Roe v Wade

1910111214

Comments

  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    tbergs said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    I didn't know pharmacists could choose to not fill valid prescriptions. Sounds like this guy made sure she wasn't going to get the prescription filled there either way. But you know, it was divine intervention that caused the condom to break so I'm sure it was what god wanted for her. She was just too callous to accept the gift of another possible child. 
    Pharmacists do it a lot.  At one of what use to be only two pharmacies in my hometown they won’t even fill birth control.  
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 20,703
    tbergs said:
    In other news, Indiana nearly bans all abortions.

    Gift article.


    Take that, 10-year-old raped Ohioans!
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
    I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing.  This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medication 

    we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with.  I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues.  You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too.  Why even open that door? 

    Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills.  They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses .  Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,331
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
    I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing.  This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medication 

    we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with.  I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues.  You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too.  Why even open that door? 

    Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills.  They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses .  Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them 
    I’m totally going to get a job at a liquor store and then claim a religious reason I can’t sell alcohol.  Or, more realistically, can you imagine having a cart full of groceries being wrung up and the cashier saying “I am jewish and I can’t sell you this ham. You can take this to one of the other registers?”

    It’s really amazing that anyone can just not do part of their job and not get fired.  If you don’t feel you can distribute birth control then don’t work at the freaking pharmacy. Do people ever get fired for this? And would there be religious-right outrage?
    Post edited by OnWis97 on
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    OnWis97 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.
    I think there is a difference between being legitimately out of something and refusing.  This pharmacist is a local preacher so I don’t think there was much confusion in why she couldn’t get her medication 

    we have to do something as people will just find more and more ways to stop serving customers they disagree with.  I never understand why people sort of put up with it when it deals with reproductive issues.  You can make a religious argument for a lot of other things too.  Why even open that door? 

    Pharmacists aren’t doctors, they are just dispensing pills.  They are basically chemists and not even qualified to make medical judgments. In a lot of ways it’s like that county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses .  Doing your job doesn’t mean you need to be supportive of their position. It’s people inserting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them 
    I’m totally going to get a job at a liquor store and then claim a religious reason I can’t sell alcohol.  Or, more realistically, can you imagine having a cart full of groceries being wrung up and the cashier saying “I am jewish and I can’t sell you this ham. You can take this to one of the other registers?”

    It’s really amazing that anyone can just not do part of their job and not get fired.  If you don’t feel you can distribute birth control then don’t work at the freaking pharmacy. Do people ever get fired for this? And would there be religious-right outrage?
    It’s going to take a Christian scientist becoming a pharmacist to prove the point.  They don’t believe in medication at all, prayer heals you.

    when they get handed a prescription for anything and they hand you a prayer card in return and people start dying maybe people will get the point.

    fundamentally it’s no different.  It’s a religious exemption based your beliefs.  You can’t define religion as the line people are free not to cross, because there is no line then 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work.
    Correct. And my comment wasn’t about this specific case. It was about the logistical problems with creating a law about requiring a business to fulfill a prescription.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work.
    Correct. And my comment wasn’t about this specific case. It was about the logistical problems with creating a law about requiring a business to fulfill a prescription.
    In this particular case he refused and didn’t violate any law…. 3 years later she got a judgement based on emotional distress he caused.

    that was my point.  The fact he can refuse and not be out of compliance with the law is troubling 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,340
    edited August 7
    I understand that. I just don’t see creating a law requiring filling a prescription as a practical solution. I don’t see that from preventing this from happening again. So next time the pharmacists just tells the customer it’s out of stock instead of saying he doesn’t want to fill it. Or the pharmacy doesn’t carry it so they don’t have to deal with being connected to legal issues. Even in big cities there’s lots of meds that aren’t always on premise anyway.
    I don’t see it as very effective and there’s got to be better ways. Not just this case, but getting meds in general. My wife takes a specialty medication and if she forgets she’s running low sometimes takes 3 or 4 days to get it.Have better infrastructure for meds. There are thousands of things I can order from Amazon and have it delivered in a few hours. Now a rural town, maybe not so much. But there’s always trucks going in and out. I’m sure people smarter than me can figure out a better solution.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    I understand that. I just don’t see creating a law requiring filling a prescription as a practical solution. I don’t see that from preventing this from happening again. So next time the pharmacists just tells the customer it’s out of stock instead of saying he doesn’t want to fill it. Or the pharmacy doesn’t carry it so they don’t have to deal with being connected to legal issues. Even in big cities there’s lots of meds that aren’t always on premise anyway.
    I don’t see it as very effective and there’s got to be better ways. Not just this case, but getting meds in general. My wife takes a specialty medication and if she forgets she’s running low sometimes takes 3 or 4 days to get it.Have better infrastructure for meds. There are thousands of things I can order from Amazon and have it delivered in a few hours. Now a rural town, maybe not so much. But there’s always trucks going in and out. I’m sure people smarter than me can figure out a better solution.
    I don’t disagree.  I just think religious people are way to emboldened.  Supply is one hurdle people have to face, then they have a religious hurdle too. To me it’s different issues

    eliminating one barrier still eliminates a barrier.  Easier is to access should be the goal. 

    Usually these pharmacies or pharmacists have a history of this so they should be pretty easy to identify.  I’ve said it before but for at least 30 years a pharmacy in my hometown won’t fill birth control at all. Never have.  It’s unacceptable.  That’s the business position not the people working there as I’m sure they have had many different pharmacy employees in that time.  It’s not a secret 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 864
    edited August 7

    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    Post edited by cblock4life on
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 7
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    What’s crazy to me is Abortion, emergency   contraceptives, birth control are all one issue to these people.  You can’t reason with them.

    a rational person understands the pill vs a later term abortion aren’t remotely an equivalent.  If reducing abortions is really the goal, preventing an actual pregnancy from occurring in the first place should be an obvious thing everyone can agree on

    not with these people 

    it would be interesting to have a study about how many abortions happen because of difficulty in preventing that actual pregnancy from happening in the first place.  Would the pro-life crowd then be the murderers? Seems wrong to then blame the woman  and shame her 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 864
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    What’s crazy to me is Abortion, emergency   contraceptives, birth control are all one issue to these people.  You can’t reason with them.

    a rational person understands the pill vs a later term abortion aren’t remotely an equivalent.  If reducing abortions is really the goal, preventing an actual pregnancy from occurring in the first place should be an obvious thing everyone can agree on

    not with these people 

    it would be interesting to have a study about how many abortions happen because of difficulty in preventing that actual pregnancy from happening in the first place.  Would the pro-life crowd then be the murderers? Seems wrong to then blame the woman  and shame her 
    God forbid a woman obtain contraception because she enjoys sex!  

    All this bullshit is 100% due to the Supreme Court.  Time for the country to step up and demand a referendum on term limits/age limits.  
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    What’s crazy to me is Abortion, emergency   contraceptives, birth control are all one issue to these people.  You can’t reason with them.

    a rational person understands the pill vs a later term abortion aren’t remotely an equivalent.  If reducing abortions is really the goal, preventing an actual pregnancy from occurring in the first place should be an obvious thing everyone can agree on

    not with these people 

    it would be interesting to have a study about how many abortions happen because of difficulty in preventing that actual pregnancy from happening in the first place.  Would the pro-life crowd then be the murderers? Seems wrong to then blame the woman  and shame her 
    God forbid a woman obtain contraception because she enjoys sex!  

    All this bullshit is 100% due to the Supreme Court.  Time for the country to step up and demand a referendum on term limits/age limits.  

    All spot on!  And not just the Supreme Court bullshit, but also the bullshit beliefs drilled into the minds of millions of people in this country.  And that's sad because I honestly believe most people would not be so in favor of authoritarian rule and be so opposed to the rights of others- especially the rights of women to their own bodies women- except they have been poorly educated by shitty parenting and schooling, they never learned critical thinking, and they have been brainwashed and guilt tripped into believing religious dogma that is void of true loving, caring, and a sense of beauty and spirit.  Instead they embrace hated and oppression.  (Also true of many other societies, of course.) 
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,376
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    What’s crazy to me is Abortion, emergency   contraceptives, birth control are all one issue to these people.  You can’t reason with them.

    a rational person understands the pill vs a later term abortion aren’t remotely an equivalent.  If reducing abortions is really the goal, preventing an actual pregnancy from occurring in the first place should be an obvious thing everyone can agree on

    not with these people 

    it would be interesting to have a study about how many abortions happen because of difficulty in preventing that actual pregnancy from happening in the first place.  Would the pro-life crowd then be the murderers? Seems wrong to then blame the woman  and shame her 
    God forbid a woman obtain contraception because she enjoys sex!  

    All this bullshit is 100% due to the Supreme Court.  Time for the country to step up and demand a referendum on term limits/age limits.  
    this just highlights, yet again, how illogical the religious train of thought is. animals have sex because of instinct. humans were "given" free will by their god, which means that god had to make sex enjoyable for us (and apparently, dolphins) to engage in it to make more minions for him. but it's somehow sinful to engage in the act merely for enjoyment purposes. 

    it's all so absurd. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    How would you enforce a law like that? I’ve had pharmacies out of stock and send me to another store. Some specialty meds aren’t even carried and have to be special ordered. I would imagine a pharmacy that serves a town of a few hundred has a very limited stock, otherwise many of the meds would expire before anyone needed them.
    so when a pharmacist says he can’t fill it, does he have to prove its not in store? I don’t really know how a pharmacy works and how long or often they get new inventory and deliveries or get their supplies. But seems like too many logistical problems to create a law like that.
    You should be able to ask the pharmacist before hiring them/ make it part of their condition of employment 

    if there isn’t another option in town their religious rights shouldn’t be more important than everyone else in town/ or a pharmacy needs to have a backup on call 24 hours a day to serve these customers 

    this guy refused to fill it.  It’s not like they were out of stock in a traditional sense.  They may be out of stock because they refuse to order it in the first place though.  Seems as though there was a 2nd pharmacist working the next day who may or may not have filled it but that medication has a timeframe you need to take it within so that didn’t help the situation 

    to me it’s two separate issues.
    1. I don’t agree with pharmacists not doing their job and 
    2. if they are allowed to refuse to do their job, they shouldn’t be able to do it in a one pharmacy town


    imagine if I had a religious issue with diabetes medication and refused to serve diabetic patients in a one pharmacy town.  I could say some (not all diabetes) is caused by diet.  Gluttony is a sin therefore I’m not circumventing gods punishment to give medicine to counteract it.
    I don’t disagree with your comments. You just said it should be illegal and I don’t see how that could be enforced.
    Require a pharmacy that serves 400 people to stock all medications? They’d be out of business in a few months when most aren’t needed and are very overstocked.

    what part of this specific case was about  out of stock medication?

    answer. none.

    that cocksucker REFUSED.

    Fuck your religion , fuck your faith. do your fucking job or find another line of work. 
    Well this should end the discussion if bolded isn’t working 

    So tired of the fucking excuses 
    blah blah blah blah…..

    https://pages.pharmacy.pitt.edu/pharmdhandbook/oath-of-a-pharmacist/
    What’s crazy to me is Abortion, emergency   contraceptives, birth control are all one issue to these people.  You can’t reason with them.

    a rational person understands the pill vs a later term abortion aren’t remotely an equivalent.  If reducing abortions is really the goal, preventing an actual pregnancy from occurring in the first place should be an obvious thing everyone can agree on

    not with these people 

    it would be interesting to have a study about how many abortions happen because of difficulty in preventing that actual pregnancy from happening in the first place.  Would the pro-life crowd then be the murderers? Seems wrong to then blame the woman  and shame her 
    God forbid a woman obtain contraception because she enjoys sex!  

    All this bullshit is 100% due to the Supreme Court.  Time for the country to step up and demand a referendum on term limits/age limits.  
    this just highlights, yet again, how illogical the religious train of thought is. animals have sex because of instinct. humans were "given" free will by their god, which means that god had to make sex enjoyable for us (and apparently, dolphins) to engage in it to make more minions for him. but it's somehow sinful to engage in the act merely for enjoyment purposes. 

    it's all so absurd. 
    It’s probably evolutionary which the right don’t believe in. 

    if you are self aware I would think if it wasn’t enjoyable the pain of birth would outweigh the biological need to reproduce. 

    It’s a biological carrot and stick 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790
    because of course they would.....


     
    Kansas to recount abortion vote by hand, despite big margin
    By JOHN HANNA
    Yesterday

    TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas’ elections director says the state will go along with a request for a hand recount of votes from every county after last week’s decisive statewide vote affirming abortion rights, even though there was a 165,000-vote difference and a recount won’t change the result.

    Melissa Leavitt, of Colby in far western Kansas, requested the recount and declined to comment to reporters Friday evening, citing work obligations. But she said on an online site raising funds for a recount that she had “seen data” about the election. Her post was not more specific, and there is no evidence of significant problems with the election.

    Baseless election conspiracies have circulated widely in the U.S., particularly among supporters of former President Donald Trump, who has repeated false claims that he lost the 2020 election through fraud.

    Kansas law requires Leavitt to post a bond to cover the entire cost of the recount. Bryan Caskey, state elections director for the Kansas secretary of state’s office, said it would be the first recount of the votes on a statewide ballot question in at least 30 years.

    Caskey said the work won’t begin without a guarantee that Leavitt can cover the cost.

    “Normally, they reinforce the Election Day results,” Caskey said about recounts. “We stand by the results and will do the recount.”

    Also seeking a recount is state Sen. Caryn Tyson, who is trailing state Rep. Steven Johnson in the Republican primary for state treasurer by about 400 votes out of nearly 434,000 cast. She is asking for a hand recount in about half the state’s 105 counties.

    Voters last week rejected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have allowed the conservative, Republican-controlled Legislature to further restrict or ban abortion. It failed by 18 percentage points.

    ___

    Follow John Hanna on Twitter: https://twitter.com/apjdhanna


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/10/nebraska-mother-daughter-face-abortion-charges-after-facebook-shares-chats-

    Nebraska Mother, Daughter Face Abortion Charges After Facebook Shares Chats With Police

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," said one advocate.

    JULIA CONLEY

    August 10, 2022

    Digital rights advocates on Tuesday said an abortion case in Nebraska illustrates how powerful tech companies like Facebook could play a major role in prosecutions of people who self-manage abortions as more states ban the procedure, and called on the social media platform to reform its privacy policies to protect users.

    The case in Nebraska centers on a 17-year-old girl and her mother, Celeste and Jessica Burgess, who sent messages on Facebook regarding plans to terminate Celeste's pregnancy prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned in June.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption."

    According to court documents posted by Vice Tuesday, a friend of Celeste's called the police after seeing her take the first of two abortion pills. The teenager, who is being tried as an adult, was estimated to be 23 weeks and two days into her pregnancy. Abortion is legal until 22 weeks of pregnancy in Nebraska.

    Celeste's fetus was stillborn shortly after she took the pills, according to the court filings.

    Jessica Burgess was charged last month with three felonies and two misdemeanors and Celeste was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors, all related to performing an illegal abortion, concealing the fetus's body, and providing false information. They both pleaded not guilty.

    After receiving the tip from Celeste's acquaintance, Detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk Police Investigations Unit obtained a warrant to access digital communications of both Celeste and her mother. The police seized six smartphones and seven laptops from the family and ordered Facebook to turn over messages between the two.

    Facebook stores user information on its servers and messages sent through Facebook Messenger are often visible to the company. In order to use end-to-end encryption, which makes messages unreadable to Facebook and anyone who requests access, users have to be using the mobile device Messenger app and have to select a setting to mark the conversation as "secret."

    Facebook told NBC News that the warrant it was ordered to comply with said nothing about a user discussing abortion care and that police told the company the case they were investigating involved "a stillborn baby who was burned and buried."

    While the alleged details of the Burgess case are distinct from the majority of medication abortions—which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the first trimester of pregnancy—digital rights advocates warned that the current policies of companies like Facebook will make people vulnerable to prosecution as Republican legislators impose abortion bans.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption," Jake Laperruque, deputy director of surveillance at the Center of Democracy and Technology, told NBC.

    At The Verge on Wednesday, James Vincent wrote that "by highlighting the detail that the warrant didn't mention abortion, Meta [Facebook's parent company] seems to be attempting to distance itself from criticism that its current data-collection policies can and will be used to prosecute women in the U.S. who have illegal abortions."

    Rights groups including Fight for the Future say the company must make end-to-end encryption the default for all conversations that happen on its platform.

    "Meta has the ability to make end-to-end encryption the default for all of its messages, ensuring that no one but the message senders—not even people at Facebook or Instagram themselves—can access private conversations," Caitlin George, managing director of Fight for the Future, told The Verge.

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," George added.

    continues...

    Scio me nihil scire
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,077
    static111 said:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/10/nebraska-mother-daughter-face-abortion-charges-after-facebook-shares-chats-

    Nebraska Mother, Daughter Face Abortion Charges After Facebook Shares Chats With Police

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," said one advocate.

    JULIA CONLEY

    August 10, 2022

    Digital rights advocates on Tuesday said an abortion case in Nebraska illustrates how powerful tech companies like Facebook could play a major role in prosecutions of people who self-manage abortions as more states ban the procedure, and called on the social media platform to reform its privacy policies to protect users.

    The case in Nebraska centers on a 17-year-old girl and her mother, Celeste and Jessica Burgess, who sent messages on Facebook regarding plans to terminate Celeste's pregnancy prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned in June.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption."

    According to court documents posted by Vice Tuesday, a friend of Celeste's called the police after seeing her take the first of two abortion pills. The teenager, who is being tried as an adult, was estimated to be 23 weeks and two days into her pregnancy. Abortion is legal until 22 weeks of pregnancy in Nebraska.

    Celeste's fetus was stillborn shortly after she took the pills, according to the court filings.

    Jessica Burgess was charged last month with three felonies and two misdemeanors and Celeste was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors, all related to performing an illegal abortion, concealing the fetus's body, and providing false information. They both pleaded not guilty.

    After receiving the tip from Celeste's acquaintance, Detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk Police Investigations Unit obtained a warrant to access digital communications of both Celeste and her mother. The police seized six smartphones and seven laptops from the family and ordered Facebook to turn over messages between the two.

    Facebook stores user information on its servers and messages sent through Facebook Messenger are often visible to the company. In order to use end-to-end encryption, which makes messages unreadable to Facebook and anyone who requests access, users have to be using the mobile device Messenger app and have to select a setting to mark the conversation as "secret."

    Facebook told NBC News that the warrant it was ordered to comply with said nothing about a user discussing abortion care and that police told the company the case they were investigating involved "a stillborn baby who was burned and buried."

    While the alleged details of the Burgess case are distinct from the majority of medication abortions—which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the first trimester of pregnancy—digital rights advocates warned that the current policies of companies like Facebook will make people vulnerable to prosecution as Republican legislators impose abortion bans.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption," Jake Laperruque, deputy director of surveillance at the Center of Democracy and Technology, told NBC.

    At The Verge on Wednesday, James Vincent wrote that "by highlighting the detail that the warrant didn't mention abortion, Meta [Facebook's parent company] seems to be attempting to distance itself from criticism that its current data-collection policies can and will be used to prosecute women in the U.S. who have illegal abortions."

    Rights groups including Fight for the Future say the company must make end-to-end encryption the default for all conversations that happen on its platform.

    "Meta has the ability to make end-to-end encryption the default for all of its messages, ensuring that no one but the message senders—not even people at Facebook or Instagram themselves—can access private conversations," Caitlin George, managing director of Fight for the Future, told The Verge.

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," George added.

    continues...

    i would sue the fuck out of meta and zuckerberg.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    static111 said:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/10/nebraska-mother-daughter-face-abortion-charges-after-facebook-shares-chats-

    Nebraska Mother, Daughter Face Abortion Charges After Facebook Shares Chats With Police

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," said one advocate.

    JULIA CONLEY

    August 10, 2022

    Digital rights advocates on Tuesday said an abortion case in Nebraska illustrates how powerful tech companies like Facebook could play a major role in prosecutions of people who self-manage abortions as more states ban the procedure, and called on the social media platform to reform its privacy policies to protect users.

    The case in Nebraska centers on a 17-year-old girl and her mother, Celeste and Jessica Burgess, who sent messages on Facebook regarding plans to terminate Celeste's pregnancy prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned in June.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption."

    According to court documents posted by Vice Tuesday, a friend of Celeste's called the police after seeing her take the first of two abortion pills. The teenager, who is being tried as an adult, was estimated to be 23 weeks and two days into her pregnancy. Abortion is legal until 22 weeks of pregnancy in Nebraska.

    Celeste's fetus was stillborn shortly after she took the pills, according to the court filings.

    Jessica Burgess was charged last month with three felonies and two misdemeanors and Celeste was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors, all related to performing an illegal abortion, concealing the fetus's body, and providing false information. They both pleaded not guilty.

    After receiving the tip from Celeste's acquaintance, Detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk Police Investigations Unit obtained a warrant to access digital communications of both Celeste and her mother. The police seized six smartphones and seven laptops from the family and ordered Facebook to turn over messages between the two.

    Facebook stores user information on its servers and messages sent through Facebook Messenger are often visible to the company. In order to use end-to-end encryption, which makes messages unreadable to Facebook and anyone who requests access, users have to be using the mobile device Messenger app and have to select a setting to mark the conversation as "secret."

    Facebook told NBC News that the warrant it was ordered to comply with said nothing about a user discussing abortion care and that police told the company the case they were investigating involved "a stillborn baby who was burned and buried."

    While the alleged details of the Burgess case are distinct from the majority of medication abortions—which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the first trimester of pregnancy—digital rights advocates warned that the current policies of companies like Facebook will make people vulnerable to prosecution as Republican legislators impose abortion bans.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption," Jake Laperruque, deputy director of surveillance at the Center of Democracy and Technology, told NBC.

    At The Verge on Wednesday, James Vincent wrote that "by highlighting the detail that the warrant didn't mention abortion, Meta [Facebook's parent company] seems to be attempting to distance itself from criticism that its current data-collection policies can and will be used to prosecute women in the U.S. who have illegal abortions."

    Rights groups including Fight for the Future say the company must make end-to-end encryption the default for all conversations that happen on its platform.

    "Meta has the ability to make end-to-end encryption the default for all of its messages, ensuring that no one but the message senders—not even people at Facebook or Instagram themselves—can access private conversations," Caitlin George, managing director of Fight for the Future, told The Verge.

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," George added.

    continues...

    i would sue the fuck out of meta and zuckerberg.
    I’d delete my Faceturd account. Seriously, how hard is that to do? Asking from someone who’s never been on it. If all US prochoicer’s up and deleted their accounts, would their lives end?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    .

     
    mace1229 said:
    I understand that. I just don’t see creating a law requiring filling a prescription as a practical solution. I don’t see that from preventing this from happening again. So next time the pharmacists just tells the customer it’s out of stock instead of saying he doesn’t want to fill it. Or the pharmacy doesn’t carry it so they don’t have to deal with being connected to legal issues. Even in big cities there’s lots of meds that aren’t always on premise anyway.
    I don’t see it as very effective and there’s got to be better ways. Not just this case, but getting meds in general. My wife takes a specialty medication and if she forgets she’s running low sometimes takes 3 or 4 days to get it.Have better infrastructure for meds. There are thousands of things I can order from Amazon and have it delivered in a few hours. Now a rural town, maybe not so much. But there’s always trucks going in and out. I’m sure people smarter than me can figure out a better solution.
    Pharmacists should need a license to work, with that comes legal requirements to serve the public in this capacity 

    Failing to comply with these requirements should come with immediate suspension and harsher penalties if necessary 

    Doctors, lawyers,  stock brokers and so many more can not do simply what they want. They must follow the law and extended professional ethics to be able to do their jobs. If there are no ethical requirements for legal prescriptions to be filled, something is amiss with that particular locality.

    Most professionals must adhere to strict ethical codes, or lose their ability to serve the public 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    static111 said:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/10/nebraska-mother-daughter-face-abortion-charges-after-facebook-shares-chats-

    Nebraska Mother, Daughter Face Abortion Charges After Facebook Shares Chats With Police

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," said one advocate.

    JULIA CONLEY

    August 10, 2022

    Digital rights advocates on Tuesday said an abortion case in Nebraska illustrates how powerful tech companies like Facebook could play a major role in prosecutions of people who self-manage abortions as more states ban the procedure, and called on the social media platform to reform its privacy policies to protect users.

    The case in Nebraska centers on a 17-year-old girl and her mother, Celeste and Jessica Burgess, who sent messages on Facebook regarding plans to terminate Celeste's pregnancy prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned in June.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption."

    According to court documents posted by Vice Tuesday, a friend of Celeste's called the police after seeing her take the first of two abortion pills. The teenager, who is being tried as an adult, was estimated to be 23 weeks and two days into her pregnancy. Abortion is legal until 22 weeks of pregnancy in Nebraska.

    Celeste's fetus was stillborn shortly after she took the pills, according to the court filings.

    Jessica Burgess was charged last month with three felonies and two misdemeanors and Celeste was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors, all related to performing an illegal abortion, concealing the fetus's body, and providing false information. They both pleaded not guilty.

    After receiving the tip from Celeste's acquaintance, Detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk Police Investigations Unit obtained a warrant to access digital communications of both Celeste and her mother. The police seized six smartphones and seven laptops from the family and ordered Facebook to turn over messages between the two.

    Facebook stores user information on its servers and messages sent through Facebook Messenger are often visible to the company. In order to use end-to-end encryption, which makes messages unreadable to Facebook and anyone who requests access, users have to be using the mobile device Messenger app and have to select a setting to mark the conversation as "secret."

    Facebook told NBC News that the warrant it was ordered to comply with said nothing about a user discussing abortion care and that police told the company the case they were investigating involved "a stillborn baby who was burned and buried."

    While the alleged details of the Burgess case are distinct from the majority of medication abortions—which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the first trimester of pregnancy—digital rights advocates warned that the current policies of companies like Facebook will make people vulnerable to prosecution as Republican legislators impose abortion bans.

    "If companies don't want to end up repeatedly handing over data for abortion investigations, they need to rethink their practices on data collection, storage, and encryption," Jake Laperruque, deputy director of surveillance at the Center of Democracy and Technology, told NBC.

    At The Verge on Wednesday, James Vincent wrote that "by highlighting the detail that the warrant didn't mention abortion, Meta [Facebook's parent company] seems to be attempting to distance itself from criticism that its current data-collection policies can and will be used to prosecute women in the U.S. who have illegal abortions."

    Rights groups including Fight for the Future say the company must make end-to-end encryption the default for all conversations that happen on its platform.

    "Meta has the ability to make end-to-end encryption the default for all of its messages, ensuring that no one but the message senders—not even people at Facebook or Instagram themselves—can access private conversations," Caitlin George, managing director of Fight for the Future, told The Verge.

    "Until Meta gives up surveilling private messages and begins protecting its users with end-to-end encryption, it remains complicit in the surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people," George added.

    continues...

    i would sue the fuck out of meta and zuckerberg.
    I’d delete my Faceturd account. Seriously, how hard is that to do? Asking from someone who’s never been on it. If all US prochoicer’s up and deleted their accounts, would their lives end?

    A tempting thought, for sure.  There are a few people who only keep in touch with me through FB and I don't go there very often, but still, worth considering!
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    Oh wait, I'm pretty sure the "pro life" crowd always said they were not in support of going after the women, only the clinics and doctors.  So much for that bullshit. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    Facebook isn't the problem here. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    mrussel1 said:
    Facebook isn't the problem here. 
    No, but if you’re a woman seeking an abortion from a state that may prosecute you for traveling to another state to obtain a legal procedure and/or order legally obtained drugs to end your pregnancy, don’t post on faceturd and leave your cell phone at home.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    mrussel1 said:
    Facebook isn't the problem here. 
    No, but if you’re a woman seeking an abortion from a state that may prosecute you for traveling to another state to obtain a legal procedure and/or order legally obtained drugs to end your pregnancy, don’t post on faceturd and leave your cell phone at home.
    I understand that,  but it's still infuriating that the state is pursuing women.  It was all lies 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Facebook isn't the problem here. 
    No, but if you’re a woman seeking an abortion from a state that may prosecute you for traveling to another state to obtain a legal procedure and/or order legally obtained drugs to end your pregnancy, don’t post on faceturd and leave your cell phone at home.
    I understand that,  but it's still infuriating that the state is pursuing women.  It was all lies 
    Oh, believe you me, I get it. Fascism.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.