[Vision2020] Liar, Liar Soul on Fire (was RE: House Bill 216 (Pharmacist Conscience Bill)

Thu Mar 19 21:43:42 PDT 2009

I truly wish Schwaller would quit lying - he knows darn good & well that the
scope of HB 216 is far broader than he's deceptively trying to portray
below.

It's a quick read, really, so Swiller is free to read the actual text and
then report back to tell all of us who can actually read what part of the
bill supports his assertion:  "HB216 deals primarily, if not exclusively,
with the dispensing of Plan B, the so-called morning after pill for inducing
abortion.  The language I have found strongly suggests the target is
reproductive-based medication "and other medications" which are not
mentioned.  I'll go out on a limb here and assume they too are
reproductive-associated medications and not an asthma inhaler or blood
pressure medication, for example."

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2009/H0216.pdf

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.

~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Schwaller
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:14 PM
To: vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] House Bill 216 (Pharmacist Conscience Bill)

Hmmmm . . . I suspect that once again Moscow Tom is confused over what
"really is" as opposed to what he wants something to be, yet another
indication of his breadth of his self-aggrandizing and narcissistic inner
child.  

HB216 deals primarily, if not exclusively, with the dispensing of Plan B,
the so-called morning after pill for inducing abortion.  The language I have
found strongly suggests the target is reproductive-based medication "and
other medications" which are not mentioned.  I'll go out on a limb here and
assume they too are reproductive-associated medications and not an asthma
inhaler or blood pressure medication, for example.

To comment that a pharmacist is going to refuse service because of his or
her objection to a particular life-style is as ludicrous as suggesting he or
she would do this based on race or religion.  Not that this may not happen
in an EXTREMELY isolated incident, but to use this argument as a basis for
defeating a bill seems a tad over the top.  Maybe a more learned legal mind
would like to comment on how such actions would infringe on an individuals
civil rights with respect to these ACLU-given rights.  But I seriously doubt
one could construe reproductive choice as a "lifestyle".

On the other hand, if one were to accept MT's argument as valid, I think it
is safe to assume that 1) if Pharmacist is aware of Citizen B's sexual
orientation he must know Citizen B rather well - or at least in passing.  I
think it is also in the realm of possibility that 2) Citizen B would know
Pharmacist and his views on Citizen B's life style.  This being the case, 3)
Citizen B would more than likely avoid any contact with Pharmacist just to
reduce the likelihood of  any potentially ugly situations.  I would further
suggest that, unless Citizen B has been wandering about in a stupor and is
totally unaware of HB216, said Citizen would avoid Pharmacist like the
plague.  These being the cases, if Citizen B chooses to have a prescription
filled by someone suspected of being a discriminatory racist pig, then
perhaps Pharmacist IS guilty of  a civil rights violation - and Citizen B is
guilty of simply being stupid.

GS

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

Courtesy of the Spokesman Review's blog site.

---------------------------------------------

Pharmacist conscience bill heads for amendment
at 8:04 a.m. on March 18

Rep. Tom Loertscher's bill to give pharmacists or "any person" the right
to refuse to fill a prescription for a patient on the basis of conscience
is headed for the House's amending order, to revise the bill so it applies
only to pharmacists - not to cashiers, stores, or others. Rep. Lynn Luker,
R-Boise, proposed the amendments. "It's simply a matter of burden of
proof," he said. "I don't think it will change in any way the current
practices, because people do have that right." Emotional testimony on the
bill stretched for two days before it was approved for amendment on a 14-4
vote. The testimony included pharmacists and other experts who said Idaho
pharmacists already have the right to refuse to fill a prescription; Idaho
has no law requiring them to fill all prescriptions. Among those who
testified was pharmacist Gloria Hansen, who said, "I do know that we need
to act according to our conscience. .. I lean on the rock which is the
lord God."

---------------------------------------------

It is truly a sad day in Idaho for those citizens whose ethics, morals,
and religious beliefs differ from those of their pharmacist.

Query:  If an asthmatic, living in extremely rural Idaho, dependent on
inhalers for survival, is refused access to such much-needed inhalers, by
his/her pharmacist, because (s)he is gay or his/her
ethics/morals/religious beliefs differ from his/her pharmacist's
ethics/morals/religious beliefs . . . and the asthmatic dies as a
result . . . is the pharmacist guilty of ANYTHING?

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

Join us at The First Annual Intolerista Wingding, April 17th, featuring
Roy Zimmerman and Jeanne McHale.  For details go to . . .

http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding

Seeya
there.

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
          http://www.fsr.com/

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090319/984fad71/attachment-0001.html 