http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,2479,s1-7342-P,00.html

man, people are literally insane

Complete freaking morons, whats next...your a murderer because you had a period and flushed a perfectly good egg?

My wife takes it to regulate her period and because of a problem in one of her ovaries and I've had a vasectomy...so we aren't doing "chemical abortions". If a Pharmacist tried this with me I'd sue his ass off.

If a Pharmacist tried this with me I'd sue his ass off.
On what basis would you sue him? Are you going to sue the bartender who refuses to sell you another drink because he thinks your drunk and you weren't really? Nice litigious society we have. No wonder health care costs (including prescription drugs) are through the roof.

Maybe because it isn't a pharmacist's job to determine whether or not a woman can or cannot do something. Just a thought.

On what basis would you sue him?
Your ignorance in the matter of birth control and obvious bias against all things slightly progressive and "liberal" has blinded you from the fact that she's taking birth control for MEDICAL REASONS. To withold medication from someone that is allowed by the FDA and is a medical necessity is malpractice. Thousands of women accross the country take birth control pills to regulate their menstral cycles through both pain relievers and for dealing with depression and various mood affecting symtoms. Additionally, other women take these medications to prevent acne and other hormone based ailments.

The good news is, these women can go find new, non nutjob medical professionals, and give their business elsewhere. Or they can go to a variety of clinics accross the country and online.

*Edit* Continuing on the theme, it can also be classified as gender discrimination, as they aren't disallowing the sale of condoms or other preventative measures.

Frankly, to prevent someone from using birth control when they are going to have sex anyway is one of the most rediculous concepts I have ever heard.

The quick resolution. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ There is probably one in most large cities if not multiple locations per city. Drop $20 and you get a month supply of your "type" no questions asked. The only bad part is having to go get them for your girlfriend when she is "busy" or just "doesn't have time" to do it herself. I guess it's worth it though :rolleyes:

Your ignorance in the matter of birth control and obvious bias against all things slightly progressive and "liberal" has blinded you from the fact that she's taking birth control for MEDICAL REASONS.
Some of you people are forgetting we live and work in a democracy, where people don't HAVE to do a damned thing if it's against their beliefs. Ok, thats untrue sometimes, but you get my point.

The pharmacyst can tell her to bugger off, just like she can tell him to fuck off as well.

Sheesh people, get a grip.

Frankly, to prevent someone from using birth control when they are going to have sex anyway is one of the most rediculous concepts I have ever heard.



Thats kind of like not teaching sex education and it wont happen, Ignoring the issues always works.

This is people trying to force there idealogy or beliefs on others, Im sure those people would be fast to scream if I pushed my beliefs on them, There prolly the same people to complain about welfare or supporting single mothers out of wedlock.

I support aborton, it is a right. Not a descretionary desicion by a judge or some 3rd party. Let alone some freaking guy/gal who took a couple classes for 2 years at pharmacy to school to decide whats best for others. There just higher paid fry cooks. Take my order and shut up.

The Dr well, they should hold the patient over there own beliefs in this regard, and not hold a moral opiion over the welfare of there patients.

Its really a form of terriorism, and forcing people. especially the young who are more in need to revert back to the hanger. :mad:

Behavior like that borders on criminal, and sets a horrible precedent if left unchecked. People need to learn to leave politics at home, especially in fields where a non-bias is critical to the health of others.

Im sure most pharmacies dont give a rats ass about the pharmacists beliefs..he fills the order or finds another place of employment.

Im sure most pharmacies dont give a rats ass about the pharmacists beliefs..he fills the order or finds another place of employment.
My younger sister works at a local pharmacy, and they had a new employee that started doing this after a while. I didn't believe her at first because it sounds so idiotic, but she insisted it was true. Sure enough they gave her (the new pharmacist) two weeks notice and she was out on her ass.

What's next? Doctors not giving out pain-killers because they're secretly satanistic worshippers who believe pain is for the weak? (I don't know anything about satanists, just using this as an example)

I fear for the future of the human race when I read things like this :(

That is crazy. It is kind of scary also. This might get just a bit personal but what the heck.. I live in Oklahoma (the buckle of the bible belt *bleh*) where I see pro-life stickers on 2 out of every 3 cars it seems. I have something called PCOS (poly cystic ovarian syndrome) where my body doesn't ovulate and causes a thick coating on my ovaries.. This, if left untreated can cause ovarian cancer, uterus cancer, breast cancer, lupus just to name a few. The only way to correct this hormonal imbalance is to 1. have a baby or 2. have a period. That doesn't necessarily mean ovulate, this is where the pill comes in. I took the pill ever since I found out I had PCOS. Now I am trying to have a baby. But if I weren't trying to have a baby and I was refused by a pharmacist the pill or even a doctor, then what? Why should I have to sacrifice my health because they don't have the same beliefs that I do? It's not a question of beliefs for me.. it's a serious question of my well being.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Why should I have to sacrifice my health because they don't have the same beliefs that I do?Why should the pharmacyst sacrifice his beliefs because you're too lazy to walk across the street to the other pharmacy?

This isn't a Communist country folks, and as long as you and the government stay the fuck out of how they do business, you'll have plenty of other pharmacies to choose from.

The owners of these pharmacies are in business for whatever reason they damned well feel like. If they don't want to sell you a porn magazine, that's their perogative. If they think the morning after pill is a sin and don't want to sell you a morning after pill, that's their perogative. And guess what, you can go find another pharmacy (right now) in this country that meets your perogatives, and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to take your cash.

But start fucking with them with all your "you must do this" and "you must sell that" and you'll have fewer to choose from, period.

You all are acting like God put them on Earth just fill your prescription, all else can go straight to hell. Bleah, get real.

Not every town has 8 pharmacies Akipt. There are times when people don't have a means of transportation outside of their own two feet so they can't go to the 'pharmacy across the street'.

There is no way that politics should play a part in medicine. None.

You cannot deny someone a lung because they voted for Clinton in the '92 election. That's just wrong. It's the same with denying people a drug that a doctor prescribed them because you don't think it is morally not on the up-and-up.

Why should the pharmacyst sacrifice his beliefs because you're too lazy to walk across the street to the other pharmacy?

Right now, it's not much of a problem, and probably doesn't require leglisation to 'correct' the problem. However, it's possible that the situation could arise in rural areas, when you can't simply 'walk across the street' to the other pharmacy. In that case, some protection might be required.

Personally, I don't think it's a very widespread problem, and government shouldn't act on it (unless it grows into a larger problem some day, in which case they should). However, I do think that it's a shitty thing for doctors and pharmacists to be doing.

That, and they justify it by using obscure, non-proven theories about how chemical contraception works. It's similiar to not allowing the sale of condoms or diaphragms because you don't believe in killing sperm. I can see, to some extent, why someone would be against abortions despite the fact I am strongly against robbing any human being of choice, but the fact that they're extending this to contraception seems less an interest in preserving life, and more of an interest to control it.

It's not even politically incorrect; it's flat out WRONG and INHUMAN to deny someone treatment for a known condition they suffer through in the case of those that take it to regulate their menstruation cycles, etc etc. In the case of those that actually use it as a contraceptive -- who cares? You aren't hurting anyone (besides maybe yourself if you're allergic to the things) by preventing conception. You're not even killing a fetus -- you're simply not creating one. There is NO logical way anyone can oppose such a thing, but... well... illogical and irrational decisions rule the day in America.

Drug Store Cowboys! nuff said.

"i under stand your life relys on the use of this drug, but morally i have to let you die because killing babies is wrong"

I don't think the morality argument is really as central here as people make it. Like anything else that's even peripherally involved with a hot topic, the real issue gets obscured by hype. People have the right to sell or not sell whatever they please, as far as I am aware.

If a vegan restaurant doesn't want to sell beef, would people get in a fuss about it? No. Why can't a pharmacist also choose to act based on his beliefs?

Do I personally agree with what they're doing? No. I think it's stupid. However, the freedom to choose is what we're all about here, isn't it?

Because the difference is a vegan market is filling a niche. A pharmacy is serving the general public. Maybe you're unaware, but as a pharmacist, you have to have some degree of medical training. As a vegan market owner, you only have to be a nut who doesn't eat meat and has the money to open a store.

However, the freedom to choose is what we're all about here, isn't it?
There's a difference between a specialty restaurant and the health care system. You can't compare the two without looking foolish. When receiving health care from someone that's licensed to treat them, people deserve for that person to have good judgement based on the NEEDS of the patient and leave their own biased beliefs aside.

When you go to the doctor, you expect to be treated, not to have your beliefs trampled on. No one goes to a vegan restaurant and expects to eat meat.

Edit: Fuck you, Talid.

I think basically what Karma and Talid hit on was, these people are trained in our education systems and licensed by the federal government to serve. Having that MD at the end of their name means that they are going to look at your best interests.

There is a reason why medical doctors have to follow certain obligations, like they can not allow a patient to die without prior consent. They are bound by the law to fulfill a variety of roles, and if the cure for severe menstral pains is birth control pills (as there are no other cures quite as effective) to avoid that because of their OWN personal beliefs opposed to the patients medical interests is malpractice.

fuck you talid (get that out of the way first)


people go to a hospital for their health needs, if we have people letting their political or religious ideals get in the way of peoples health that is a bad thing, if a vegan decides he wants to eat meat all of a sudden and adds it to his menu no ones health is in danger, thats the problem with their sudden act of religousness

Choose a doctor who fits your beliefs. Choose a restaurant that fits your tastes.

There's no law that mandates doctors to dispense birth control pills. Doctors have been choosing their treatments based on personal conviction for as long as there've been doctors.

This isn't a socialist society (yet). If Joe doctor wants to run his practice how he wants, or if Bob the pharmacist would like to only sell tylenol; that's their right regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with them.

Sanchek, are you paid to be retarded, or do you do it just simply for my amusement?

There is no place for political or religious beliefs in the medical industry outside of insurance. A doctor cannot deny care to someone because they're black, yellow, red or have membership to the republican party - it's just not legal. Or moral, for that matter.

I wonder if that Pharmacy takes money from social service, or works with any other govt agency.

I think the anti abortion, bible thumping, redneck, beni hinn watching, right wing christians are all a bunch of hypocrites. They lie, cheat, backstab people in their own congregation, yada yada yada. Does anyone remember when they were a fucking fetus? A fertilized egg? Jesus fucking christ, why do they even fucking care? Because they overthink it and decide that souls are being murdered and suffering in a tortured spiritual existance? Give me a fucking break. The bible doesn't say anything about shit like that. In closing, beni hinn is the biggest fucking piece of shit hypocrite scammer on the face of the earth. Watch his show for 2 minutes and you will be disgusted with televised christianity and that whole fucking redneck dubya anti abortion christian coalition prayer in schools (I could go on for days) bullshit movement.

Phelonius

This isn't a socialist society (yet). If Joe doctor wants to run his practice how he wants, or if Bob the pharmacist would like to only sell tylenol; that's their right regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with them.

Wrong.

Let me make this simpler for you, Sanchek, as apparently Kelraz, Talid, and I haven't made it clear enough:

Health care professionals have rules too. The rules state that they must offer unbiased care to their patients. Pharmacists are included in this. It's like taking the sacred oath to join the Justice League or some shit; it's important. The government makes these rules up, and they generally make sense, and is the reason words like 'malpractice' exist... malpractice means they aren't following the rules, so they get fined. If they keep doing it, they get kicked out of the playground.

Withholding medication for whatever reason because you don't like the fact people take it is not just immoral, it's illegal. In the case of that woman, she CAN sue for malpractice if it's proven that she was denied a drug that was prescribed to her and deemed medically necessary. Pharmacists are just an extension of the physician -- they have to follow orders, no matter what.

A physician who denied a drug that you possibly need (especially if you go to more than one doctor and find that you do) out of personal bias is just an asshole, and can also be sued for the same reason.

The health care system in this country is not free enterprise; the government oversees it. Joe and Bob can't just decide to starve someone of drugs because they don't believe in the drug; that isn't their perogative. That isn't their call. They can prescribe a drug as an ALTERNATIVE, however, but they can't just say 'I can't treat you because I don't believe in the methods to do so.'

The problem is, is that contraception is a grey area. It's an elective thing, so there is little that can be done, besides, yes, find a non-retarded doctor.

Lets make this slightly hypothetical, as the laws of today are based on the laws of yesterday, the laws of tomorrow will be based on those laws of today.

Lets assume that a new treatment comes onto the open market. Lets say a cure to cancer developed through stem cell research. Now, you Sanchek get cancer. The doctor you see refuses to provide you with this treatment because he believes stem cell research is bad, its mini abortions after all. If it remains legal to withold medications such as what the above describes, there will be a legal history that could allow your doctor to let you die for the same reasons.

We all know stemcell research was something made up by liberals and Christopher Reeve, Kelraz. Your lies aren't fooling me.

Let me make this simpler for you, Sanchek, as apparently Kelraz, Talid, and I haven't made it clear enough:
You guys are doing a great job at explaining what you think should happen, sure. The problem is, it's no where close to how things work in the real world.
Health care professionals have rules too. The rules state that they must offer unbiased care to their patients. Pharmacists are included in this. It's like taking the sacred oath to join the Justice League or some shit; it's important. The government makes these rules up, and they generally make sense, and is the reason words like 'malpractice' exist... malpractice means they aren't following the rules, so they get fined. If they keep doing it, they get kicked out of the playground.
I'm working under the assumption that "I personally don't believe in birth control and therefore I'm not going to fill your prescription." means that he refuses to fill those prescriptions for anyone. That is not bias. Your post about bias couldn't be less relevant to the actual topic.

Now, if he's actually giving birth control to some people and not to others, you would be right and I would agree that's completely wrong. Nothing at all in the news story hints at that though. In fact, it's pretty clear about the fact that there's a large group of doctors/pharmacists that are refusing across the board.

It's not malpractice. They aren't being fined, sued, or having their licenses revoked. Stop making things up.
Lets assume that a new treatment comes onto the open market. Lets say a cure to cancer developed through stem cell research. Now, you Sanchek get cancer. The doctor you see refuses to provide you with this treatment because he believes stem cell research is bad, its mini abortions after all. If it remains legal to withold medications such as what the above describes, there will be a legal history that could allow your doctor to let you die for the same reasons.
I'd go to a different doctor. If that treatment was available and not government regulated, there would be more doctors who would than wouldn't. They have the choice not to do it, and I have the choice not to take my business to them. Did all of you guys sleep through your polysci classes or something?

Again, you guys are completely hyper sensationalizing the issue because you can make it a moral one. While the doctor is using his moral beliefs to refuse prescribing birth control, it is not a moral issue that gives him the right to do so.

Just because he got a government certification doesn't mean he can't run his business how he wants to. That makes about as much sense as saying cab drivers can only drive on government approved routes between hotels and airports, because they have to have a license.

sanchek ...


she got the prescription from a doctor, it HAS to be filled, no one can say "no i will not fill your prescription" it is illegal to do so

a doctor can choose the best pill or treatment out of a list for what is better for their patient, weather the doctor chooses a particular pill that invokes birth controll is up to him/her, if the medicine is prescribed the medicine has to be given to the patient, no one along the line can determine weather that person gets the medicine or not

You do understand sanchek that based on your reasoning one of those guy could just come up and says :

" Hey you're a black woman I don't want to serve you." This is the EXACT same thing and its definitely dangerous.


Ps: I got to watch christian american show on TV and it did crack me up, the priest preached about how they neededr every single bit of money they could get in their life then you see the priest house, the guy has millions hah..... religions own morons !

she got the prescription from a doctor, it HAS to be filled, no one can say "no i will not fill your prescription" it is illegal to do so
Depends on the state. I don't have a list, but most states have specific laws that allow a pharmacist to deny ANY prescription for ANY reason.

You do understand sanchek that based on your reasoning one of those guy could just come up and says :

" Hey you're a black woman I don't want to serve you." This is the EXACT same thing and its definitely dangerous.
Absolutely not. That's exactly the mistake Trilikin made in his argument too. It's not bias if it's consistant across all patients/customers.

Like I said, if it were an actual bias issue, I'd be as opposed to it as anyone. If you read the article and similar news stories, you'll see that is not the case.

That's exactly the mistake Trilikin made in his argument too.Trilkin. Not Trilikin. Trilkin.

It is bias. Just because it isn't against a certain group of people doesn't mean it isn't bias. It's bias against a belief that the patients have.

Edit:

With your mindset, then, you believe the Crusades is justified. It wasn't against a group of people, it was just against, you know, people who didn't believe Jesus was the Lord God. See? Universal.

Wait, better yet: The Romans. They snuffed out all Christians when Christianity first started to become widespread. S'ok, it's only a belief. No harm done. Killing about 20,000 people or so is fine, just as long as it's due to bias against a belief.

Robbing patients of medication because they believe it'll help them is okay too, right, just as long as you think it's bad for (insert useless thing here!)

she got the prescription from a doctor, it HAS to be filled, no one can say "no i will not fill your prescription" it is illegal to do so






Actually Pharmacist can deny filling any prescription if they deem it dangerous or what ever. Not saying it’s not wrong to deny based on main argument but pharmacist is last line on weather you get drug. PharmD > MD at end of name on this one. Pharmacist are the ones with in depth training on how and why drugs interact. MD are more general and sadly often make mistakes that could cost lives. Pharmacists refuse to fill order does not have to be justified to the patient. If pharmacist wants they can explain (i.e. this drug will interact with heart med and kill you dork) but it is not required.





Having that MD at the end of their name means that they are going to look at your best interests.



Usually look out for best interests of the HMO that is nickel and dimming them to death.

Trilkin. Not Trilikin. Trilkin.
Sorry, you never seemed to stay unbanned long enough for me to remember the spelling.
It is bias. Just because it isn't against a certain group of people doesn't mean it isn't bias. It's bias against a belief that the patients have.

With your mindset, then, you believe the Crusades is justified. It wasn't against a group of people, it was just against, you know, people who didn't believe Jesus was the Lord God. See? Universal.

Wait, better yet: The Romans. They snuffed out all Christians when Christianity first started to become widespread. S'ok, it's only a belief. No harm done. Killing about 20,000 people or so is fine, just as long as it's due to bias against a belief.

Robbing patients of medication because they believe it'll help them is okay too, right, just as long as you think it's bad for (insert useless thing here!)
I'm not sure if you just didn't read the article, don't understand it, or are purposely avoiding the point of it. They aren't denying treatment to a certain subset of people. They are being completely consistent in their treatment, regardless of who they treat.

Sure, you could be amazingly anal and say their personal bias is what causes them to choose their policy, but they are not biased in their application of the policy. That's what counts.

Show me one example of a successful law suit against this group or its members, a doctor or pharmacist that lost their license over it, or even a single government imposed fine. I haven't looked, but I highly doubt you'll find one. It's simply not bias in the sense of the word that is meaningful when it comes to equal rights laws.

sanchek ...


she got the prescription from a doctor, it HAS to be filled, no one can say "no i will not fill your prescription" it is illegal to do so

a doctor can choose the best pill or treatment out of a list for what is better for their patient, weather the doctor chooses a particular pill that invokes birth controll is up to him/her, if the medicine is prescribed the medicine has to be given to the patient, no one along the line can determine weather that person gets the medicine or not
Actually Trim your not exactly correct. If a doctor prescribes a medicine that the patient is allergic to it is his responsibility to NOT give that medication to the patient. Same goes for a nurse.

So I guess if this pharmacist thought that the medicine would cause harm or some bodily insult it is his responsibility to withhold. I know that explaination doesn't fit exactly to this case but it is an instance that would prevent the pharmacist would withhold the medicine.

Sure, you could be amazingly anal and say their personal bias is what causes them to choose their policy, but they are not biased in their application of the policy.

Pill - bad
Condoms - not bad

Sounds pretty biased against women to me.

Ps: I got to watch christian american show on TV and it did crack me up, the priest preached about how they neededr every single bit of money they could get in their life then you see the priest house, the guy has millions hah..... religions own morons ![/QUOTE]


You should see the popes house :)

Pill - bad
Condoms - not bad

Sounds pretty biased against women to me.
I assume he'd sell condoms to women...

I think the anti abortion, bible thumping, redneck, beni hinn watching, right wing christians are all a bunch of hypocrites. They lie, cheat, backstab people in their own congregation, yada yada yada. Does anyone remember when they were a fucking fetus? A fertilized egg? Jesus fucking christ, why do they even fucking care? Because they overthink it and decide that souls are being murdered and suffering in a tortured spiritual existance? Give me a fucking break. The bible doesn't say anything about shit like that. In closing, beni hinn is the biggest fucking piece of shit hypocrite scammer on the face of the earth. Watch his show for 2 minutes and you will be disgusted with televised christianity and that whole fucking redneck dubya anti abortion christian coalition prayer in schools (I could go on for days) bullshit movement.

Phelonius
Phel I have watched you post lots of stupid shit but this one I'm gunna have to respond to.

I have not read the Bible, But I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover alot of modern-day instances. But I will make a really short information line that even you can follow....

One of the 10 commandments (prolly number 4 or 7 or something like that) says (and I'm para-phrasing) "thou shouldn't kill other people".

The key to this whole abortion thing revolves around when someone believes life begins. That goes back to something called "viability". In other words, can the baby survive outside the mom at present.

Here is a premise (ie I'm giving an example and not using real numbers). At present a kid can survive at , lets say 32 weeks gestation. Ten years ago a kid couldn't survive at 32 weeks. Ten years from now we develop tecnology that makes kids viable at 22 weeks. Well that kid can survive outside the mom at 22 weeks. So its viable.

The next question is why is it now a kid and not a lump of tissue at 22 weeks? What magical day did it turn into a human being?

Why not make it so we can kill the kid up to 12 hours after birth? If you left it laying there with no attention it would die for sure. This means it's not viable? Why would that be murder when a few days before hand its just a mass of tissue.

I can't remember being 1 year old but I'm sure you can see why we don't kill 1 year olds (even though you can't remember being one).

............. Okay so now you can grasp the concept that these Bible thumpers think.

So basically it's that Commandment "thou shalt not kill".

I don't think the Bible said "thou shalt not steal your brethern's game-boy" but it covers the not stealing part.

I probably should read the Bible so I could quote shit like "psalm 10 verse 2 sentence 5" like they do in the movies..... all i know is John 3:16 cause I see it in the stand at football games on TV.

Sanchek's point of view is pretty much that if you don't agree with what one doctor or pharmacy tells you, go find another since thats what free enterprise is about and the healthcare providers in question are perfectly within their rights to say no. Fine. Its a valid arguement. The next issue is though, just because the law states its ok....is it? What constitutes refusal of service for such important matters as healthcare issues? We rely on these highly trained and educated professionals to do what is in the best intrest of those they serve, and not to just extend some political agenda into the matters of another persons physical well being.

This trend sets a real bad precedent, as stated before. If a person in a small rural town has to travel 50 miles one way to get birth control pills because their local pharmacist is a bible thumping nutjob and refuses to stock a common medication, then is that something you can really say tough shit over? Granted, there is no law saying that he or she should not be in business as a pharmacist, but should a person who sells the fruits of scientific research be denying people service for any grounds other than purely scientific ones (AKA, these medications can't be taken together or this is not approved by the FDA)? One only hopes that these clowns don't sell enough "politically correct" medicine to stay in business.

People say that those in intellectual circles are supporting a trend of hating Christians, well, why is that such a shock? Most fundementalist Christians abandon even common sense over their faith. The same goes for any other kind of "political correctness". The customer doesn't give a shit what your beliefs are. They just want their medicine and it stinks to be told no because some jerk-off feels they have to prove a point. This kind of crap will continue as the world population grows. If there is one complete lunatic for every 10 rational people, than every year we get more and more lunatics born just due to the law of averages. One lunatic also tends to do alot more damage than what equals the share of the 9 other rational folks put together if insanity was divided equally amoung all the population.

If anyone here works as a clerk in a store (even though most of you are probably far too above working such a menial job) that sells cigarettes or beer, just try refusing service to someone that tries to buy it legally on the grounds that smoking is harmful and drinking causes socially deviant behavior.

That is true, Sanchek, but women do not wear condoms, nor do they always have the power/right in their relationship(s) to require that their partner wear one. That is one of the reasons that HIV infections among married women here in South Texas are skyrocketing, for example; the husband is going across the border to Boys Town, or sleeping with his mistresses, and brings the infection home to his wife, but if she were to insist that he wear a condom, she would be threatened, if not beaten up, for implying something about his behavior or threatened about who was *she* sleeping with...

Also, condoms are crappy birth control statisticwise, even when used properly, compared with hormonal BC. A 12% failure rate means that 12 of every 100 women who use condoms for BC get pregnant for *each year* they use that for their method of birth control... Having been one of those statistics when I was quite young was a very unhappy incident in my life, needless to say - and many women are, quite understandibly, not willing to gamble, especially when the boyfriend/husband is pressuring to dump the condoms once the relationship becomes settled.

But back on the topic, there are factions in this country who have a keen interest in curtailing women's reproductive rights, and this recent spate of 'conscience laws', which sound all warm and fuzzy and 'rights friendly', are being shamelessly and cynically used by these groups to enforce their brand of 'morality' over basic public health considerations (not to mention patients' rights). Frequently, women *don't* have other choices, if they live in a small or even large town in the Bible Belt or the Rockies - and if you want a rather sobering statistic, consider that a significant portion of the hospitals in this country are still affiliated with and/or run by the Catholic Church. What would happen if these institutions started denying prescription/administration of hormonal birth control on 'conscience', especially considering that these not for profit hospitals are often the only place that the poor can get such services (our hospital here is run by the Sisters of Mercy)?

As a side note, one such hospital denied a tubal ligation to my good friend despite her doctor's assent some years ago when she went in to have her *third* child, and she was unable to tolerate oral birth control (to make matters worse, she was trying to get out of an abusive marriage at the time and found out later that year that her husband had allowed his meth dealer to molest her 6 year old daughter), and they were the only institution within a 70 mile radius, which is a bit far to travel when you are in labor - and the entire state of Wyoming has *one* OB-Gyn who delivers babies/does tubals btw.

I'm sorry, but it's not the pharmacist's job to make health care decisions for a patient based on his ideological convictions - to use an old cliche, "the right to swing my fist ends where your face begins" - and these 'conscience laws' are misguided and often cynical straw men that are used as a platform from which to deny women reproductive services on the *very* small chance that they might at some point accidentally destroy a very early pre-implanted conceptus, but mainly to punish them for the crime of having sex, particularly sex outside of sanctioned hetero marriage, the double standard being, sadly, alive and well.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

Pill - bad
Condoms - not bad

Sounds pretty biased against women to me.

I'd say it's biased against men. Have you ever had sex with a condom on? It's like trying to masturbate through your pants when your hands are cold.

with dry skin

Stop fucking.

Problem solved!

I think people keep confusing birth control with the fact this pill is used for OTHER medical reasons..viagra anyone(its primary design wasn't to give wood back to those who couldn't). My wife falls into this same catagory. If she came home upset because the local Walgreens (their is one on everystreet corner) my first reaction would be to go down there my self, rip him over the counter, and beat him to a bloody pulp..because my beliefs tell me so..however id take her to the next pharmacy. I really think the whole deal is getting blown out of proportion. Sanchek is right they can tell you anything they want and not fill your perscription..if a pharmacist believes you are a drug addict, coming in to fill a large perscription for pain killers..he will tell you no way whether a doctors signature is on it or not and if there is most likey he will question the doctor.

I'm sorry but trying to take any contraceptive, off the market is a bad idea, I mean for fucks sake, isnt the whole reason people are in an uproar about abortions because too many people are having them because of too many unwanted babies?

And then, to deny it to women who use the pill to regulate their cylce so they dont die/other bad side effects etc, is just stupid.

While not illegal per se, it's sure as fuck unethical.

I am in a perfectly monagamous, hetero marriage. I do not have kids. I plan to have kids in the near future. So, basically I am supposed to use condoms (with my wife) until I chose to have a child? Then once I have a child I either have to start using condoms again or one of us needs to get fixed? Or just do like married couples do and stop having sex once you have a child? ;)

Separation of church and state. That means don't force your religious beliefs on me by way of minutia laws that split hairs. So I become a hindu. Then I become a supreme court justice. I rule that killing bugs is against the law and is murder because they are souls that in their next lifetime may become a human. Get your god damn religion out of my face:mad:

Phelonius

The thing that kills me about this arguement, is the lack of true justification for it. You're not even taking life by any stretch of the imagination, you simply are not producing it. People fuck. It's a fact of life. Some of those people that fuck aren't ready for children, and the introduction of a child can, and WILL just ruin those peoples' lives. People are so full of themselves they don't understand that in order to save a life, they have to ruin another, or perhaps even more than one, INCLUDING the life of that child since they will grow up in a miserable family.

I would rather prevent the birth of a tragedy than allow it to burgeon and grow, myself.

I do not believe pharmacist should have the right to deny a legally obtained drug (i.e. proper, confirmed prescription from an MD) used for medicinal purposes to anyone for any reason.

I personally think abortion is immoral, especially as a form of birth control (i.e. women that have many because they are too incompetant to use some other form of birth control)...that is my opinion, based on my personal religious and moral beliefs. I also believe that I do not have the right to enforce my religious and moral beliefs on others and worry about the consequences of making ALL abortions and the Pill illegal, therefore I tend to lean towards pro-choice.

I often wonder if these people that are so passionate about banning abortions and birth control drugs, like the pill,...though I applaud their passion...are prepared for the onslaught of illegitmate, unwanted, abused children (not to mention the dead and maimed women that illegal abortions would produce) such a change would entail.

"Its wrong." blah blah blah. "The pharmacyst has no right to deny someone a pill." "Gimme gimme gimme" "It's all about me!"

You all sound like a chorus of whiners.

If a doctor doesn't believe in abortion, but saves every victim that comes into his emergency room, wouldn't you want him patching you up after you wrap your head around an oak tree in a car accident?

But if you want an abortion go some place else. Duh? Same thing with the pharmacyst.

You're arguing he doesn't have a right to deny medicine to anyone. Says who? "uhh its just not right" Ok, get past that please and present something better than "just because."

go some place else.

Just like how a resturanteer that doesn't want to serve minorities has the right to send them someplace else? No.

What if there only is one pharmacy in the entire town (such as Avalon, New Jersey or Southampton, Pennsylvania or Leesburg, Virginia or thousands of other towns accross the country). Each of these towns are a half hour from a major city, the middle of the country you may have hours and hours between towns and pharmacies.

It is in essence gender inequality and malpractice. The same can be said for people against marijuana refusing to fill a perscription of said drug for someone. Why is it horrible in the eyes of the catholic church for someone who believes (differently from the catholic church mind you) that medicines are bad and refuses to give them to their children, and yet the opposite is perfectly ok? Hypocracy at its worst. Sadly, nothing will change until a woman gets severly injured or dies because of inability to obtain these medications, or it gets so big that the pharmacutical companies producing these contraceptives and their large government lobbying firms get legislation to pass.

Just like how a resturanteer that doesn't want to serve minorities has the right to send them someplace else? No.
Apparently, you guys just didn't read the article and are projecting what you want to be upset about. That's all I can figure out that makes sense. Even you aren't this dumb.

The doctor/pharmacists are completely consistantly applying their philosophy here. Race, religion, gender, whatever of the customer doesn't come into play whatsoever.

Dear Sanchek:

I read the article. The most disturbing thing about it is that the vast majority of individuals who are using these 'conscience laws' to deny individuals hormonal birth control are pharmacists, not physicians, who are not engaged in a medical relationship with the patient. My thoughts on that were, alas, in the portion of the thread that got moved, but I'll copy the non-sandbox related portion of it over:

Back to the issue at hand, the point is it *doesn't matter* why a woman needs to take birth control pills - and it's none of the pharmacist's business unless the medication is contraindicated for medical reasons or it looks like there is a *legal* issue with the prescription (the prescription appears forged or stolen, or the presenter is clearly underage and local consent laws are a potential issue). The example of narcotics is invalid - the abuse of narcotics is illegal in the U.S. - and in any case, even if the pharmacist suspects something, it is his duty to verify the prescription with the *doctor*, not just refuse out of hand because he/she feels that the patient is doing something 'wrong'. It's simply not his/her place to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, nor to make 'moral' decisions for either of them, and to think otherwise is misguided - the doctor-patient relationship supercedes any 'right' the pharmacist has not to be offended by that doctor and patient's medication decision.

If it is a doctor that is refusing to prescribe hormonal BC, for whatever reason, at least he has been engaged by the *patient* and has actually had to assess her medical condition - and most medical doctors, regardless of their religious convictions, are more likely to make their decisions based on the health needs of their patient than personal ideology (note I say most - there are a few nutjobs out there, and it's interesting to note that Bush's choice to lead the FDA believes in *prayer* as the treatment of choice for menstrual cramps). If your doctor is one of these nutjobs, then the only recourse is to find another doctor, although if someone has been being treated for a medical condition via hormonal BC, and the doctor revokes that and the result is harmful to the patient, he/she can be sued for malpractice.

Regards,
Nydia

Asked my mom which is a gyneco and althought she went on and raved about the stupidity of the thing for a while I ll just post a few words she said:

Morale and religious/conscience beliefs have no business with medecine. If you start doing that kind of stuff you should most likely find a new job.

What if there only is one pharmacy in the entire town... Start your own pharmacy?

Get your ass out of bed Monday morning, put on a suit and tie, go down to the bank with a few pages of research on your new found niche market, and easily take out a loan for a few hundred thousand. The banks would be begging you for their business, and within a month or so, you'd start making sweet loads of cash owning your very own Kelraz's Easy Drugs, where nobody is ever denied service.

But sadly a reality check is needed before people start hyperventilating -> This is such a non-issue. Indeed.

It really isn't a non issue. It is simply the tip of the iceberg of a radical christian right wing grassroots movement. It is exactly the type of thing that led to the civil war. It is already festering as we speak with the presidential election. Think we could have riots after one of the candidates is announced the winner? I think so. It is really unfortunate, but the rightwingers insist on pushing their agenda at any cost. They need to chill the fuck out. I can tell you one thing, when the rightwinger shit infringes on my rights and my beliefs, I will certainly be in the middle of the riot and I'll be happy to put down some redneck bible thumpers. Dubya and his crew are responsible for the dumbing down of society and I don't like it.

Phelonius

It really isn't a non issue. It is simply the tip of the iceberg of a radical christian right wing grassroots movement. It is exactly the type of thing that led to the civil war. It is already festering as we speak with the presidential election. Think we could have riots after one of the candidates is announced the winner? I think so. It is really unfortunate, but the rightwingers insist on pushing their agenda at any cost. They need to chill the fuck out. I can tell you one thing, when the rightwinger shit infringes on my rights and my beliefs, I will certainly be in the middle of the riot and I'll be happy to put down some redneck bible thumpers. Dubya and his crew are responsible for the dumbing down of society and I don't like it.
I think any doctor, regardless of religion, would quickly prescribe you some happy pills. You should check it out.

sorry akipt, but you can't distribute drugs without a licensed pharmacist on hand and that takes 6 years minimum to get that degree. Your lack of knowledge on what is required to distribute drugs from a business is saddening, even more so that you think that any hack can distribute drugs.

edit to add, a pharmacist can't distribute drugs to themselves either.

I understand them being against it for recreational sex etc- but if it is medically necessary I don't think they have the right to put a womans life at risk. I think that they could explain their thoughts and morals to the patient but it shoud ultimately be the patients decision to make.

Also I would venture to say that most women that are on the pill are on it for a reason- they can't or don't want a child right now. So lots of women would end up getting on welfare to help pay for these unwanted pregnancies or having children that they shouldn't be in their current state. Is this fair to the children or the Tax payers? I once worked with a girl that stopped eating and took all kinds of antibiotics to make herself abort so what is to stop these women from ending their pregnancies another way? Every child deserves to be loved and wanted- and a life based on something else isn't really fair to anybody.

sorry akipt, but you can't distribute drugs without a licensed pharmacist on hand and that takes 6 years minimum to get that degree. Your lack of knowledge on what is required to distribute drugs from a business is saddening, even more so that you think that any hack can distribute drugs
... or $100 thousand / year could hire a licensed pharmacist, you dumbass.

Glad you could join the stupid party.

Nydia, don't get me wrong. I think what they're doing is stupid. I don't support their ideals in the least. Even if I did, I'd think the way they're going about things isn't in their best interests.

What I do support is their fundamental right to do it. I think anyone stepping in and telling them they can't do business how they choose to would be far worse than anything else that might come of it left unchecked.

I'd be surprised if any successful malpractice suits came of this. Although, I guess anything's possible. This is the same court system that lets you sue McDonald's for letting you eat too much, after all.

If I went to Walgreens and some pharmacist hired by Walgreens told me he wouldn't fill my prescription for birth control, you wouldn't be able to remove me from the premises until my request was fulfilled. If a doctor working for a corporate health care system refused to prescribe me something based on his beliefs I would take it to his superiors. The point of this is: this pharmacist/doctor would be hired to do a job, not force his beliefs on me. I'm not going to Walgreens to get a spirtual awakening, I'm going there to get my damn medicine. If I was a patient at a private practice or had my prescriptions filled at a private pharmacy and I was refused service based on the owners beliefs, I'd be ticked off but would leave.

Besides, what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? If a doctor can refuse treatment based on his personal beliefs (right or wrong) when can he start treatment based on his beliefs (...physician assisted suicide for a suffering cancer patient maybe?...)

I am sitting here and trying to think of some way to blow a hole in ********'s arguement...but there really isn't any way to. In the United States, people have the right to be as stupid as they want to be, in turn, they also have to accept the consequences of said stupidity. Stupidity is a well protected asset here, it seems.

So now I sit here, one and a half months before I deploy overseas to defend the rights of people to be stupid. Possibly going off to Iraq to sit in the sand and the wind while mortars rain down in order to try and build some basic comforts at one of our camps (I'm a Seabee). I try to feel that it is going to be worth it, defending people's rights to be stupid by assuring the economy has the oil it needs and keep the nut jobs at bay in order to keep the country strong so the idiots can continue to pick and chose who they serve because the law protects their right to do so.

Today I helped facilitate a chemical warfare defense training class. I was talking to some of the others there to help aid in instructing this training. One had a brother over in Iraq. A Marine. His brother's letters home told the tale of convoys hit by IDEs (Improvised Explosive Devices) where if you were in the two lead vehicles, you were fucked. Those two lead vehicles always got blown to hell because the Iraqi insurgents don't see things in a tactical sense as to here being any particular advantage to what vehicles get destroyed. They just want to kill. It was left to the people in the rest of the convoy to clean up the bloody meat of those in those two vehicles, push the wreckage out of the way, and get on with the mission. They never saw their attackers, since all that ever killed was a bomb detonated by a cellphone or radio. 6 months passed and this guy's brother's unit sustained over 40 KIA on top of numerous other casualties that resulted in reduction of combat readiness. Not a singe round had been fired by friendly forces at their attackers. Not a single enemy killed. Wonders for morale.

A few weeks before he was supposed to go home, this guy's brother was killed. His Humvee he was riding in rolled off a cliff after losing control on a primative road. He was the 50 cal gunner and the Humvee rolled on top of him, crushing him. "Shit happens. When its your time its your time", this guy tells me about his brother's death.

" We really have no business being there, but I still feel that my bother died for something worthy", tells me after I told him that I expressed my condolences.

The topic of conversation switched to something else. About 45 minutes later, my platoon commander comes up, telling me I forgot to sign my request chit for consideration to go on a detachment to Iraq. I still signed the motherfucker, even after hearing all that bad press. Why not. Not much makes sense anymore anyhow. Another day at work.

The camp where I might be sent has logged over 300 mortar hits in the past 6 months. Most are just random shots fired out of cars and vans by people dressed in common civilian clothes. Mostly sunny with scattered shrapnel is the typical forcast. Good luck finding who fired the round.

So, I have all that to chew on when I see this crap. People in uniform die to defend your rights to be assholes to each other and practice random acts of stupidity. How about meeting us halfway, and maybe try using your brains a little bit, eh? Do your fucking jobs whether you feel its wrong or not because many others do so every day and some die. Heh, I wish I could send this to those fuckers denying these medications.

Sorry if this post was long or derailing or whatever. Had a few drinks and just had to get this off my chest because it reflects alot on how I feel about some of the things that get discussed here.

I once worked with a girl that stopped eating and took all kinds of antibiotics to make herself abort so what is to stop these women from ending their pregnancies another way? Absolutely nothing. I also know of a young woman I worked with who induced her own miscarriage rather than carry another pregnancy to term with the man she was with (another abusive husband, alas :/). All that restricting access to birth control does is increase the amount of pain and suffering that women have to go through in order to regulate their fertility - and if desperate enough, they will control it by any means necessary, whether anyone 'approves' of it or not.

As far as the pharmacists in these situations go: my issue is with the 'conscience laws', not that individual pharmacists might have convictions strong enough that they feel that they can't dispense hormonal BC. That's their perogative, but in the states where these laws exist, major drug chains and other public outlets are prohibited from taking any action against pharmacists who won't dispense hormonal BC, which can and does cost them customers. Here's the thing: the pharmacists, if they feel strongly about the issue, have the option of going to work for numerous private compounding pharmacies, or pharmacies associated with one of the religious-affiliated hospitals, where they won't be forced to dispense these drugs. By making the decision that their convictions are more important than the medical needs of their customers, it is the pharmacist, and not the consumer, who should be forced to accomodate in this instance.

Regards,
Nydia

I'm serious.

Just stop fucking.

Watch a movie or soemthing, christ. 8 year olds do it, why can't you?

jeesus, because its the cool thing to do! you can't just not stop doing cool things its bad

just because you can't score zhen doesnt mean everyone else has to stop fucking :P

Yes it does. 8(

It is simply the tip of the iceberg of a radical christian right wing grassroots movement. It is exactly the type of thing that led to the civil war.

Always good for a laugh Phelonius

Ever think a pharmacist gets F@cked up on drugs during the day and screw in the backroom with maybe a employee? I bet they do.. I mean they have a unlimited supply of the GOOD Ol PINK PILLS.. even considering they wont let anyone else have them!

Ever think a pharmacist gets F@cked up on drugs during the day and screw in the backroom with maybe a employee? I bet they do.. I mean they have a unlimited supply of the GOOD Ol PINK PILLS.. even considering they wont let anyone else have them!
hahah...one pharmacist in my home town got busted for screwing his "misstresses" in the back after the store closed....lots of good dirt came out about him.....like he gave drugs (that should be prescribed) over the counter to his friends and apparently his back room was busier than Motel 6. Oddly enough he somehow got off on the charges and is now a Pharmacist for some drug chain a few towns down the road. I want his job :cool:

What I do support is their fundamental right to do it. I think anyone stepping in and telling them they can't do business how they choose to would be far worse than anything else that might come of it left unchecked.Besides the "morality" check, is there such a right to refuse medical help?
Like written in the article (see I read it :p ), the Pill isn't only prescribed for contraceptive reasons, from menstruation pains to cancer prevention, the Pill gives a better health to its consumers.

Yes it's not like those women are in great danger if they don't take the Pill "now", and therefor could be the reason why there isn't any sue (you can always check the next pharmacist), but it's ticking me that one has the right to say no to a medical prespriction, on the basis of believes rather than health care.

Let me try another comparaison, has a pharmacist the right to say no to a painkiller prespriction because s/he believes in 1 case of 1000, there is a risk of addiction?

Ever think a pharmacist gets F@cked up on drugs during the day and screw in the backroom with maybe a employee? I bet they do.. I mean they have a unlimited supply of the GOOD Ol PINK PILLS.. even considering they wont let anyone else have them!

My friends step-dad was a pharmasist ... he was high all the time on perscription drugs, until he got busted and taken to jail.

sounds like pharamcists make good friends ;)

Bush's choice to lead the FDA believes in *prayer* as the treatment of choice for menstrual cramps

Sounds like a winner to me. :rolleyes:

Some of you people are forgetting we live and work in a democracy, where people don't HAVE to do a damned thing if it's against their beliefs.

Nope.
Noone is forgetting that.

Of course the little rightwing nutjob have the right to not sell the pill. Just like a member of the Jehova's Witnesses have the right to not give people blood transfusions, even if these people don't share his faith. And just like creationists of the creativist church have a right to not tell children about evolution, instead telling them that the earth was created in six days and that Eve had sex with the snake, creating a demonspawn race called jews.

What YOU are forgetting is that this right is the right to not work as apharmacist or nurse or teacher. That's all that the right gives. You don't have any right whatsoever to take a job and then don't do it because it's against your religion. If your faith is incompatible with your work, then quit your work. Simple as that.

This isn't a Communist country folks, and as long as you and the government stay the fuck out of how they do business, you'll have plenty of other pharmacies to choose from.

Plenty to choose from, until christian terrorists start going serialkiller on pharmacists just like they have been doing on doctors for a long time.

And yes, USA isn't a communist country. Guess what? That means that the consumers have rights. Protests and boycotts are a part of the free market.

I think the anti abortion, bible thumping, redneck, beni hinn watching, right wing christians are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Yep.
Btw, what is beni hinn?

Jesus fucking christ, why do they even fucking care? Because they overthink it and decide that souls are being murdered and suffering in a tortured spiritual existance?

No, that's just their excuse.
The reason is that they want to turn the clock back a century or so. They want a society where (white christian) men have all the power while women are forced to stay at home.

Increasing female cancer is a good thing.
Increasing menstrual cramps is a good thing.

Taking every possible step to deny women the right to make choices about their own reproduction (except turning into meek little virgin madonnas on pidestals) is a good thing.

Phel I have watched you post lots of stupid shit but this one I'm gunna have to respond to.

I have not read the Bible, But I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover alot of modern-day instances. But I will make a really short information line that even you can follow....

One of the 10 commandments (prolly number 4 or 7 or something like that) says (and I'm para-phrasing) "thou shouldn't kill other people".


Heh. Do you REALLY believe that that's what it's about?
Maybe some of the rightwingers fool themself into believing this hypocracy just so they don't have to feel so awful as they ought to.

First of all, there is NO evidence whatsoever that these "silent abortions" even exist. The same factions that always have wanted to deny women reproductive rights now use this pathetic made up excuse.

Second, as for real abortions of embryos that have not yet developed brains: The ONLY viewpoint that could logically claim that something without a brain is actually a human is a completely mysticist standpoint. Faith alone, without any connetion whatsoever to reality.

Lets say I decide that I will from now on believe in reincarnation and karma, believe that all living things are actually humans. Does that give me the right to treat people as murderers if they swat flies?

Of course it doesn't. And this is the exactly same thing.

If a doctor doesn't believe in abortion,

You mean "If a doctor is too afraid of the christian terrorists to do his duty,".

Rule by fear and call it freedom of choice... :mad:

Yep.
Btw, what is beni hinn?



No, that's just their excuse.
The reason is that they want to turn the clock back a century or so. They want a society where (white christian) men have all the power while women are forced to stay at home.

Increasing female cancer is a good thing.
Increasing menstrual cramps is a good thing.

Taking every possible step to deny women the right to make choices about their own reproduction (except turning into meek little virgin madonnas on pidestals) is a good thing.Beni Hinn is a evangelical television preacher.

You actually think that white Christian men want to return the world back to the 1900's? I am far from an extremist so I may not be the people this comment is directed to. However I do fit several of the characteristics of the "White Christian". I attend a Christian church every Sunday, I am white and I am male.

This view is so extreme it can not be taken serious. I won't bible thump as it turns my stomach as well as most of the people here. But the basis of the Christian religion is to love everyone. Suppressing women as you claim would countermand the very principal that makes those "White Christian", Christians.
I admit there are lots of "preachers" out there who no longer have the Christian spirit. I do however think those people are not representing the majority of us "White Christians".

On a side note, why in all discussions do opposite sides take the extreme view of the other side? I would like to believe that you are simply trying to illustrate your point of view by taking the other side to an extreme however you only create rift has to be traversed to reach the other side. Understanding is the way to enlightenment not conflict. (sorry got sappy)

You actually think that white Christian men want to return the world back to the 1900's?

No, I actually think that rightwing Christian extremists want to return the world back to the 1900's.

While most of the people who would benefit the most from this are white men, there are also many rightwing extremsists who are female and/or non-white.

I am far from an extremist so I may not be the people this comment is directed to.

That's correct.
Being a christian don't make you a rightwing christian extremist.
Just like being a atheist doesn't make you a communist.

First we get

If a doctor doesn't believe in abortion,
And then this gem of wisdom in response

You mean "If a doctor is too afraid of the christian terrorists to do his duty,".

Rule by fear and call it freedom of choice... :mad:
So now doctors aren't allowed to have personal moral codes that conflict with the morals of a potential patient?

How is it a doctor's "duty" to end what he believes to be a human life through abortion?

Doctor's don't prescribe abortions, they prescribe birth control pills. One is a surgical procedure that only qualified doctors can perform. The other is an item that is provided at a retail outlet.

The issue is are pharmacists overstepping their bounds by not filling a prescription for birth control pills not whether doctors should be obligated to provide abortions.

Mukaz, you are right that abortion is a very different problem.
I was merely replying to akpit, who pretended that when a doctor refuse to do abortion then he automatically do so because it's his moral belief. That annoyed me, since the reality is that those brave doctors who do abortions do it at the price of risking harassment and even murder.

So George Bush is campaigning on the platform of righteousness. That is a thin line to walk. Just by nature, being a politician means sinning on a regular basis. As Beelz said, there are many "true" christians, who have a real spiritual realtionship with god. I commend those people. The unfortunate reality is that the majority of christians (I base all my religious opinions on years of church going) are hypocrites. They backstab, lie, cheat, drink, swear, argue, steal, break laws (speeding?) just like the rest of us heathens. I personally am so disgusted with all this fake christian nationalism horseshit that is going on today. On every car I see that has a dubya sticker on it, there is also some harvest crusade shit as well. I turned off the baseball game last night when they started singing god bless america. I am tired of fucking hearing it. Its like all the dubya support is from those hypocrite christians who live a life of sin monday through saturday and then go to church on sunday to make an appearance. A vote for dubya is a vote for backslider redemtion.

Phelonius

QUOTE: I think the anti abortion, bible thumping, redneck, beni hinn watching, right wing christians are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Thank God im a mostly anti abortion, bible thumping,city boy, non-Benny Hinn watching left wing christian...

Mukaz, you are right that abortion is a very different problem.
I was merely replying to akpit, who pretended that when a doctor refuse to do abortion then he automatically do so because it's his moral belief. That annoyed me, since the reality is that those brave doctors who do abortions do it at the price of risking harassment and even murder.
Those brave doctors who refuse to do abortions do it at the price of risking harrassment and litigation that threatens their very livelihood. Its a two-way street.

You called performing abortions "a duty". If you don't think doctors are obligated to perform abortions on demand, despite their beliefs, don't fucking say so. Performing an abortion is no more a medical "duty" than assisting someone commit suicide. It is a moral decision each doctor has to make for him or herself.

If you want to argue with Akipt about the reasons doctors perform abortions then do so.

So George Bush is campaigning on the platform of righteousness. That is a thin line to walk. Just by nature, being a politician means sinning on a regular basis. As Beelz said, there are many "true" christians, who have a real spiritual realtionship with god. I commend those people. The unfortunate reality is that the majority of christians (I base all my religious opinions on years of church going) are hypocrites. They backstab, lie, cheat, drink, swear, argue, steal, break laws (speeding?) just like the rest of us heathens. I personally am so disgusted with all this fake christian nationalism horseshit that is going on today. On every car I see that has a dubya sticker on it, there is also some harvest crusade shit as well. I turned off the baseball game last night when they started singing god bless america. I am tired of fucking hearing it. Its like all the dubya support is from those hypocrite christians who live a life of sin monday through saturday and then go to church on sunday to make an appearance. A vote for dubya is a vote for backslider redemtion.

Phelonius
I hope Bush wins just so I can hear the arteries popping in Phels head through an open window......

Heh. Do you REALLY believe that that's what it's about?
Maybe some of the rightwingers fool themself into believing this hypocracy just so they don't have to feel so awful as they ought to.

First of all, there is NO evidence whatsoever that these "silent abortions" even exist. The same factions that always have wanted to deny women reproductive rights now use this pathetic made up excuse.

Second, as for real abortions of embryos that have not yet developed brains: The ONLY viewpoint that could logically claim that something without a brain is actually a human is a completely mysticist standpoint. Faith alone, without any connetion whatsoever to reality.

Lets say I decide that I will from now on believe in reincarnation and karma, believe that all living things are actually humans. Does that give me the right to treat people as murderers if they swat flies?

Of course it doesn't. And this is the exactly same thing.
I'm not sure what you mean by silent abortion Karma-shwarma...believe what you want to believe. I think it is people like you who want to justify that it isn't a human being so you can continue to kill without remorse because it is convienent to you.

If it is a baby the day before it is born, why is it not a baby the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that...... etc....

The US was founded mostly by a bunch of bible thumping anal retentive puritans that believed that sex, cold beer and hot showers were the work of the devil, yet slaughtering the indiginous peoples was A-OK.Those filthy heretic pagan Indians!

So, all this shit is nothing new. Its business as usual. Right wing religious whackos who want to squelch the rights and freedoms of others while practicing the most extreme hypocracy is as American as apple pie and Thanksgiving turkey ( a holiday based on said indiginous peoples before we decided it was better to slaughter them). Better we not get God angry with us than have some poor woman not have to bring to term a child that was the product of rape or incest at the extreme. Jesus would prefer that you suffer medical problems than take medication that may abort a single celled egg. I suppose every man that ejeculates and flushes the kleenex or condom down the toilet is also guilty of the same heinous crime.

Those brave doctors who refuse to do abortions do it at the price of risking harrassment and litigation that threatens their very livelihood
Brave my ass. Unless you work at an abortion clinic or that is your speciality to work in that field of medicine at a hospital and refuse to do abortions, then there is no bravery. Performing or refusing to perform abortions as a medical professional is NOT a duty in most cases unless there is going to be a life threatening situation. Not every MD and surgeon is trained to do them. Its a choice. If you are trained to perform abortions and work at an abortion clinic and refuse to do abortions, then you are an asshole. Get a new job. Go be a general practitioner. Doctors usually have a choice in what field of medicine they work in. This particular case is more about pharmacists not allowing prescriptions to be filled. They just put pills in jars. If they can't even do that without consulting the Bible first, then they need to get a new job as well, because they are also assholes.

Let me also retort in favor of the brave doctors who DO perform abortions and prescribe birth control. They come to work every day to protesters in front of their office. They recieve death threats and harrassment. So do their patients. Some of them have actually been killed by these so called bible enlightened wackos who think that killing a doctor is ok but a fetus is not. Oh the wonders of hypocracy. Can you see a doctor who doesn't perform abortions recieving death threats?

Dear Bise:

What Edeina is saying about this issue of 'silent abortions' (that may or may not be occasionally caused by changes in the endometrial lining preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg) claimed by some folks who refuse to prescribe hormonal BC is that there *is* no valid scientific evidence that normal dose hormonal birth control even does this! In other words, the folks who use this as a justification for practicing a blanket denial of hormonal BC to women are doing so based on a hunch and their own bias, not any valid evidence.

The 'morning after' treatment, on the other hand, uses a much higher dose of these hormones and functions by preventing implantation, but in either case, is it fair to equate non-implantation of a very early fertilized egg with abortion? If so, what about all the women who are 'silently' doing this without their knowledge quite frequently without even being on BC due to endometriosis, abnormality in the conceptus, or other disorders? And what about women who use an IUD, should we ban those too?

And, of course, this doesn't address the significant percentage of women who take these hormones for reasons other than preventing conception and whom these pharmacists are refusing to dispense to anyway.

If the objective is to prevent abortions, deciding not to dispense hormonal BC is certainly an odd way to go about it, considering that all other forms of birth control save sterilization are considerably *less* effective than the Pill. And preaching abstinence is simply silly, not just because people are just such rabid fuckmonkeys, but because people do eventually get married or into committed relationships and sex is part of that relationship. And preventing unwanted conception is certainly better than being forced to make a decision about abortion or an unplanned-for child, wouldn't you agree?

I find the whole argument currently being used against prescribing/dispensing these drugs to be specious and not motivated so much out of concern for the possible loss of a fertilized egg but out of an egocentric and misplaced 'concern' for the behavior of others; and it seems very odd to me that such 'concern' should supercede concern for the health needs of an already existing patient in any case.

Regards,
Nydia

So basically a silent abortion is like a pregnancy that basically wasn't known about and the body just aborted due to some biological reason. If that is the case then I don't see any problem.

So basically a silent abortion is like a pregnancy that basically wasn't known about and the body just aborted due to some biological reason.
Not quite. The term "silent abortion" is used by people who want to have a reason to force their moral views on others. They think, by calling something that occurs naturally, without any intervention at all, an abortion then they can forge some sort of foundation for their narrow moral view.

More fertilized eggs have been pissed away in the history of mankind due to natural causes than have ever been prevented from implanting by taking birth control pills.

Its absolutely ridiculous that people who say they want to prevent abortions also want to remove one of the best tools to stop the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions.

Its absolutely ridiculous that people who say they want to prevent abortions also want to remove one of the best tools to stop the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions.
It can be best explained as being yet another cause for people of radical beliefs and a very tenuous grasp on reality to rally around. Its a different brand of the same doctrine as Muslims who blow themselves up in the name of Allah. These are the people who probably should appologise to the majority of Christians for creating a stereotype that for the most part they do not deserve. Most Christians go about their business in peace and pretty much stay the heck out of everyone else's affairs. If it wasn't Christianity, then these same wackos would rally around saving the environment by killing loggers and blowing up oil platforms with the workers still on board.

These extremists on both sides scatter the message of both sides. Not all anti-abortion people feel that life begins at contraception. However even the most extreme abortion activist will fight to protect life.

To remove the Christian religion from the equation the bible does not say when life begins. God leaves that for us to DECIDE on our own. The key word is DECIDE its an opinion (for lack of a better word).

The only true question is should the government impose its opinion on the populace? Does the government have the right to impose a law on such an opinion or faith based topic? I am aware it already does, however the question is does it have the right?

Not all anti-abortion people feel that life begins at contraception.
Great typo =)

The only true question is should the government impose its opinion on the populace? Does the government have the right to impose a law on such an opinion or faith based topic? I am aware it already does, however the question is does it have the right?

NO!!!!

The only way the government will ever have the right to do that is if the voting public was stupid enough to grant those rights to the government.

Great typo =)
Gotta love spell checkers and the idiots that click it without reading it.


NO!!!!

The only way the government will ever have the right to do that is if the voting public was stupid enough to grant those rights to the government.

Its happening right now LummusL.

We have judges imposing moral decision on the public. And both sides Liberal and Conservative are silent as long as the decision goes their way. Now a major political hot topic is abortion. Why?

I really don't see a problem. When I worked at Office Max back in High School, I had a moral objection to selling people Packard Bell computers. I'm enough of a pacifist that I couldn't see myself ever doing that much psychological harm to another human being I did not know and had no quarrel with.

But seriously, back on topic, (and aside from STOP FUCKING. FOR THE LOVE OF ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES SOMETHING HOLY, STOP LETTING GUYS SHOVE THEIR COCK IN YOUR COOTER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT. MARRY A GUY WITH DOUBLE-JOINTED FINGERS, THERE'S ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO GET OFF, OR PLAY MONOPOLY OR SOMETHING, FUCKS SAKE.......)

Where was I? Oh yeah.

First off, don't bother discussing stuff with Edeina. He's like a Hartmut that only posts when he has the opportunity to blame shit on Christianity.

Anyways, as a republican, white, christian, hailing from the conservative state of Wisconsin, male....I have the opportunity to present a completely un-biased opinion!

The only real issue here is whether or not these people's employers can have them fired for a breach of contract. If denial of service isn't against their contract, then there really is no argument and any point is moot.

For example, I'm going to go apply for a job at a shop that sells naughty things later today. In the employee handbook, it states that I can be terminated if I fail to provide adequate customer service. So if I refuse to sell any of those trinkets that can be used to prevent air flow in and out of one's anus, I could be fired.

You can refuse to provide service for any reason you like. Pick it apart all you like, it's up to the employers to decide whether or not it's a breach of contract.

Now if you'll excuse me, working in a bookstore selling gay and fetish porn to 72 year old men wasn't enough, now I want to sell them rubber dongs and nipple lubricant.

The US was founded mostly by a bunch of bible thumping anal retentive puritans that believed that sex, cold beer and hot showers were the work of the devil, yet slaughtering the indiginous peoples was A-OK.
For the record they liked beer, and they liked sex(ask Jefferson), they just didn't like the showers.