|
Barbed Tongues posted:I think Individual pharmacists can still refuse to personally dispense contraceptives on a religious basis. The lower court ruling seems to say that's fine, as long as the pharmacy still stocks the contraceptives and has at least one person on hand who doesn't have a religious issue with dispensing. Yup, welcome to Pennsylvania  Really though the state has a compelling interest to make sure that if you call yourself a pharmacy, doctors can expect to call in a prescription and patients can expect to have it filled. Human health is at stake. The state does not have a similar compelling interest to justify forcing all privately owned liquor stores to sell Snakejuice[tm], even if it is provably the smoothest drink in the west and also made by a company owned by the governor's brother.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
alnilam posted:Yup, welcome to Pennsylvania Okay, yeah. That makes sense. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:I think Individual pharmacists can still refuse to personally dispense contraceptives on a religious basis. The lower court ruling seems to say that's fine, as long as the pharmacy still stocks the contraceptives and has at least one person on hand who doesn't have a religious issue with dispensing. The state dictating the terms of the license in a "discriminatory" manner are what causes the first amendment issues in the first place. The pharmacy has a pretty weak case I would say. Their strongest argument is that pharmacies can refuse to accept patients for several reasons. One of which is rejecting patients who have Medicaid or Medicare (regardless of whether they are willing to pay the price), which makes it look like the practice of denying to fill for religious reasons has been singled out in regulation. This makes it resemble the reasoning in the unanimously decided Santeria case. In this case though it seems pretty easily defeated if you define a compelling interest as a patient getting their prescriptions filled from the same pharmacy - which based on what I know about Rx can be important. Also keep in mind the bar is much lower here than in other religious freedom cases - it's a 1A case not RFRA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:I think Individual pharmacists can still refuse to personally dispense contraceptives on a religious basis. The lower court ruling seems to say that's fine, as long as the pharmacy still stocks the contraceptives and has at least one person on hand who doesn't have a religious issue with dispensing. Pharmacies aren't stand alone operations. Doctors determine what medication their patient needs, the pharmacy dispenses it. If they can refuse to carry those drugs, they're substituting their personal, moral opinion for the medical determination of the doctor. Comparing them to a retail establishment makes no sense. The "drug store" part of the operation doesn't have to carry condoms, or any pro-sex products.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
It's not about pharmacies carrying certain drugs. Pharmacies don't have to carry certain drugs. It's a growing trend for them not to carry painkillers in higher crime areas for example. It's about an individual pharmacist refusing to dispense drugs that the pharmacy does has. So in your not very analogous analogy, it'd be like the liquor store clerk refusing to sell your tequila but being okay with you buying whiskey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It's not about pharmacies carrying certain drugs. Pharmacies don't have to carry certain drugs. It's a growing trend for them not to carry painkillers in higher crime areas for example. Except the individual pharmacist can do exactly that. Refuse to dispense tequila because of religious reasons, as long as another bartender is still able to pour. And I assume you mean 'Its not about pharmacies carrying certain brands of drugs' - because the case seems to be specifically about state law requiring pharmacies to carry contraceptives vs. not carry them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
I guess Washington does require them to carry the drug so I am wrong I guess. quote:The first rule, known as the Delivery Rule, requires pharmacies to “deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies.” Wash. Admin. Code §246–869–010(1) (2009).2 The Deliv- ery Rule works in tandem with a pre-existing rule, called the Stocking Rule, that requires pharmacies to stock a “representative assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients.” §246–869–150(1). The net result of these rules is that, so long as there is customer demand for emergency contraceptives, pharma- cies like Ralph’s must stock and dispense them regardless of any religious or moral objections that their owners may have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I guess Washington does require them to carry the drug so I am wrong I guess. It would be a pretty ineffective rule if the pharmacy could just not stock the drugs they object to, wouldn't it? They have to deliver what is prescribed, absent it being some rare drug they can't be expected to carry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:Except the individual pharmacist can do exactly that. Refuse to dispense tequila because of religious reasons, as long as another bartender is still able to pour. Religious ideology should not be a hurdle for patients to access medication they are legally prrscribed and not suspected of abusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Religious ideology should not be a hurdle for patients to access medication they are legally prrscribed and not suspected of abusing. I completely agree morally. Just wanted to understand how the court got there legally in this case. Everyone's answers have been great. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Know I'm a little behind, but there's an interesting example in Breyer's Whole Woman's Health opinion, where he discusses the arguments re: claim preclusion:quote:Imagine a group of prisoners who claim that they are being forced to drink contaminated water. These prisoners file suit against the facility where they are incarcerated. If at first their suit is dismissed because a court does not believe that the harm would be severe enough to be unconstitutional, it would make no sense to prevent the same prisoners from bringing a later suit if time and experience eventually showed that prisoners were dying from contaminated water. Such circumstances would give rise to a new claim that the prisoners’ treatment violates the Constitution. Anyone else think this is slightly too coincidental given the news breaking last week of exactly that (arsenic-contaminated water) in a Texan prison and a District Court judge, at PI stage, requiring the provision of clean water?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It's not about pharmacies carrying certain drugs. Pharmacies don't have to carry certain drugs. It's a growing trend for them not to carry painkillers in higher crime areas for example. Nope, this is about a regulation of pharmacies in general, not individual pharmacists - the place was owned by one of the nutters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Isn't there still the concern that the pharmacy is only going to hire pharmacists who won't dispense? I'm still worried about the pharmacological equivalent of a sun-down town.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:It would be a pretty ineffective rule if the pharmacy could just not stock the drugs they object to, wouldn't it? They have to deliver what is prescribed, absent it being some rare drug they can't be expected to carry. In enforcement of this law, yes. Nevvy Z posted:Isn't there still the concern that the pharmacy is only going to hire pharmacists who won't dispense? quote:But because the Delivery Rule requires every pharmacy to dispense the medication, if a pharmacy wishes to employ a pharmacist who objects to dispensing a drug for religious reasons, the pharmacy must keep on duty at all times a second pharmacist who can dispense those drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Usually when these cases come up, it's about an individual pharmacist refusing to dispense plan b at a pharmacy that carries it Historically it was usually about contraceptives to unmarried women, is that even a thing anymore? (because it seems insane that it could still be.... but I can't say it would be suprising)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Historically it was usually about contraceptives to unmarried women, is that even a thing anymore? (because it seems insane that it could still be.... but I can't say it would be suprising) Same thing, but now it's bullshit whining that they cause abortions, will go back to ~contraceptives are immoral~ if they succeed in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Historically it was usually about contraceptives to unmarried women, is that even a thing anymore? (because it seems insane that it could still be.... but I can't say it would be suprising) I mean, gently caress, there are people who would rather have women die of cervical cancer than give girls an HPV vaccine because they think the vaccine "encourages teenagers to have sex".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Same thing, but now it's bullshit whining that they cause abortions, will go back to ~contraceptives are immoral~ if they succeed in that. Oh no I get that, I was just adding a bit of trivia and wondering out-loud if there's anywhere so mind-numbingly backward that that old chestnut is still a contemporary controversy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Historically it was usually about contraceptives to unmarried women, is that even a thing anymore? (because it seems insane that it could still be.... but I can't say it would be suprising) If I remember correctly, the court cases went all contraceptives banned, contraceptives okay between married families(Griswald), contraceptives available for all (Eisenstaedt? Or something) There's always another reason to punish sex
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Conservatism is the pathological fear that someone, somewhere is happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
I thought that was Puritanism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Historically it was usually about contraceptives to unmarried women, is that even a thing anymore? (because it seems insane that it could still be.... but I can't say it would be suprising) A vital issue here is that a lot of places are one-pharmacist towns, and "referring" to other pharmacies actually requires a substantial drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
There are absolutely religious conservatives who are opposed to contraception. See also: the Hobby Lobby case
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
It's not contraceptive but I took a girl to get plan b once and the pharmacist was rude and condescending. When we asked for it she said "oh honey," and and generally super snobby. You'd think in a college town it wouldn't be a big deal but.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:It's not contraceptive but I took a girl to get plan b once and the pharmacist was rude and condescending. When we asked for it she said "oh honey," and and generally super snobby. You'd think in a college town it wouldn't be a big deal but. Maybe the pharmacist thought you had unprotected sex and that such boning is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:In enforcement of this law, yes. Thanks I missed this important detail
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If I remember correctly, the court cases went all contraceptives banned, contraceptives okay between married families(Griswald), contraceptives available for all (Eisenstaedt? Or something) Well yes, I was specifically referring to the phenomenon of pharmacists refusing to fulfill (and many cases doctors refusing to give) prescriptions for birth control to unmarried women in conservatives areas. like this: Arsenic Lupin posted:It's very much still a thing. I've seen essays by women in socially-conservative areas saying that their pharmacists treated them with (loud, audible to the other people in line) contempt when they saw a BCP prescription with no wedding ring. There are also some Christian physicians who won't prescribe contraceptives to anybody; one I read about actually has a sign in the waiting room saying that his practice doesn't ever prescribe contraception, and if you don't like it, go elsewhere. Simultaneously blows my mind that this is still occurring in TYOOL 2016 yet at the same time... I'm not suprisied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Just providing some back story for anyone who isn't as knowledge as the rest
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
It's sad how contraception is still something that we have to fight over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought that was Puritanism. No, a Puritan would never wear a bowtie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Maybe the pharmacist thought you had unprotected sex and that such boning is stupid.  not so much for the pregnancy thing but if you're not wrapping up when hooking up you're playing russian roulette. Off-chance comedy option of the pharmacist knowing the goon and saying "oh honey" because she knows he's been in there with like a half dozen women in the past three weeks and she'd filled his chlamydia script earlier that day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's sad how contraception is still something that we have to fight over. Ha, welcome to reality friend. Come play in the dirt with the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Anyone else think this is slightly too coincidental given the news breaking last week of exactly that (arsenic-contaminated water) in a Texan prison and a District Court judge, at PI stage, requiring the provision of clean water? Of course loving Texas had to be sued into fixing this, and they're still planning on appealing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
I like that the judge told them they could have already fixed it if they had spent the money they've wasted so far on defending the lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I like that the judge told them they could have already fixed it if they had spent the money they've wasted so far on defending the lawsuit. The article I saw attributed that to the inmates' attorney. http://kwhi.com/inmates-win-suit-over-water-at-navasota-prison-unit/
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The article I saw attributed that to the inmates' attorney. Yeah he's thinking of the case from Angola where LA is defending their decision to not air condition death row. The judge literally pointed out that compliance would have cost less than court costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Because condoms never, ever break. I've bought plan B twice. The first time we were drunk and didn't use a condom. The second -this instance- the condom broke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Because condoms never, ever break. So the answer is to just not use them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah he's thinking of the case from Angola where LA is defending their decision to not air condition death row. The judge literally pointed out that compliance would have cost less than court costs. Holy poo poo, yeah. $1 million to fight the case versus $225,000 to install air conditioning. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/274b1f8c1fab498aabddb2a182ab4e86/ap-exclusive-1-million-spent-avoid-cooling-death-row
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:45
|
|