<p class="MsoNormal">Liar liar?<span style=""> </span>How’s
about: <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Associated Press<br>Pharmacist conscience bill passes Idaho committee<br>By SARAH D. WIRE , 03.19.09, 10:53 AM EDT <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(paraphrasing a la Moscow Tom)<span style="">
</span>“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.<br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“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.<br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“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. <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to the National Conference of State Legislators,
four states - Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi
and South Dakota <a href="http://topics.forbes.com/South%20Dakota"><span style="text-decoration: none;"></span></a>- have conscience laws that
explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill for
moral reasons." <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=1042">http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=1042</a>
<span style=""> </span>Yeah yeah we know how ya’ll feel about
this type of “reference” but let’s be well-balanced . . <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
This is essentially a “right to work” law for Idaho pharmacists with a conscience.<br>
<br>
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.” <br></p>
<p class="Default" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">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.<span style=""> </span>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. <span style=""> </span>If you truly believe this to be the case then
I suggest you have your head in the sand. <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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, (<a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf">http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf</a>
) designed to ensure that HHS funds do not support “morally coercive or
discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law”. <span style=""> </span>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”. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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: <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“35 (4) The provisions of this section do not allow a
pharmacist, pharmacy or institution to</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">36 refuse to provide pharmaceutical care or a drug because
of the patient’s race, color, religion, sex</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">37 or national origin.” <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<span style="">
</span>ludicrous. <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">BTW, <span style=""> </span>I didn’t bring
up the morally capricious pharmacist – <span style=""> </span>that was pure MT’s doing, as was any “meandering
trail of logic” (???) with regard to any interaction between a pharmacist and
customer. <span style=""> </span>In fact I think my counter argument
was on target.<span style=""> </span>Funny thing this
snarkiness . . . .<span style=""> </span>Out of one mouth it’s
an excellent, well-written, great post.<span style="">
</span>Out of another it’s, well, just snarky. <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And nope – no ties whatsoever to the Kirkdom. <span style=""> </span>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). <span style=""> </span>Just good ol’ fashioned Lutheran /
Presbyterian / Methodism with a dollop of Catholicism courtesy of my Irish
mother. <span style=""> </span>And I don’t particularly care
for fudge . . . <br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">In closing:<br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.fda.gov/CDER/DRUG/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm">http://www.fda.gov/CDER/DRUG/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="color: black;">“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.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style=""></span>So, if you think a
fertilized embryo is “human”, Plan B can cause abortions.<span style=""> </span>Pesky things, those semantics. <br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">GS</p>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM, keely emerinemix <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
Others have pointed out errors and fallacies in Schwaller's post below, but I would like to comment on the style of his argument. <br><br>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.<br>
<br>Keely<br><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a><br><br><br><br><br><hr>Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:13:49 -0700<br>From: <a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com" target="_blank">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><div class="im"><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] House Bill 216 (Pharmacist Conscience Bill)<br><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">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. <br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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".<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>GS<br><br><div>On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Tom Hansen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="padding-left: 1ex;">
Courtesy of the Spokesman Review's blog site.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Pharmacist conscience bill heads for amendment<br>
at 8:04 a.m. on March 18<br>
<br>
Rep. Tom Loertscher’s bill to give pharmacists or “any person” the right<br>
to refuse to fill a prescription for a patient on the basis of conscience<br>
is headed for the House’s amending order, to revise the bill so it applies<br>
only to pharmacists - not to cashiers, stores, or others. Rep. Lynn Luker,<br>
R-Boise, proposed the amendments. “It’s simply a matter of burden of<br>
proof,” he said. “I don’t think it will change in any way the current<br>
practices, because people do have that right.” Emotional testimony on the<br>
bill stretched for two days before it was approved for amendment on a 14-4<br>
vote. The testimony included pharmacists and other experts who said Idaho<br>
pharmacists already have the right to refuse to fill a prescription; Idaho<br>
has no law requiring them to fill all prescriptions. Among those who<br>
testified was pharmacist Gloria Hansen, who said, “I do know that we need<br>
to act according to our conscience. .. I lean on the rock which is the<br>
lord God.”<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
It is truly a sad day in Idaho for those citizens whose ethics, morals,<br>
and religious beliefs differ from those of their pharmacist.<br>
<br>
Query: If an asthmatic, living in extremely rural Idaho, dependent on<br>
inhalers for survival, is refused access to such much-needed inhalers, by<br>
his/her pharmacist, because (s)he is gay or his/her<br>
ethics/morals/religious beliefs differ from his/her pharmacist's<br>
ethics/morals/religious beliefs . . . and the asthmatic dies as a<br>
result . . . is the pharmacist guilty of ANYTHING?<br>
<br>
Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>
<br>
Tom Hansen<br>
Moscow, Idaho<br>
<br>
Join us at The First Annual Intolerista Wingding, April 17th, featuring<br>
Roy Zimmerman and Jeanne McHale. For details go to . . .<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding" target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding</a><br>
<br>
Seeya<br>
there.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------<br>
This message was sent by First Step Internet.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br><br></div></div><hr>Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. <a href="http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009" target="_blank">Check it out.</a></div>
</blockquote></div><br>