Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

jeffbr

PJ_Soul said:

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.

+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives. 

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives. 

I've asked this same thing of my brother (born again baptist/bio chemical engineer). his take, one that I've heard here and elsewhere, is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. 

imagine if cops were allowed to not provide their service based on morality. 

my2hands

Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good

Red State America 

Bentleyspop

https://twitter.com/PearlJam/status/1014278341904384000?s=19

stuckinline

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives. 

I've asked this same thing of my brother (born again baptist/bio chemical engineer). his take, one that I've heard here and elsewhere, is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. 

imagine if cops were allowed to not provide their service based on morality. 

Or firefighters....

Bentleyspop

Safe 
Legal
Inexpensive
Available on demand

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/1015949875974934529?s=19

H.Chinaski

We must have our choice!

Bentleyspop

https://twitter.com/TheDweck/status/1016540679122685952?s=19

Bentleyspop

Safe
Legal
Affordable 
Available on demand

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1016750400920276992?s=19

josevolution

my2hands said:

Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good

Red State America 

yes this can't be denied ....

flywallyfly

Let the liberals scrape all they want. 

mace1229

josevolution said:

my2hands said:

Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good

Red State America 

yes this can't be denied ....

Easily denied. Again these are generalizations made from extremes.
Women’s medical rights = bad ? Where does this come from, one single issue of abortion? And ignore the thousand other medical issues that everyone agrees on
Assault rifles = good ? While I will admit there are plenty who do want access to assault rifles, almost every poll I’ve seen indicates most republicans are for restrictions on these. So again a generic action from one extreme example.
Classy black president = bad? Color has nothing to do with it. He did a lot of good things, but things like Obamacare have clearly failed and people were lied to to get it passed. Let’s lets leave color out of it when referring to people who didn’t like him.
Orange President = good. Only when compared to other bad options we’ve had. Many, like myself are not happy with a lot that he’s done. But give me a better option next time

cincybearcat

I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.

OnWis97

cincybearcat said:

I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.

Sure it is.  Forget the pretty obvious notion that nothing like this would ever be done to men...(i.e., if men could have babies, they'd get to abort at will).

Forced birth is the ultimate in control over someone.  And the rationale as to why they're wrong is because they're a slut (shoulda kept your legs closed, enjoy the next nine months).  Men are literally forcing something upon women that they'll never have to do.

And this is going to apply to rape victims (particularly since it's almost impossible to convince a rapist at all, much less before the third trimester) and 13-year-old victims of rape and incest.  Why?  Because we care more about a fetus, which is nowhere near having hopes and dreams than we the person who's life it's going to impact.

And then when the baby is born?  Whatever.

my2hands

cincybearcat said:

I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.

I'm pretty sure the decision on Roe v Wade is boiled down in a nutshell to a persons right to medical privacy. 

And thankfully, yes, the majority of the country agrees with that 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

cincybearcat said:

I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.

I find it amazing that in the 21st century... we still have people clinging to the idea that there is an omnipresent god that knows what 8 billion people are up to at any given moment and listens to millions of individual prayers at one time.

I find it further amazing that this coocoo belief is allowed to drive policies which affect human beings.

cincybearcat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

cincybearcat said:

I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.

I find it amazing that in the 21st century... we still have people clinging to the idea that there is an omnipresent god that knows what 8 billion people are up to at any given moment and listens to millions of individual prayers at one time.

I find it further amazing that this coocoo belief is allowed to drive policies which affect human beings.

I too find that 1st part pretty amazing.  Doesn’t drive my decision making 

Ledbetterman10

Here's a Supreme Court question.....

Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?

pjhawks

Ledbetterman10 said:

Here's a Supreme Court question.....

Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?

I made this point before.   It can't just be overturned based on judges personal feelings.  There has to be a legal precedent to change it and a case has to come before the court to be heard.   Most likely it will never be overturned on a national scale but will fall to each state to decide.  of course there are plenty of backasswards states that will make it mostly illegal.  don't get knocked up in the South ladies.

Ledbetterman10

pjhawks said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Here's a Supreme Court question.....

Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?

I made this point before.   It can't just be overturned based on judges personal feelings.  There has to be a legal precedent to change it and a case has to come before the court to be heard.   Most likely it will never be overturned on a national scale but will fall to each state to decide.  of course there are plenty of backasswards states that will make it mostly illegal.  don't get knocked up in the South ladies.

How would that process work? Whose decision would it be for it to be decided on by the states? Congress?