SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contra[W;261]

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Yes you did



There you go again

I'm not telling them what to do, but just saying that I'm opposed to the state supporting them.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

What? Social contract? I never signed that.



You mean the right to not be sold a product that kills you? Ok, but I'm not sure how that applies to getting business to provide services against their will.



Yeah, what about that? I can't find it.

When it comes to medicine, YOU BET the government is involved. If the law saws that contraception is medically accessible to all, then pharmacists denying access based on their personal beliefs are violating medical law.

The whole private vs. public argument won't work here. The government has been involved in medical law since the AMA was founded.

If you don't like it then don't become a pharmacist :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

When it comes to medicine, YOU BET the government is involved. If the law saws that contraception is medically accessible to all, then pharmacists denying access based on their personal beliefs are violating medical law.

The whole private vs. public argument won't work here. The government has been involved in medical law since the AMA was founded.

If you don't like it then don't become a pharmacist :shrug:

Why not just end the government mandated monopoly given to pharmacists and doctors? That would open up access a hell of a lot better than this. It would also not require people being forced into labor or act like somehow people have a right to certain services.

Also, your argument is one huge fallacy. You might want to try to avoid doing that.

Oh, and the AMA can kiss my ass. They're dead to me.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why not just end the government mandated monopoly given to pharmacists and doctors? That would open up access a hell of a lot better than this. It would also not require people being forced into labor or act like somehow people have a right to certain services.

There is no force, that fact has been factually proven and then reinforced by you inability to provide ONE fact to support your false claim that there is.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

There is no force, that fact has been factually proven and then reinforced by you inability to provide ONE fact to support your false claim that there is.

I don't think you're capable of proving anything. I do however know that you can't be right until you read the damn law. You might want to try doing that.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

1.)I don't think you're capable of proving anything.
2.) I do however know that you can't be right until you read the damn law. You might want to try doing that.

1.) its YOU that needs to prove your lie, so far you haven't
2.) lol sorry its YOUR job to support YOUR lie. You made the claim present the facts that support it . . oh thats right. . you cant!!! LMAO

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

1.) its YOU that needs to prove your lie, so far you haven't
2.) lol sorry its YOUR job to support YOUR lie. You made the claim present the facts that support it . . oh thats right. . you cant!!! LMAO

You do realize that several people have admitted force is present, right? You're literally the only one that says it's not.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Then don't expect the benefits/profits gained from operating under social contract-- society.

Someone is getting benefits and profits from a make believe contract and it's not me? That's bullcrap! I deserve benefits and profits from make believe things too!

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

You do realize that several people have admitted force is present, right? You're literally the only one that says it's not.

You realize you are still dodging my request, right? You literally haven't provided one fact that support your claim, not one.
Let us know when you can, thanks! LMAO

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

You realize you are still dodging my request, right? You literally haven't provided one fact that support your claim, not one.
Let us know when you can, thanks! LMAO

Is that something I'm obligated to do? Are you going to get the government to force me to provide you that service and then declare that no force is present? lol

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Is that something I'm obligated to do? Are you going to get the government to force me to provide you that service and then declare that no force is present? lol

Is there somethign we are obligated to do for you to provide one fact that supports your retard lie? Are you going to claim the government is forcing you from presenting one single fact that supports your proven wrong claims? LOL

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Is there somethign we are obligated to do for you to provide one fact that supports your retard lie? Are you going to claim the government is forcing you from presenting one single fact that supports your proven wrong claims? LOL

What lie? That a law actually has force behind it? Why is that some kind of alien concept to you that needs proven?

 

[Northern Light]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why not just end the government mandated monopoly given to pharmacists and doctors? That would open up access a hell of a lot better than this. It would also not require people being forced into labor or act like somehow people have a right to certain services.

Also, your argument is one huge fallacy. You might want to try to avoid doing that.

Oh, and the AMA can kiss my ass. They're dead to me.

I have zero interest in opening up pharmaceuticals to whoever wants them, just because you want to give pharmacists the ability to refuse medical services based on non-scientific grounds, all because you have a moral axe to grind with sluts. Sorry kiddo, you can't just move the goal posts and then pretend everyone is wrong. That's not how jurisprudence works, or reality.

The AMA sure can kiss your ass but they're not going away so you might as well deal with it.

If a pharmacist won't do their job because of religious beliefs then they shouldn't be in that profession. AFAIK most medical schools will not accept people who outwardly state they believe in the Bible, or would place their spiritual beliefs ahead of patient welfare.

There are plenty of non-scientific careers that a religious person could partake in. Modern medicine is not one of them.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

I have zero interest in opening up pharmaceuticals to whoever wants them, just because you want to give pharmacists the ability to refuse medical services based on non-scientific grounds, all because you have a moral axe to grind with sluts. Sorry kiddo, you can't just move the goal posts and then pretend everyone is wrong. That's not how jurisprudence works, or reality.

The AMA sure can kiss your ass but they're not going away so you might as well deal with it.

If a pharmacist won't do their job because of religious beliefs then they shouldn't be in that profession. AFAIK most medical schools will not accept people who outwardly state they believe in the Bible, or would place their spiritual beliefs ahead of patient welfare.

There are plenty of non-scientific careers that a religious person could partake in. Modern medicine is not one of them.

Where in the hell did I mention sluts? Where did you even that from? My objection deals with forced labor and the rights of business to provide the services they find desirable to provide. I don't find your claim to medical services from unwilling members of society convincing specially when dealing something like this.

Also, until the AMA stops endorsing male circumcision, yes, they can kiss my ass. I don't give a flying **** what a bunch of people that defend involuntary mutilation of healthy body parts think about ****. They can say the sky is blue and I will tell them to go **** themselves. They can say water is wet and I will respond by telling them to go jump off a cliff. I don't care what those inhumane sexist bastards think. Maybe when they stop endorsing violating the rights of men I will care, but until then they can kiss my ass and burn alive. Do you see now how little I care what they think? Good, so why don't you stop leaning on them for support.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

When in the hell did I mention sluts? Where did you even that from?

From the many other threads you've participated in on these boards. You don't think anything you say occurs in isolation, do you? But anyway... this is beside the point.

My objection deals with forced labor and the rights of business to provide the services they find desirable to provide. I don't find your claim to medical services from unwilling members of society convincing specially when dealing something like this.

Your forced labor angle is really weak. If a person goes into a hospital for treatment, and assuming they have insurance, they can expect to have access to the full range of medical diagnostics and treatments available at that hospital, based on empirical evidence. If diagnostics or treatments were to be individually denied at the personal whims of doctors, according to some deluded free market-labor principle, that would be medical malpractice.

There's no medically justifiable reason to blanket refuse emergency contraception to women who ask for it. None at all. If there are individually assessed reasons for it, then I could see that... but just because you don't believe in it? That's 100% wrong. If you're a medical practitioner, it has nothing to do with whether or not you "believe" in it, but what the evidence and your training tells you.

Same with any other essential service.

Also, until the AMA stops endorsing male circumcision, yes, they can kiss my ass. I don't give a flying **** what a bunch of people that defend involuntary mutilation of healthy body parts think about ****. They can say the sky and is blue and I will tell them to go **** themselves. They can say water is wet and I will respond by telling them to go jump off a cliff. I don't care what those inhumane sexist bastards think. Maybe when they stop endorsing violating the rights of men I will care, but until then they can kiss my ass and burn alive.

Non-sequitur.

Changing the topic doesn't make your opinion of the original topic any less incorrect. :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

From the many other threads you've participated in on these boards. You don't think anything you say occurs in isolation, do you? But anyway... this is beside the point.

When did I say anything about punishing sluts in any thread?

Your forced labor angle is really weak. If a person goes into a hospital for treatment, and assuming they have insurance, they can expect to have access to the full range of medical diagnostics and treatments available at that hospital, based on empirical evidence. If diagnostics or treatments were to be individually denied at the personal whims of doctors, according to some deluded free market-labor principle, that would be medical malpractice.

Is the doctors in control over their own labor? Does the patient have claim to their doctors body?

There's no medically justifiable reason to blanket refuse emergency contraception to women who ask for it. None at all. If there are individually assessed reasons for it, then I could see that... but just because you don't believe in it? That's 100% wrong. If you're a medical practitioner, it has nothing to do with whether or not you "believe" in it, but what the evidence and your training tells you.

There is no reason to force the issue either. They can go somewhere else to get it. The suggestion I offered earlier would in fact open up more choices to do that. :shrug:

Same with any other essential service.

This is not an essential service and even if it was the provider would still own their own labor.

Non-sequitur.

Changing the topic doesn't make your opinion of the original topic any less incorrect. :shrug:

Why should I respect their opinion? Give me one reason that I can't easily debunk by proving how they are wrong and sexist on MGM. Want to try?

 

[prometeus]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

A cop is comparable to a privately employed citizen how?

Why does a cop need to give up his or her beliefs but not a pharmacist? Do they fall under different rules by God?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

What lie? That a law actually has force behind it? Why is that some kind of alien concept to you that needs proven?

Hey look more deflections. stramen and goalpost moving!!! LMAO FAIL
Destroying your lies is so much fun. Please let us know when you cant present ONE fact that supports your claims, Thanks!!!

 

[Taylor]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

So, you are or are not OK with the SC allowing this regulation to stand, despite claims it violates the 1st Amendment?

I don't know why they refused to take the case, so can't really comment on their reasoning there. However, the regulation itself seems to be a fix in need of problem. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the rule, and am therefore inclined to believe its motivations have much more to do with politics than with public health.

 

[prometeus]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

What is so shocking? Your example made you an employee of wal-mart, so your refusal of service issues are theirs to deal with.

What a load of hypocritical crap. You would be bitching an moaning that the moron was being discriminated and Walmart was trying to impose forced labor. Can you ever post something honest and rational?

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

What a load of hypocritical crap. You would be bitching an moaning that the moron was being discriminated and Walmart was trying to impose forced labor. Can you ever post something honest and rational?

No, I would not. A employee has agreed to provide his labor and follow the instructions of his employer.

 

[Henrin]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Why does a cop need to give up his or her beliefs but not a pharmacist? Do they fall under different rules by God?

A citizen working or running a business in the private sector is different than someone working for the state. The state is tasked and exists to serve the people, while a business exists to meet the desires of the business owner/s.

 

[prometeus]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

Individual liberty and the First Amendment are coming under growing assault in this country.

Liberty has never mean imposing your ignorance on others, nor was the First ever intended to protect such vile behavior in the name of faith or religion.

It's deeply unfortunate.

Actually, thank God, as nothing ever happens without His will and approval.

 

[prometeus]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

A citizen working or running a business in the private sector is different than someone working for the state. The state is tasked and exists to serve the people, while a business exists to meet the desires of the business owner/s.

That is not what I asked. Why is one employee expected to forego faith and in what name, yet others are not. What is it was not a policeman but a volunteer ambulance worker who would refuse to save your life because they did not approve of you?

 

[prometeus]

Re: SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contracep

No, I would not. A employee has agreed to provide his labor and follow the instructions of his employer.

And the employer in thais case has agreed to be governed b y the laws of the state in order to obtain their license.