Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

HughFreakingDillon

jnimhaoileoin said:

And about bloody time we joined the 21st century

just as the US tries to rejoin the 20th. 

Bentleyspop

HughFreakingDillon said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

And about bloody time we joined the 21st century

just as the US tries to rejoin the 20th. 

Like I said earlier.....

Ireland moving forward
U.S. moving backwards

Bentleyspop

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

Bentleyspop

Keep it....

Legal
Safe
Affordable
Available on demand

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

Geezuz

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?

If the law allows for it then it would be tough to prove negligence.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?

If the law allows for it then it would be tough to prove negligence.

I'm talking a civil suit though. Could be possible. If I were in that situation, I'd certainly try. I think I would have a decent case, especially if I were denied at multiple pharmacies. Civil suit, or just take it right up to the Supreme Court.... although now that would likely be pointless.

OnWis97

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I think I also saw that he's supposed to get another pharmacist if there is one on site.  There were two but he did not do it.

This is going to continue under the guise of "religious liberty."  The SCOTUS is going to be tilted this way until everyone on this board is dead.

PJ_Soul

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I think I also saw that he's supposed to get another pharmacist if there is one on site.  There were two but he did not do it.

This is going to continue under the guise of "religious liberty."  The SCOTUS is going to be tilted this way until everyone on this board is dead.

If that's true, then she really should sue.

OnWis97

One great way to reduce the number of abortions is to make birth control and education plentiful and affordable.  But a sizeable number of pro-birth folks also want to send the message that we should never have sex unless we specifically want to create life.  And they also seem to think that's a realistic outcome (even though they tend to be found fornicating with random people in random places).

PJ_Soul

OnWis97 said:

One great way to reduce the number of abortions is to make birth control and education plentiful and affordable.  But a sizeable number of pro-birth folks also want to send the message that we should never have sex unless we specifically want to create life.  And they also seem to think that's a realistic outcome (even though they tend to be found fornicating with random people in random places).

I imagine pro-lifers access abortions too, if it serves their purposes.. I.e. the righteous pro-life parents of a teenaged girl who gets knocked up, which of course will shame the family ... Quick, get in the car Sally, we're taking you to the doctor.

dankind

PJ_Soul said:

OnWis97 said:

One great way to reduce the number of abortions is to make birth control and education plentiful and affordable.  But a sizeable number of pro-birth folks also want to send the message that we should never have sex unless we specifically want to create life.  And they also seem to think that's a realistic outcome (even though they tend to be found fornicating with random people in random places).

I imagine pro-lifers access abortions too, if it serves their purposes.. I.e. the righteous pro-life parents of a teenaged girl who gets knocked up, which of course will shame the family ... Quick, get in the car Sally, we're taking you to the doctor.

Sally? She's been giving that stuff out to all them graffiti guys.

fife

I say keep it legal, how are those pro-life politicians going to get rid of those "babies" with their mistress.

but in all seriousness, abortion should be completely legal and easily accessible to everyone.   

Bentleyspop

Good. ....

https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1012710586117844992?s=19

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?

They just go somewhere else to fill it. It’s not like one pharmacy denies it and they bam anyone else from doing it. Would just be an inconvenience. An unnecessary one I agree. 

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

OnWis97 said:

One great way to reduce the number of abortions is to make birth control and education plentiful and affordable.  But a sizeable number of pro-birth folks also want to send the message that we should never have sex unless we specifically want to create life.  And they also seem to think that's a realistic outcome (even though they tend to be found fornicating with random people in random places).

I imagine pro-lifers access abortions too, if it serves their purposes.. I.e. the righteous pro-life parents of a teenaged girl who gets knocked up, which of course will shame the family ... Quick, get in the car Sally, we're taking you to the doctor.

I imagine that does happen. But I’m guessing more common to keep it quiet, get a shotgun wedding fast or fake story is more common. I unfortunately know people and families who have done that, claimed rape when it wasn’t, kept it a secret or arranged a marriage fast then tell everyone it was a honeymoon baby that came 5 weeks early.
And there’s also lots of people who fit that stereotype but embrace the pregnancy and do everything they can to help their daughter. I’ve seen all of them, even those who’ve admitted having an abortion later.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Not
His
Place.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1011218286309240832?s=19

No.

No it's not. His license should be revoked.

I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.
I was shocked and think that law is dumb. 

I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?

They just go somewhere else to fill it. It’s not like one pharmacy denies it and they bam anyone else from doing it. Would just be an inconvenience. An unnecessary one I agree. 

And depending on the woman, how freaked she is, or nervous or whatever, especially if we're talking about very young women, one denial (and brow beating) from her local pharmacist could be enough to make her scared to try again. I think it's disgusting that it's legal for a pharmacist to deny any customer any item that's legal to sell to them. I think it is SO dangerous to allow pharmacists to apply their personal morals in their jobs at all.