[Vision2020] House Bill 216 (Pharmacist Conscience Bill)

Sat Mar 21 12:28:30 PDT 2009

Liar liar?  How’s about:

 Associated Press
Pharmacist conscience bill passes Idaho committee
By SARAH D. WIRE , 03.19.09, 10:53 AM EDT

(paraphrasing a la Moscow Tom)  “Johnston said the Pharmacy Board will
remain neutral on the issue because it views the bill as a fight between
anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups.

“Idaho Women's Network lobbyist Taryn Magrini said the bill could cause
problems for patients in rural towns with only one pharmacy. She said some
drugs, such as emergency contraceptives, must be taken within a certain time
and it could be difficult to have to drive to multiple towns to find someone
willing to dispense the drug.

“The conscience clause movement grew across the country following the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Some
states, including Idaho, enacted laws to allow physicians and hospitals to
refuse to perform abortions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, four states -
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota
<http://topics.forbes.com/South%20Dakota>- have conscience laws that
explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill
for moral reasons."

http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=1042  Yeah yeah we know how
ya’ll feel about this type of “reference” but let’s be well-balanced . .

“Loertscher’s bill, HB 216, would protect the right of a pharmacist (or
pharmacy for that matter) to refuse to dispense a drug that would violate
his conscience, without having to fear the loss of his job or becoming
subject to civil or criminal liability.

This is essentially a “right to work” law for Idaho pharmacists with a
conscience.

The crux of this matter has to do with dispensing the so-called “morning
after” pill, or “Plan B,” which can cause an abortion. Pro-life pharmacists,
heedful of the Hippocratic Oath and their very first obligation to “do no
harm,” have an understandable reluctance to dispense this drug.”

I find the language in the actual bill Ms Lund so graciously posted to be
rather vague in what it focuses on as far as actual medications – which is
part of my problem with the bill in general.  Yes, it COULD be used to
validate objections to dispensing medication and/or devices including
insulin needles, anti-depressants, Viagra, methadone, medication for the
treatment of HIV/AIDS and even pre-natal vitamins.   If you truly believe
this to be the case then I suggest you have your head in the sand.

As far as my limited understanding, HB216 along with the myriad of similar
bills in other states, is based on The Department of Health and Human
Services HHS-45-CFR, (
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf ) designed to
ensure that HHS funds do not support “morally coercive or discriminatory
practices or policies in violation of federal law”.   The conscience
provisions “does not authorize any court or any public official or other
public authority to require: (1) the individual to perform or assist in a
sterilization procedure or an abortion if it would be contrary to his/her
religious beliefs or moral convictions; (2) the entity to make its
facilities available for sterilization procedures or abortions, if the
performance of sterilization procedures or abortions in the facilities is
prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral
convictions; or (3) the entity to provide personnel for the performance of
sterilization procedures or abortions if it would be contrary to the
religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel”.

So Ms Lund, I shall continue to stand on my limb of assuming this bill
targets reproductive drugs.  And based on language found in the bill, to
wit:

“35 (4) The provisions of this section do not allow a pharmacist, pharmacy
or institution to

36 refuse to provide pharmaceutical care or a drug because of the patient’s
race, color, religion, sex

37 or national origin.”

I would argue this supports my “arrogant” claim that MT’s scenarior of “I
hate the gay guy with asthma so no "scrip for you buddy boy” " is exactly
what it is:  ludicrous.

BTW,  I didn’t bring up the morally capricious pharmacist –  that was pure
MT’s doing, as was any “meandering trail of logic” (???) with regard to any
interaction between a pharmacist and customer.  In fact I think my counter
argument was on target.  Funny thing this snarkiness . . . .  Out of one
mouth it’s an excellent, well-written, great post.  Out of another it’s,
well, just snarky.

And nope – no ties whatsoever to the Kirkdom.  Well I take that back – I did
employ one of their congregation member (I think he is or was) to do some
excavating for me (no it was NOT a mud-bogged development project so don’t
even bother going there).  Just good ol’ fashioned Lutheran / Presbyterian /
Methodism with a dollop of Catholicism courtesy of my Irish mother.  And I
don’t particularly care for fudge . . .

In closing:

http://www.fda.gov/CDER/DRUG/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

 “Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B
acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation).
It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization
does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb
(implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B,
Plan B will not work.”

 So, if you think a fertilized embryo is “human”, Plan B can cause
abortions.  Pesky things, those semantics.

GS

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

>  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. Check it out.<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/20090321/cfd65029/attachment-0001.html 