lives in the sky considers the prevention of a few cells from grabbing onto some tissue an affront is as ludicrous an act as humans are capable of. However, I believe that it is the pharamcist's right to act as ludicrously as he wishes, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences for that action. That includes, if the person is injured by his act, the financial and reputation damages that would accrue. They're a medical product, allowing a woman control over her own body, which everyone must agree is one of the most very fundamental rights. (Though we might argue about how far that control extends, etc, abortion, etc.) The bolded part being the nut of the issue, of course. One assumes that the pharmacist who would withhold birth control is exactly the person who would question how far the right of a woman to be secure in her person (that's the constituional grounding of Roe v. Wade, isn't? I'm not sure) extends to what that pharmacist believes to be the killing of another person. Additionally, birth control pills are not the ONLY way that a woman may exercise that control - I can think of several options a woman may employ that (and I'm not religious, so bear with me as I speculate on the pro-life argument) do not involved what pro-liferes would consider killing (I'm thinking barrier-type BCDs, like diaphragms or sponges). Look, I don't disagree with you here - I think that the pharmacist ought to have filled the prescription, or not be a pharmacist - his obligation is to his customers while in his place of business, and if his personal moral code precludes serving those customers, then he needs to be in a different line of business. I just think that people have gotten to a point where any inconvenience is somehow considered a violation of their rights, while the rights of others, should their opinions be different from mine or even different from the mainstream, are variable and may be broached with impunity. We all have rights, even the most ludicrous among us, and the rights of even the person with whom we are in total disagreement with are just as staunch and inviolable as our own.
• well I didn't see it as a troll Fes, for whatever that's worth. Personally, I have the same problems with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for personal value reasons that I would with a doctor refusing to treat a patient for personal value reasons in the absence of readily available alternatives. And the question of accepting the consequences of your actions is an interesting one. The consequences of a pregnancy are not trivial; here's a google search for episiotomy for instance. And for this the worst that might happen is the pharmacist could lose their job? I'd say they got off lightly.
• I'm well aware of what an episiotomy is, my wife has had two of them. But that phrase in your first paragraph - "in the absence of readily available alternatives" - makes a lot of the difference. What we're arguing is worst case scenarios, here: what if the pharmacist denied the pills and the woman couldn't go to another pharmacy and then subsequently go pregnant and there were complications and she died and the baby too! Well, yes, that would obviously be a Bad Thing. I don't think that I or anyone is arguing that withholding doctor's prescriptions from people is a great idea. What I'm arguing is that the pharmacist has a right to do so, if he belives that filling the prescription violates his God's laws, and that he should subsequently be held accountable for whatever consequences stem from that action. No one has a right to buy birth control pills, anymore than I have a "right" to buy food or water or clothes. I want them, and merchants who specialize in those products make them available to me for a price. Rights have nothing to do with it. If a merchant does not want to sell me food? Well, taken to the logical extreme, I could conceivably die of starvation. But what I actually would do is buy my food somewhere else, and not patronize the first merchant again. We're not talking about a black accident victim getting dumped back out on the street here, we're talking about an assumed healthy woman who doesn't want to get pregnant - unless she's having sex right there in the pharmacy, she probably has time to find another Walgreen's before the condition the prescription is to treat becomes acute. That's all I'm saying. *reads link again* We're not even talking about that! We're talking about some dumbass playing to his constituency by writing up an unenforceable law.
• I realize you're not trying to pick an argument, and I'm not either, seriously, I just think the fine points are worth discussing. That includes, if the person is injured by his act, the financial and reputation damages that would accrue. However, from my understanding, the pharmacist would still be a pharmacist, and could still operate their pharmacy, if it was their own. A doctor engaging in similar behaviour, such as the example above, would be stripped of their license and could no longer practice. That's a fundamental difference in consequences to their actions, despite the similarity of those actions. That difference is obviously the result of purely historic bureaucratic evolution, but it must be taken into serious account nonetheless. The bolded part being the nut of the issue, of course. One assumes that the pharmacist who would withhold birth control is exactly the person who would question how far the right of a woman to be secure in her person But as a general societal rule we don't allow individuals to determine where other individuals' control over their own body ends. Such determinations are only allowed by society as a whole (i.e. government, legislative bodies, referendums, etc) and distinctly discouraged by individuals. Elsewise it could easily be a defense, though not a complete one, for murder in general. Additionally, birth control pills are not the ONLY way that a woman may exercise that control - I can think of several options a woman may employ that Personally I think that avenue is a bit of a non-starter, since the majority of people involved in the anti-abortion movement seem to have serious religious objections against contraception in general, if only because it supports pre-marital sex.
• Pharmacists are licensed professionals, and should be bound by their profession's governing body to act in the interest of the public at all times. This means swallowing your personal moral beliefs or finding another line of work. Every other public profession (doctors, CPAs, engineers, etc) is held to those standards, why aren't pharmacists?
• Will I have to report it to the authorities in Virginia within twelve hours of everytime I jerk off? I do believe that is a waste of a potential life. Damn. And I just broke my New Year's resolution.
• I just think the fine points are worth discussing. Not a problem! Gentlemen (and ladies) of good conscience may disagree and still remain gentlemen (and ladies). A doctor engaging in similar behaviour, such as the example above, would be stripped of their license and could no longer practice. And rightly so. Pharmacists are not doctors, and are not for a reason, and those reasons have a lot to do with education, sense of obligation, power of their "customer's" health, and the aforementioned oaths doctors swear upon conference of their priviledge. Equating the two both gives pharmacists too much power, and belittles the efforts a doctor must exert to acquire the title. which is to say, any numbskull can be a pharmacist, I've known several and they were universally screwballs But as a general societal rule we don't allow individuals to determine where other individuals' control over their own body ends. I agree. But here, aren't we not so much allowing the pharacist control over the customer's body (possibly so - worst case scenarios, again) as we are with certainty forcing the pharmacist to comply in an activity that he finds morally unacceptable? The chance of the customer's being injured is outweighed by the certainty of the pharmacist's being injured. the anti-abortion movement seem to have serious religious objections against contraception in general, if only because it supports pre-marital sex. I'm not a member, so I find that a little difficult to believe, but knowing what I know of my religious friends, I'll concede the point. This means swallowing your personal moral beliefs or finding another line of work. I agree that's what he *should* do. But unless his licensing prohibits denying service on personal moral grounds (as doctors' does), then I'm not sure he's bound to do so. Ack! I gotta work. Stop taunting me, you lawyerly widgets!
• fes, but what about why birth-control pills were prescribed for me in the first place? i had a medical condition -- well, SOME weird condition -- that was interfering with my life. i never knew when to expect my period, or what was going on when i didn't have one. for that reason, to regulate my periods, my physician prescribed birth-control pills. they also do that for young women with acne, in some cases. so? that means the moral pharmacist can deny me my scrip? if i recall, that was during a time i wasn't even having sex...
• hey! my dog's name is widget! and she's not lawyerly!
• that means the moral pharmacist can deny me my scrip? No. It just means that he personally can decide not to sell it to you. Your prescription is still perfectly valid and may be filled at any other pharmacy that wants your business. You may be inconvenienced - but your rights have not been abridged. Conversely, by *forcing* him to perform an act that he finds morally repellent, you thus violate *his* right to free expression (of his religion, in this case). Ok, seriously, going to work now. There are markets to be exploited, you know. They going to get exploited themselves? No sirree.
• A doctor engaging in similar behaviour, such as the example above, would be stripped of their license and could no longer practice. Not necessarily. Doctors can refuse prescriptions on moral grounds (or at least do, and get away with it). A friend of my wife's was once denied emergency contraception by her gynecologist for "moral" reasons. She wound up spending most of the day trying to find someone, anyone who would help her, because her doctor wouldn't. Shitty? Yes. Still practicing? Yes. Remember the dust-up about the medical appointment Bush made (was it FDA?) for the doctor who wouldn't prescribe the pill for unmarried women and would actually "prescribe" prayer and bible study for PMD and severe cramps? None of this has (so far) been officially deemed a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. SideDish, it seems to me that you couldn't regulate reasons for prescriptions effectively. For one thing, it's not really my pharmacist's business why I've been prescribed this or that pill. The way I see it, he either has free rein to deny me a prescription for any personal reason, or else he can be forced by law to comply without question. I don't think there's room for middle ground there.
• Nostrildamus said everything that needs to be said. The Fascist States of America are, thankfully, doomed.
• To bring up a point you made earlier, Fes: "at which point the woman in question drives the half-block to the next, more amenable, pharmacy" You make two big assumptions here. First, you assume the woman has a car, or at least access to one. This is often not the case, especially if we're talking about teenagers. Second, you assume there's another pharmacy a half-block away. Your thinking is very urban-centric. Some small towns (such as my own) have only one pharmacy, and the next nearest may be several miles away. My point is that pharmacists are very much like doctors in that they are given a public trust to dispense potentially deadly substances. They should not have the right to abuse that trust with their own personal prejudices.
• especially if we're talking about teenagers and let's hope the pharmacist isn't a scientologist facing a severely depressed teen with a scrip for Paxil! OK, let's say that legally and (personally) morally pharmacists might not be bound to fill a scrip, but *ethically* they should be bound to do so. as a professional they should not have the right to pick and choose who is to receive drugs that have been lawfully prescribed for a medical condition. there's a huge difference between personal morals and professional responsibilities, IMHO. *off to google pharmacists' ethics*
• from "a model code of ethics for canadian pharmacists" -- i guess they're debating this wording. but THIS is what i am talking about! Statement V: Pharmacists respect the rights of patients to receive pharmacy products and services and ensure these rights are met. Guidelines for interpretation Pharmacists who object, as a matter of conscience, to providing a particular pharmacy product or service must be prepared to explain the basis of their objections to pharmacy management, not the patient. Pharmacist who object, as a matter of conscience, to providing a particular pharmacy product or service have a responsibility to participate in a system designed to respect a patient's right to receive pharmacy products and services. The system must be pre-arranged to enable the patient to obtain the product or service in a timely and convenient manner, minimizing suffering to the patient.
• however, THIS is interesting. this is from the code of ethics adopted by the membership of the American Pharmaceutical Association October 27, 1994. VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs. The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly. (in other words, this pharmacist who refuses birth control can cite this passage and say he is working for the greater good. hmmm.)
• Fes please read: The conscience clause laws PROHIBIT PHARMACIES FROM FIRING pharmacists who won't fill morning after pill or birth control prescriptions. So while I would normally agree with you that they have a perfect right to do so, and be fired, that's invalid and you are misinformed. Across the nation, pharmacies are being told by the state that they are not allowed to fire pharmacists who exercise their "conscience" - but ONLY as regards birth control.
• Oh, again, the conscience clauses refer only to things that are abortifacients. Not to any other medications...showing that they don't give a fuck about the pharmacist's "conscience" at all, just about abortions. At this point, a pharmacist could go to work in any number of small towns with a single pharmacy, not tell his employer his ethical objection, then get a conscience. Since most small pharmacies certainly couldn't afford an extra pharmacist - they're not cheap - and since they couldn't fire the guy, the women there would be fucked.
• not to beat the dead and mostly off-topic horse, but in the articles I have read about the pharmacists not filling the prescriptions for the pill (whose links are, sadly, old and forgotten by me), the pharmacist did not give the prescription back. meaning the women could NOT just pop on down to the next pharmacy (assuming there is one) without going back to the OB-GYN for a new prescription. I don't think I have a problem with a pharmacist who says no and gives back the scrip, but if they keep it, I've got to say they should be fired.
• It hasn't been the land of the free for several years. America has been fascist for some time. This legislation has quite a chance of getting thru. I mean, this is a country which proposes incarcerating people for unlimited time without trial, without access to legal council, all on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. This is a country who's highest legal authorities sanction torture, the overturning of the Geneva convention, and the invasion of sovereign countries based on suspicion. This is a country in which several states refuse to teach kids Darwin's theory of evolution, opting instead for creationism. You're surprised? Jesus Christ. I wish I lived in Australia, the most perfect and non-redneck country on Earth. I think I hear a dingo eating your baby. Oi! The Energizer- it'll surpise ya!
• Australia may not be perfect, but all things considered it is a better place than America. It is high time in any case that Americans got used to tongue-lashing by foreigners. The Lord knows we are the most guilty people on earth of this particular sin.
• Oi! The Energizer- it'll surpise ya! You have to put up with that ad too? Oi!
• Fes' consistant support of these mindless fascists in US government makes me believe he should change his nick to Fasc.
• Just to keep this going a bit longer... And rightly so. Pharmacists are not doctors, and are not for a reason, and those reasons have a lot to do with education, sense of obligation I have several friends who are pharmacists, and several friends who are doctors, as well as personal familiarity with the medical field. I'm not certain how pharmacists compared in the past, but the current crop is much better educated in their field of proper pharmaceutical applications than doctors are. It's simply a matter of specialization. However, since pharmaceuticals are a key component of modern medicine, their specialization has potentially vast application across all fields of medicine. It is extremely likely that any replacement system that 'fixes' many of the failings of modern medicine will hand more power to pharmacists, by taking much better advantage of their specialization. From my knowledge of the current crop of pharmacists, I would say that such moves would be a good thing for medicine, but if pharmacists are going to have ever greater power, we should be careful of the broader ramifications of how they can utilize that power. To use Sidedish' example, in a future reformed medical system, pharmacists might well have access to patient data and authority to alter patient prescriptions as deemed necessary, so they would know when a Pill prescription is for more purely therapeutic purposes versus purely birth control. However, allowing them leeway to make a personal moral judgement in such cases would by proxy also give them leeway to alter any other prescription on moral grounds. I don't think most people would want a pharmacist to have allowance to refuse their heart medication, because he finds them a morally objectionable person. Not necessarily. Doctors can refuse prescriptions on moral grounds (or at least do, and get away with it). A friend of my wife's was once denied emergency contraception Yes, but my comparison was not about doctors refusing prescriptions, but about doctors refusing emergency medical care versus pharmacists refusing prescriptions when they embody the only reasonably available pharmacy. In the case of your wife's friend, I would hope the gynecologist either provided direct referrel to another physician, or made the patient aware of some other resource that could help her in a timely manner. Since it sounds like she did not, I hope that your mother's friend filed a complaint with the state medical board. I think we can all agree that sys7's reminder that many of the pharmacists in question are refusing to return prescriptions to be filled elsewhere is behaviour entirely out of line.
• Nostril, you have got to get off the holiday binge train. It's bad for your liver, you know.
• (I could be wrong, but) I don't think Fes is a Republican from reading his stuff here. If he is one, he would be to the left of practically every other Republican. In 2002 he'd pass for a so-called "liberal hawk". Support for the Iraq war does not make one a Republican. We should remember that while most Democrats nowadays are "against the war"--they are not so dull that they can't see imminent political death--the vast majority of them, including the Democratic ticket in 2004, were in support of the Iraq war when it was first proposed. Everyone except the gullible majority knew exactly what the war was about: the PNAC and Republican designs on Iraq haven't exactly been the best kept secrets. I would venture to say that most supporters agreed with the neocon strategy of military presence as a deterrence for terrorists and their sympathizers. The liberals who are still in favor of the war, with the requisite redactions about its execution, perhaps have consistency as their biggest fault. (The liberals, and some conservatives, who were against the war from the very start are of course deeply and fatally flawed by being right. One wonders why anyone listens to them.)
• "Support for the Iraq war does not make one a Republican." I absolutely agree. It does, however, make one an idiot.
• "I think I hear a dingo eating your baby. Oi! The Energizer- it'll surpise ya!" Is this the best you can do? Decades old cliches? Of course, while your country enacts war crimes, we aren't allowed to say anything.. because, you know, we have kangaroos. "Nostril, you have got to get off the holiday binge train. It's bad for your liver, you know." And what were you drinking while your country turned fascist?
• your country enacts war crimes My country's government, godddamn it.
• On preview: Name That Itch, I agree & apologise. The majority of Americans I know are good, honest people. The government, however, is full of criminals & loons. The General Characteristics of Fascism: A fear-based dictatorship which is reactionary, chauvinistic & Imperialist (extending authority by territorial acquisition or economic & political domination). It doesn't have to be an open dicatorship to be fascist; a democracy can also be fascist when it strays away from the tenets of its constitution. Oppression of opposition or equal rights; the suppression of free speech. The State uses propaganda and fear-mongering instead of open debate to force its agendas. According to Dr. Lawrence Britt, the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism are: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." Sound familiar? 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military. 5. Rampant Sexism. 6. Controlled Mass Media. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government. What's the terror alert level right now, anyway? 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined. 9. Corporate Power is Protected. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police or other agencies are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption. 14. Fraudulent Elections. Most of these need no real examination whatsoever, so familiar are these conditions in America today. Those that disagree clearly have their heads in the sand. While the conditions have not reached a catastrophic point as yet, they are fast moving toward them. Remember, the "liberals" and peaceniks warned about the Iraq war & BushCo's narrow goals, and the inevitable failures that would result. They were ignored. Just as the "bleeding hearts and artistes" (such as George Bernard Shaw) warned about Hitler in the 30's - and were ignored.

• And what were you drinking while your country turned fascist?

  In my case it was nutrients from my mother through the fallopian tube, as America turned Fascist long ago. I am surprised you are just realizing it. I though it was obvious to everyone outside our borders that the U.S. had passed the point of no return since at least the Vietnam war. It's too bad that you and I are probably equally powerless to do anything about it. I could move to Australia, but I don't know if I can adjust to commodes that spin counterclockwise or whatever.
• After that thought-provoking post, Nostril, you are summarily forgiven.
• One more note: I think it is fair to say that America, not just the government, enacts war crimes. There has still been zero* political fallout from the Abu Ghraib scandal (except perhaps for the guy who leaked the pictures), the Bush govt. was re-elected with a majority, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that 50% of Americans--not the government--aren't bothered by the scandal at all and wouldn't particularly mind if the middle east was nuked. America has yet to prove that it is not in favor of war crimes. * the recent noise about Gonzalez and torture memos notwithstanding
• C'mon, Grignr, you can generalize better than that.
• Arright. Americans are all self-centered racist xenophobic woman-hating selfish homophobic unethical immature hyperreligious gun-toting dollar-worshipping oil-guzzling cowardly and unrepentant warmongers. Every last stinking one of them.
• Much much better. But you left out fapmeisteristic! Which means......Ah, screw it, enough wine for tonight.
• In any event, the question of whether America is "Fascist" or not is very interesting. There was a recent MeFi thread about it with good links to reading material: I found this series by a blogger named David Neiwert to be particularly comprehensive and spot-on. (Advice to other countries, particularly Canada: you might want to start thinking about closing your borders to Americans.)
• Actually, Australia is a fine place to live, but, the problem with Aussies is they don't give a fuck. They are the most apathetic bunch of people I have ever encountered. As long as there is food on the table or beer in the fridge, no worries, mate. Case in point: the re-election of John Howard not long ago. I had an argument with a lady ringing up asking for donations for blind kids. She said it was the most important thing in the world today. I asked her what about the Iraq war & the kids maimed & orphaned over there? Her reply: Oh, well its all so far away from here, isn't it. I hung up in disgust. You're right, Grignr, I am powerless. This is why I shout so loudly about it.
• The voice who does not speak is powerless. Be heard.
• Can this thread be about the topic, or am I being a fascist thread nanny? Someone on MeFi made a very good point that this is about clocking women's fertility and making it a matter of state interest. It's not, never should be, and making women report what goes on in our bodies is a matter of control that should scare every citizen. If I miscarry, it's nobody's business. If I abort, it's nobody's business. If I give birth and then murder and abandon the *actual alive new citizen*, I'm up for murder, according to established law. I agree with some posters on the blog this first appeared on - send these ridiculously intrusive Virginia lawmakers every used tampon and condom, along with a rousing chorus of "Every sperm is sacred."
• *hugs rocket88* Fes, your argument is identical to the kind of justifications offerred for racism in the South. "If the niggers don't like the side door, they can go somewhere else." And "(America is not now, nor has ever been, an imperial nation)"? Bullshit. Go away, read about the Phillipines, or Cuba, or Mexico.
• Laws like this are designed to guarantee the rights of the fetus **at the expense of the rights of the woman**. For some reason, right-wing lawmakers see this as a zero-sum game, where either woman or fetuses (fetii?) can have rights, but not both. Every time the rights of the two come into contention, women inevitably lose. ... On the pharmacy question, I would argue that, even in a town with several pharmacies, in this age of the HMO, usually there is only one pharmacy that your insurance will work with. If you are lucky enough to get an insurance that covers the Pill (!!!), you are bound to go to that pharmacy. (My insurance will cover 1) a pregnancy and delivery, plus baby care 2) a non-elective abortion (for instance, if the baby is too sick to be born or if having the baby would kill me), 3) an elective abortion (abortion for any other reason), or 4) the use of the Pill for any reason other than birth control. However, it does not cover the use of the Pill for birth control. My insurance will, however, cover Viagra!)
• Grignr - Judging from analysis of some of the vote counting, I wouldn't be so sure about that Bush re-election majority you mentioned earlier.
• Fes is evil.
• I'm a little late, but I should explain that I wasn't calling Fes a troll, but describing his opinion as a troll. (I do know what the word means; I cut my teeth on Usenet.) I find it easier to believe that he was trolling than that his expressed opinion on the Iraq war was in earnest. I don't understand how anyone can support the US action in Iraq, but I am faced with the fact that people do support it. Such is life. Now, back to the topic. This is all interesting reading.
• <continuing derail> Yeah, I wish there was a good exegesis of the present reasons to support the Iraq war. The operative reasons, as far as I can make out, are:

  1. The U.S. needs to have a (large and perhaps permanent) military presence in the Middle East to protect its interests (Jews and oil, mainly). 2. Terrorists are a borderless army bred of brutal and stagnant governments, and the best way to get rid of terrorism is to democratize the M.E., forcefully if necessary. 3. Taking down Saddam Hussein's govt. was an achievable task, and besides, he had it coming for a long time.

  In my opinion, #1 is perhaps a valid strategic concern (but no reason to invade!), #2 is debatable at best, and #3 is a combination of miscalculation and emotionally charged nonsense. Reasons that have not stood the test of time include:

  4. Imminent threat of nuclear or biological attacks. 5. Humanitarian intervention. (The U.S. invasion has been a worse humanitarian disaster than the last decade of Saddam's rule, and worse by orders of magnitude at that.)

  Is there anything I'm missing? (Note: this doesn't even mention a single reason to oppose the war.)
• Grignr - if I may add a bullet point which I've bumped into 6) now that the US is in Iraq, pulling out would be catastrophic Effectively, the rights or wrongs of _starting_ the Iraq invasion are a sunk cost for many supporters of the war; they judge that staying is less bad than leaving.
• I have yet to be called a troll, but I am not sure that I understand what the problem with it is. Am I correct in saying that the definition of a troll is a person (or the comment itself, I guess) who makes a comment that is designed to inflame someone else? Isn't that also known as playing Devil's Advocate (and not in the Keauna Reeves kind of way)? Isn't that a way to bring up counter-points to make someone address a new point or re-think their position? If the comment is somehow offensive, can't it be ignored? Just wondering. Hopefully, this comment is not some sort of troll itself.
• A troll is someone who posts a comment just for the reaction it will generate. If you believe in what you're saying - no matter how controversial - you are not a troll.
• Thanks for that additional point, polychrome. This point probably even has the most non-conservative support. I find it the most baffling because to say "we probably shouldn't have gone in, but now that we have we should support the effort 100% and definitely shouldn't leave" seems to excuse the initial misjudgement. This pernicious loyalty-at-all-costs seems to have become a prime characteristic of the U.S. these days. We probably shouldn't have let a handful of corporations run our elections, but now that we have we should support them 100% and definitely shouldn't press for review or reform. We probably shouldn't have pressed for Social Security piratization, but now that we have we should suck it up and coolly watch the program disintegrate. We probably shouldn't have authorized torture, but now that we have we shouldn't worry about it and nominate the architects of that decision to cabinet posts.
• The latest on this legislation - a friend of mine sent an email to Cosgrove and this was (part of) his reply: Hello: I am Delegate Cosgrove and I wish to respond to the allegations that have been made by those who have emailed and called my office. The intent of House Bill 1677 is to require the notification of authorities of a delivery of a baby that is dead and the mother has not been attended by a medical professional. This bill was requested by the Chesapeake Police Department in its legislative package due to instances of full term babies who were abandoned shortly after birth... The requirement for twelve hours comes from the method that a coroner would use to determine if the child had been born alive or dead. ... My bill in no way intends that a woman who suffers a miscarriage should be charged for not notifying authorities. The bill in no way mentions miscarriages, only deliveries. After discussing the bill again with our legislative services lawyers, I will include language that will define the bill to apply only to those babies that are abandoned as stated above. I would never inflict this type of emotional torture on a woman who has suffered such a traumatic event as a miscarriage, and I am confident that the General Assembly of Virginia would also not pass such a terrible imposition on a woman. I hope that you will understand the original intent of this bill. This bill has nothing to do with abortion, contraception and especially miscarriages. If you were alarmed by this bill or by the websites, I am sorry. I hope that this will explain the concept and intent of this bill. Sincerely, John A. Cosgrove (sorry for the long post - didn't have anywhere on the Web I could link it)
• Thanks, Sooooz. Good to see clarification - or retraction, for the cynical - from Cosgrove. Citizens in fascist states do not interact with their rulers this way. Would you write your fascist lawmaker to rage at him? Would the word "sorry" be in his reply if you did? The hyperbole gets a bit much here. Fes has articulated his opinions respectfully and thoughtfully. I happen to disagree with him, but he's as much trolling as America is fascist. Come on.
• I suppose I could propose a fascist continuum, but I abhor labels, and America's problems need a fixin' and not definition mongering.
• I'd like to know the number of babies abandoned after viable birth in Virginia, what this bill will cost, and what it intends to solve. I'd like to know how much Virgina spends on birth control, day care, and pre- and post-natal care for destitute citizens.
• Thanks from me too, Sooooz. The wording of the bill made me think it was purely for statistical purposes, which made me annoyed because it required identifying information from the mother. The bill certainly doesn't address the issue of abandoned babies (there's a case of this right now on the news here: a newborn found dead outside a church hall and no one knows whether it was alive when it was abandoned, let alone who the mother is) but if they can find a way to identify mothers who abandon their babies in public places, regardless of the reasons, I'd be behind that.
• And the official update. Democracy works(?)
• Update - the bill has been pulled. Story here.
• thanks for the update Sooooz. Everyone is free to go . . .for now MuwhAHahAhahAaaaaaaahhh!!
• The Abandoned Baby law in California stikes me as a pretty rational way to deal with children who might otherwise have been left to die. And, for women with, for example, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, birth control pills can ease some of the symptoms, which can be life treatening. So, if a pharmacyst (misspelling intended) refused to honor a prescription for the hormones in birth control pills, just 'cause they're usually used for birth control, would that be ok? It doesn't appear that they're asking for the full diagnosis before they deny the prescription. And even if thet were, wouldn't they be practicing medicine without that specific, medical license? I understand that they have a lot of expertise, but they aren't medical doctors. Allowing pharmacists to over-ride physicians'decisions on moral grounds strikes me as pretty frightening.