[Vision2020] House Bill 216 (Pharmacist Conscience Bill)

Fri Mar 20 21:37:30 PDT 2009

Others have pointed out errors and fallacies in Schwaller's post below, but I would like to comment on the style of his argument. 

It's amazing to me -- I mean, I'm truly shocked -- that Schwaller insists he has no ties at all to NSA or the Kirk, given his mastery of the arrogance-as-argument approach taught at the school, as well as the sacramental snarkiness found at the church.  It's almost eery.  The blithe insouciance regarding "lifestyle" and morally capricious pharmacists almost screams "Kirk," and the meandering trail of logic purporting to trace the possible interactions between Citizen B and Erstwhile Pharmacist is fascinating, if a little less than classical in caliber.  But that's an argument for NSA involvement, not against.  I've found the intellectual pretentions of our classical men of chest to be as bloated as . . . well, the bellies of saints after a Sabbath feast of cheese, fudge, wine, and meat, the treatment of whose indigestion is subject, I fear, to the moral outrage of Pharmacists Against Gluttony.

Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:13:49 -0700
From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
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

=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090320/45f2d562/attachment-0001.html 