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

That does seem to be the most intuitive answer, at first glance. However, I believe that a pharmacist is required to carry and sell all FDA-approved drugs in order to keep their license, whereas a CVS, for example, is not required to keep everything on its shelves. The short of that is that women might very possibly have a harder time as a result of something like Plan B being sold over the counter than through the pharmacist.

They would have more places they could buy the product over all. Yes, allowing freedom creates a situation where services might not be available easily, but that isn't terribly likely in most places or cases.

Also, why do we consider that acceptable behavior by the state? For a state to say, carry my product or you will lose your business shouldn't be something we permit.

 

[Cardinal]

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

They would have more places they could buy the product over all. Yes, allowing freedom creates a situation where services might not be available easily, but that isn't terribly likely in most places or cases.

If I were a woman I wouldn't want to have to rely on what is "likely." As an Inuit, I wouldn't be satisfied that it would be "very unlikely" that private medical institutions would discriminate against treating me because of my Inuit customs. I would want that probability reduced to zero knowing that a hospital absolutely could not discriminate against me.

 

[Henrin]

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

If I were a woman I wouldn't want to have to rely on what is "likely." As an Inuit, I wouldn't be satisfied that it would be "very unlikely" that private medical institutions would discriminate against treating me because of my Inuit customs. I would want that probability reduced to zero knowing that a hospital absolutely could not discriminate against me.

As a woman I would want people to have the freedom to decide on their own what they want to sell me. I would feel like a jerk if I was buying something from someone that I knew didn't want to sell it to me.

 

[Cardinal]

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

As a woman I would want people to have the freedom to decide on their own what they want to sell me. I would feel like a jerk if I was buying something from someone that I knew didn't want to sell it to me.

The notion that you are personally capable of putting yourself in a woman's shoes is laughable in the extreme.

 

[AGENT J]

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

That does seem to be the most intuitive answer, at first glance. However, I believe that a pharmacist is required to carry and sell all FDA-approved drugs in order to keep their license, whereas a CVS, for example, is not required to keep everything on its shelves. The short of that is that women might very possibly have a harder time as a result of something like Plan B being sold over the counter than through the pharmacist.

That would be a very valid concern thats why most people simply see this for what it is. Its people trying to force their morality on others.
Regardless of whether it is OTC (and if it fits the criteria it should be) I would want it regulated either way for a place calling itself a pharmacy, it's simply the only way to be equal, fair and safe. Also I could be wrong about this but I thought I remembered reading that there are already regulations in place for OTC things that have to be carried.

 

[Henrin]

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

The notion that you are personally capable of putting yourself in a woman's shoes is laughable in the extreme.

So if I was a woman I would be all for forcing people to serve me? That seems unlikely.

 

[Henrin]

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

That would be a very valid concern thats why most people simply see this for what it is. Its people trying to force their morality on others.
Regardless of whether it is OTC (and if it fits the criteria it should be) I would want it regulated either way for a place calling itself a pharmacy, it's simply the only way to be equal, fair and safe. Also I could be wrong about this but I thought I remembered reading that there are already regulations in place for OTC things that have to be carried.

Because you're not for forcing your morality on them.

It's fun how people that desire to use the state to force people to do as they want are insulting other people on their desire to force their morality on others. Statists are a hypocritical bunch.

 

[AGENT J]

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

So if I was a woman I would be all for forcing people to serve me? That seems unlikely.

LOL still trying that lie huh? there is no force and this wouldn't force people to serve you disagree show the facts the prove otherwise?
any bets a dodge is coming or a deflection question? opcorn2:

 

[Cardinal]

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

That would be a very valid concern thats why most people simply see this for what it is. Its people trying to force their morality on others.
Regardless of whether it is OTC (and if it fits the criteria it should be) I would want it regulated either way for a place calling itself a pharmacy, it's simply the only way to be equal, fair and safe. Also I could be wrong about this but I thought I remembered reading that there are already regulations in place for OTC things that have to be carried.

I'm not very knowledgable on that topic and will defer to someone with real life experience.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Because you're not for forcing your morality on them.

Correct i am not, do you even no my morality? nope, you dont because i havent presented here nor do i want it forced on anybody . . . . HAHAHAHAHAA another retarded, failed, lie and strawmen of yours totally destroyed!!!!! :laughat:
thanks for playing!

 

[Henrin]

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

LOL still trying that lie huh? there is no force and this wouldn't force people to serve you disagree show the facts the prove otherwise?
any bets a dodge is coming or a deflection question? opcorn2:

And yet you desire to force people to carry the products you want and sell them to people.

How is that hypocritical argument working for you now?

 

[Cardinal]

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

So if I was a woman I would be all for forcing people to serve me? That seems unlikely.

I'm saying that you starting a sentence with "If I was a woman" would be as plausible as me saying "If I were Brahman, the Supreme Beings of the Hindu faith." In other words, you and I are equally well equipped to entertaining our respective hypotheticals.

 

[AGENT J]

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

I'm not very knowledgable on that topic and will defer to someone with real life experience.

yeah me neither on those rules, id have to look it up . . .
for example though I believe there are rules for things like "rescue inhalers". There are prescription ones and OTC ones and I believe OTC ones have to be carried by pharmacies because the nature of the medication/medical assistance they give. But again Im speculating off of what I THINK i remember reading i could be 100% wrong

 

[Taylor]

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

The rule did not force all pharmacies to carry these drugs, just those that had moral or ethical issues.

That is an odd interpretation. The rule requires ALL pharmacies to carry and dispense legally prescribed drugs regardless of moral or ethical views of the owner or the individual pharmacists.

If two pharmacies had refused to carry a drug, the first for "moral or ethical views" and the second because it created a huge problem with break-ins and theft, this rule targets only the first pharmacy and deems the reasoning of the second "valid."

The proposed rule was amended many times in consultation with industry professionals and experts over the course of a year so I don't know how accurate your claim is regarding the Governor's influence over the final verbiage. What I do know is for example, a restaurant can neither refuse to serve people on the basis of race outright or claim that it doesn't have any staff willing to serve people of a particular race and merely refer them to some other business. I don't see the problem extending the principles behind that law to other professions and businesses - in fact I encourage it.

That's a public accommodations law that has already been extended. This is different. We're not talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve black people, we're talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve spaghetti.

 

[AGENT J]

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

1.) And yet you desire to force people to carry the products you want and sell them to people.
2.)How is that hypocritical argument working for you now?

1.) BOOM!!!! nailed it, a dodge AND a deflection question I Love it, so predictable.
Nothing I want is force nor can you present one fact making it force.
2.) perfect since i made no hypocritical argument
your post fails and gets destroyed again, this is awesome! LMAO

 

[Cardinal]

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

If two pharmacies had refused to carry a drug, the first for "moral or ethical views" and the second because it created a huge problem with break-ins and theft, this rule targets only the first pharmacy and deems the reasoning of the second "valid."


That's a public accommodations law that has already been extended. This is different. We're not talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve black people, we're talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve spaghetti.

Medical treatment isn't spaghetti. I can see how the two might seem easily confused for each other, though.

 

[Henrin]

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

1.) BOOM!!!! nailed it, a dodge AND a deflection question I Love it, so predictable.
Nothing I want is force nor can you present one fact making it force.
2.) perfect since i made no hypocritical argument
your post fails and gets destroyed again, this is awesome! LMAO

Yes. yes. you believe laws are cuddles and rainbows and no one is forcing anything on anyone. How wonderfully naive.

 

[Henrin]

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

Medical treatment isn't spaghetti. I can see how the two might seem easily confused for each other, though.

They are however both services. :shrug:

 

[Napoleon]

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

If two pharmacies had refused to carry a drug, the first for "moral or ethical views" and the second because it created a huge problem with break-ins and theft, this rule targets only the first pharmacy and deems the reasoning of the second "valid."

The rule doesn't single out any particular drug and targets no one - it applies to all pharmacies and of course our rules and laws are enforced when broken.

That's a public accommodations law that has already been extended. This is different. We're not talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve black people, we're talking about whether we should make Taco Bell serve spaghetti.

The principles are the same. You cannot deny goods or services because of your personal prejudices. You cannot operate a pharmacy if you refuse to stock and dispense the required medicines. Likewise, a Taco Bell franchise cannot continue to use the brand if it replaces all of its menu items with variations of spaghetti because the owner doesn't like tacos.

 

[Cardinal]

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

They are however both services. :shrug:

Okay. Be sure to leave the one hospital in your home town, population 6000, a snarky Yelp review.

 

[Henrin]

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

Okay. Be sure to leave the one hospital in your home town, population 6000, a snarky Yelp review.

Are you seriously comparing this to going to the hospital? Dishonest much?

 

[Taylor]

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

Medical treatment isn't spaghetti. I can see how the two might seem easily confused for each other, though.

That depends on how good the spaghetti is.

 

[AGENT J]

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

Yes. yes. you believe laws are cuddles and rainbows and no one is forcing anything on anyone. How wonderfully naive.

LMAO i love how the more your posts totally get their asses handed to them you fun further and faster each time.
Provide proof that there is force like you claimed? you cant
Tell me what my morality is that you claim im forcing on others? you cant
One again everything you have brought to the table tonight has been easily destroyed because the one problem your posts always have. Theres no facts in them and when asked to provide anything that support your retarded lies . . .you simply cant :laughat:
now if you will please provide ONE fact that supports your failed and destroyed claims, we are waiting!!! thanks!!!
opcorn2:

 

[Cardinal]

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

Are you seriously comparing this to going to the hospital? Dishonest much?

Yes, I am. And the fact that you don't see the reason for this makes me wonder if you're even of this dimension, let alone this planet.

 

[Henrin]

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

LMAO i love how the more your posts totally get their asses handed to them you fun further and faster each time.
Provide proof that there is force like you claimed? you cant
Tell me what my morality is that you claim im forcing on others? you cant
One again everything you have brought to the table tonight has been easily destroyed because the one problem your posts always have. Theres no facts in them and when asked to provide anything that support your retarded lies . . .you simply cant :laughat:
now if you will please provide ONE fact that supports your failed and destroyed claims, we are waiting!!! thanks!!!
;popcorn2:

I don't need to prove anything. You support this law and this law is entirely built around people forcing their morality on others. Stop being whiny about your own beliefs and just admit them for what they are.

Also, you should really stop referring to yourself as "we". It's kind of goofy.