Reply With Quote
Well, it's bull , but CVS Pharmacy can face the wrath of an angry consumer public. No "law" should be necessary.
This is legal btw..Bush signed this bill to allow this either in the Spring or Summer 2004. Any medical personnel can refuse to treat you or dispense medications to you on "MORAL GROUNDS." Get ready for all the age 50+ women having babies too (peri-menopausal babies)...Better get your dildo's while you can...while it is still legal to buy them, or like giving blow jobs...
Druggists refuse to give out pill
Tuesday, 9 November, 2004 -- By Charisse Jones for USA TODAY
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she "did not believe in birth control."
"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."
Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on "moral grounds" to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.
In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.
Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.
"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.
"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.
Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.
While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.
"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.
Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.
In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.
She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is "unlikely."
~~Are there any conservatives out there who have daughters living in sin by taking the pill? Sinners!!!
Well, it's bull , but CVS Pharmacy can face the wrath of an angry consumer public. No "law" should be necessary.
I mean, , what's next? Liquor stores being required to carry Miller Lite? It's a business. If they choose to pass up the millions of dollars consumers spend on birth control, that's their loss.
Actually if it s up someone's health, it quite serious. There should be a law about withholding the prescription.
They should tell them up front that they will not fill the prescription. But they shouldn't be forced to fill a prescription any more than a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion if asked.
They should look into another line of work if they find something oogy about it. Refusing to fill is one thing, withholding the prescription is quite another.
or like giving blow jobs...
Like that will ever be illegal.
That's where the company fires them.They should look into another line of work if they find something oogy about it.
No argument here. I would agree that if the pharmacy agrees to fill it from the outset, it is their legal responsibility to do so. I'm talking about pharmacists choosing to turn away the customer when a prescription is brought to them.Refusing to fill is one thing, withholding the prescription is quite another.
Bill Clinton reference in 3.... 2....Like that will ever be illegal.
It's part of their job. If they can't do it, they need to look into a new line of work. That would be like air traffic controllers refusing to land certain airplanes.
That's a poor analogy. Airline passengers have no choice over who their AT Controller is, and they have already entered into an agreement to be transported (including landing) at their destination.
This would be more like an airline refusing to sell you a ticket, even though you really really have to be somewhere.
If they do not meet the demands of their job, it is the company's prerogative to fire their fundamentalist wacko asses... or make sure their beliefs are understood before they are hired in the first place. There's no need for the Law to enter into it.
A minor inconvenience. I really couldn't see that happening at HEB....and if so, I'd go to Walgreens. I'm sure Mr. Butt would love to know that.
The pharmacist at my Walgreens is pretty drool worthy. Sorry Mr. Butt. You get enough of my business in food sales.A minor inconvenience. I really couldn't see that happening at HEB....and if so, I'd go to Walgreens. I'm sure Mr. Butt would love to know that.
I was glad to learn that the H in HEB wasn't for Harry.
Bingo. Capitalism....and if so, I'd go to Walgreens.
I secretly hope a lot more pharmacies stop selling birth control... I'd quit my job and start up my own pharmacy, selling nothing but birth control. I doubt I could work "Spurm" into the company name, though...
Yeah, but his son's name is Tapper.
Hmmmm.....let me think about that one for a little bit. I betcha I could.I doubt I could work "Spurm" into the company name, though...
Oh....that's just....wrong.Yeah, but his son's name is Tapper.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
