Access to contraceptives bill defeated...

[OKgrannie]

When there's a clash between women's right to contraceptives and pharmacists' right to refuse them....guess who wins.

Argus Leader Media - News
"Supporters of a defeated bill seeking to protect access to contraceptives said Friday state senators are out of sync with the public for killing the measure.

"Birth control isn't controversial, it's a common-sense way to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion," said Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood South Dakota. "South Dakotans are looking for solutions, not politics as usual."

The Birth Control Protection Act said South Dakotans have the freedom to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without government interference.
"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities ... " the bill stated.

After receiving approval from the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, the bill was defeated Wednesday on the Senate floor, 22-12.
State law allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication if they think it would cause an abortion or be used in suicide. The bill would have prevented pharmacists from using that abortion law to refuse to dispense birth control."

 

[Jerry]

When there's a clash between women's right to contraceptives and pharmacists' right to refuse them....guess who wins.

Argus Leader Media - News
"Supporters of a defeated bill seeking to protect access to contraceptives said Friday state senators are out of sync with the public for killing the measure.

"Birth control isn't controversial, it's a common-sense way to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion," said Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood South Dakota. "South Dakotans are looking for solutions, not politics as usual."

The Birth Control Protection Act said South Dakotans have the freedom to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without government interference.
"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities ... " the bill stated.

After receiving approval from the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, the bill was defeated Wednesday on the Senate floor, 22-12.
State law allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication if they think it would cause an abortion or be used in suicide. The bill would have prevented pharmacists from using that abortion law to refuse to dispense birth control."

No link?

...and I may note, pharmacists are not the government.

***
On the issue in general, my opinion is the same as with smoking in bars.

If a barkeep doesn’t want smoking in her bar, she has every right to ban it. If a private pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense a particular BC, she has every right not to.

If you want to light up in a bar, go to a bar that will let you. If you want a particular BC, go to a pharmacist that will issue it.

If the non-smoking bar drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. If the non-BC issuing pharmacies drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. That’s how free markets work.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Private business should have the right to sell or not to sell whatever legal product they want.


Good this bill is dead. as it should be.

 

[OKgrannie]

No link?

...and I may note, pharmacists are not the government.

***
On the issue in general, my opinion is the same as with smoking in bars.

If a barkeep doesn’t want smoking in her bar, she has every right to ban it. If a private pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense a particular BC, she has every right not to.

If you want to light up in a bar, go to a bar that will let you. If you want a particular BC, go to a pharmacist that will issue it.

If the non-smoking bar drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. If the non-BC issuing pharmacies drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. That’s how free markets work.

Sorry:
Argus Leader Media - News

Free markets only work when there is competition. Small towns don't always offer competition, although I must admit that internet shopping may offer some competition. Not if you need a prescription in a hurry though.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Sorry:
Argus Leader Media - News

Free markets only work when there is competition. Small towns don't always offer competition, although I must admit that internet shopping may offer some competition. Not if you need a prescription in a hurry though.

Not the stores problem. If there is a demand for the product someone else can open up the competition.

 

[jallman]

No link?

...and I may note, pharmacists are not the government.

***
On the issue in general, my opinion is the same as with smoking in bars.

If a barkeep doesn’t want smoking in her bar, she has every right to ban it. If a private pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense a particular BC, she has every right not to.

If you want to light up in a bar, go to a bar that will let you. If you want a particular BC, go to a pharmacist that will issue it.

If the non-smoking bar drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. If the non-BC issuing pharmacies drives away all it’s customers and shuts down, so be it. That’s how free markets work.

So should a pharmacist working for a hospital that dispenses the medication be able to refuse to do so on moral grounds and still keep his job?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So should a pharmacist working for a hospital that dispenses the medication be able to refuse to do so on moral grounds and still keep his job?

Public or private hospital?

A private Catholic hospital might not give out contraceptives or prescribe them a public hospital might.


They in this case are employees and must do what they are tasked by thier superiors/.

 

[jallman]

Public or private hospital?

A private Catholic hospital might not give out contraceptives or prescribe them a public hospital might.


They in this case are employees and must do what they are tasked by thier superiors/.

That's exactly how I feel about it. It is along the same lines as the Muslim cab driver who won't let a seeing eye dog in his car. Your religious views are trumped by the employers right to do business as he sees fit once you punch that clock.

 

[talloulou]

I don't really get all the hoopla over this one way or the other. Hell do you even need a prescription for the MAP anymore? I know you don't in some states. Here, where I live, we had these goofs protesting this Thriftway food store because they refused to carry the MAP. I couldn't understand for the freaking life of me what the god damn fuss was about. There are about 50+ other stores that do carry the damn things all in like a 5-10 mile radius and I live in a pretty small town.

I suppose there are some "out there" places deep in the mountains of VA where some redneck is still banging on a banjo and there's not a Rite Aid to be found.

After some thoughts on the matter I don't think they should be able to have some moral policy that allows them to berate a woman coming in looking for birth control. That's just ****ing ridiculous. I think there should be certain medications that one must have on hand to be considered a genuine pharmacy. Birth control should be one of those medications. All kinds of businesses are regulated. I'm sure pharmacies are no exception and I imagine there are requirements of licensing. So just make a list of the basics that must be on hand at all times in order for the pharmacy to be considered a pharmacy. It's not worth it for that poor hick girl who lives in some God forsaken hellhole in the middle of nowhere where's there's like one pharmacy who doesn't sell the crap on the grounds of moral superiority. (I'm not sure this place even exists but a bunch of screaming banshees insist it does so what do I know. )

 

[talloulou]

Public or private hospital?

A private Catholic hospital might not give out contraceptives or prescribe them a public hospital might.


They in this case are employees and must do what they are tasked by thier superiors/.

Actually many states require hospitals to give out the MAP particularly to rape victims regardless of whether it is a private or public hospital. Catholic hospitals are not immune to the law in states where it's applicable and most of them simply give it out. All states should have similar laws because unlike pharmacies which tend to be all over the place there are in fact many places where there is one hospital only in the general area and if you get raped and the Dr. there refuses to give you the pill that's flat out unacceptable.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Actually many states require hospitals to give out the MAP particularly to rape victims regardless of whether it is a private or public hospital. Catholic hospitals are not immune to the law in states where it's applicable and most of them simply give it out. All states should have similar laws because unlike pharmacies which tend to be all over the place there are in fact many places where there is one hospital only in the general area and if you get raped and the Dr. there refuses to give you the pill that's flat out unacceptable.

I can agree with that.

 

[Ikari]

I agree that people should be allowed access to contraceptives without govenrment intervention...but a pharmacy is not part of the government, it's a private business. It the owner of that business doesn't want to sell them, they don't have to. Now if a pharmacist works for a company that does sell it and personally doesn't want to and doesn't, then a complaint can be registered with the business and the owner can take the action they feel is appropriate. It sounds to me that the bill was the opposite of what it stated, that they felt that they should be allowed access to contraceptives and if a private business doesn't wish to sell it, the government should get involved and force the company to sell the product.

 

[talloulou]

I agree that people should be allowed access to contraceptives without govenrment intervention...but a pharmacy is not part of the government, it's a private business. It the owner of that business doesn't want to sell them, they don't have to. Now if a pharmacist works for a company that does sell it and personally doesn't want to and doesn't, then a complaint can be registered with the business and the owner can take the action they feel is appropriate. It sounds to me that the bill was the opposite of what it stated, that they felt that they should be allowed access to contraceptives and if a private business doesn't wish to sell it, the government should get involved and force the company to sell the product.

Mostly I tend to think this is just a bunch of hoopla where people are raging political battles just for the sake of being a pain in each other's arses.

Really I've been blessed enough to never have lived in the middle of nowhere and so I don't really know how much a problem this is. What I do know is most of these battles seem to be waged in places that are not the middle of nowhere and its much to do about nothing. We have one major hospital in the area and it's a Catholic hospital. The Drs. there are not all Catholic drs. by any means but I believe the state requires the hospital to give out the MAP.

As for the whole pharmacy thing I think it's one of those things where I wouldn't have a problem with a bit of business regulation. If you're a licensed pharmacy than one would expect you sell pills, especially the commonly used pills. Birth control is commonly used. To not sell it and call yourself a pharmacy is just lame. Could you call yourself a bar and not sell alcohol? A gas station that doesn't sell gas? It's not as if a pharmacy is a place where people go to appeal to their tastes, their likes and dislikes ect. I don't think a pharmacy refusing to sell the pill is comparable to a restaurant refusing to sell meat. They're distinctly different. If you live in some bumble **** town that only has one pharmacy that pharmacy needs to provide the pill otherwise they're just screwing over women for the sake of screwing over women. The pill is a commonly written prescription. To not carry it and call yourself a pharmacy is rather lame. The MAP has a certain "window" of efficacy and it's just rather retarded and somewhat unimaginable that a woman somewhere might have to get in her car and play cat and mouse successfully finding the right pharmacy within an allotted time frame other wise game over, she loses. I have a real problem with that.

 

[OKgrannie]

I don't really get all the hoopla over this one way or the other. Hell do you even need a prescription for the MAP anymore? I know you don't in some states. Here, where I live, we had these goofs protesting this Thriftway food store because they refused to carry the MAP. I couldn't understand for the freaking life of me what the god damn fuss was about. There are about 50+ other stores that do carry the damn things all in like a 5-10 mile radius and I live in a pretty small town.

I suppose there are some "out there" places deep in the mountains of VA where some redneck is still banging on a banjo and there's not a Rite Aid to be found.

After some thoughts on the matter I don't think they should be able to have some moral policy that allows them to berate a woman coming in looking for birth control. That's just ****ing ridiculous. I think there should be certain medications that one must have on hand to be considered a genuine pharmacy. Birth control should be one of those medications. All kinds of businesses are regulated. I'm sure pharmacies are no exception and I imagine there are requirements of licensing. So just make a list of the basics that must be on hand at all times in order for the pharmacy to be considered a pharmacy. It's not worth it for that poor hick girl who lives in some God forsaken hellhole in the middle of nowhere where's there's like one pharmacy who doesn't sell the crap on the grounds of moral superiority. (I'm not sure this place even exists but a bunch of screaming banshees insist it does so what do I know. )

You don't live in a small town. The small town I live near has one pharmacy, it's twenty-five miles to the next town. Just because we live in a isolated area doesn't mean we are rednecks or hicks tho. And conversely, just because you live in a highly-populated area doesn't mean you are superior in any way.

 

[tecoyah]

This issue has always confused me. If the population fighting to lower abortion rates actually wanted to accomplish the goal, they would be handing out BC on every street corner. If the actual reason for supporting anti-access legislation is to make people have babies (or abortions) one would think the Pro-Life crowd would not condone this movement....yet the very people who want to allow restrictions on BC, are the ones who biatch about abortion.

Unless these people are anti intercourse:


It makes no sense at all.

 

[talloulou]

You don't live in a small town. The small town I live near has one pharmacy, it's twenty-five miles to the next town. Just because we live in a isolated area doesn't mean we are rednecks or hicks tho. And conversely, just because you live in a highly-populated area doesn't mean you are superior in any way.

Point taken.

You know here they also have laws about pseudoephedrine where the government requires stores that sell products containing this drug to keep logs and ascertain that people aren't buying these drugs in bulk to make it harder to set up meth making shops. If the government can do that then surely then can force bumble**** pharmacies to sell the pill.

 

[Jerry]

So should a pharmacist working for a hospital that dispenses the medication be able to refuse to do so on moral grounds and still keep his job?

Assuming no other agreements or laws exist between a private pharmacy and the hospital it’s located in, or the owner of the private pharmacy and her employees, which require the issuance of such medication, yes, said pharmacist should be able to refuse the service and keep their job.

Since the pharmacist is liable for the drugs they dispense, they should retain the right to refuse service with or without reason for any prescription.

If someone walks into Walgreens with a BC prescription and is refused, they can go to Wall-Mart or Safeway or a Super Target or....

 

[talloulou]

Assuming no other agreements or laws exist between a private pharmacy and the hospital it’s located in, or the owner of the private pharmacy and her employees, which require the issuance of such medication, yes, said pharmacist should be able to refuse the service and keep their job.

Since the pharmacist is liable for the drugs they dispense, they should retain the right to refuse service with or without reason for any prescription.

If someone walks into Walgreens with a BC prescription and is refused, they can go to Wall-Mart or Safeway or a Super Target or....

Except when they can't.

Certain jobs don't and shouldn't come with a right to "refuse service" on moral grounds. I would think most jobs in the medical profession would fall into that category.

 

[jallman]

Assuming no other agreements or laws exist between a private pharmacy and the hospital it’s located in, or the owner of the private pharmacy and her employees, which require the issuance of such medication, yes, said pharmacist should be able to refuse the service and keep their job.

Since the pharmacist is liable for the drugs they dispense, they should retain the right to refuse service with or without reason for any prescription.

If someone walks into Walgreens with a BC prescription and is refused, they can go to Wall-Mart or Safeway or a Super Target or....

Why can't the pharmacist go work for Fundie Meds Rx if he doesn't like the policies of the company he works for?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Except when they can't.

Certain jobs don't and shouldn't come with a right to "refuse service" on moral grounds. I would think most jobs in the medical profession would fall into that category.

You are not suggesting we force doctors who object to, perform abortions are you?

 

[jallman]

You are not suggesting we force doctors who object to, perform abortions are you?

No, I am suggesting that doctors who don't want to perform abortions not seek employment at organizations that do perform abortions.

 

[Jerry]

This issue has always confused me. If the population fighting to lower abortion rates actually wanted to accomplish the goal, they would be handing out BC on every street corner. If the actual reason for supporting anti-access legislation is to make people have babies (or abortions) one would think the Pro-Life crowd would not condone this movement....yet the very people who want to allow restrictions on BC, are the ones who biatch about abortion.

Unless these people are anti intercourse:


It makes no sense at all.

The BC causes an abortion. That's the consistency.

It's not where conception is being prevented, it's where conception has occurred and will now be terminated, is where the controversy is.

 

[jallman]

The BC causes an abortion. That's the consistency.

It's not where conception is being prevented, it's where conception has occurred and will now be terminated, is where the controversy is.

It's splitting hairs to try and justify a patriarchal, misogynistic approach to women who claim sexual independence and identity.

 

[talloulou]

Firemen don't get to morally discriminate when it comes to whether they feel like saving a house or a person. Drs. aren't allowed to morally discriminate either.

And when it comes to pharmacists their job is about filling prescriptions and not about deciding whether a prescription fits into their moral compass or not.

 

[Jerry]

No, I am suggesting that doctors who don't want to perform abortions not seek employment at organizations that do perform abortions.

A Dr. should retain the right to refuse service with or with out reason.

If you argue that a woman should not be forced to gestate against her will then you must also argue that a Dr. should not be forced to abort against her will. In both cases, you are either forcing someone to do something, or you are letting them make their own choice.