The new definition of abortion

Yes, the majority of hormonal birth control does both.

A rational human, being a person who is able to think critically, has a duty to avoid adherence to simplistic & inadequate characterizations of rights. The government can and should infringe on private places of business when the actions of that place somehow harm the public interest. There are several angles you can come at this issue from, but the “It’s a privately owned business” angle is completely bankrupt.

Couldn’t that same general line of thought, slightly modified, be used to justify banning smoking in homes where non-smokers (e.g., children) reside?

At least in CA you can get a ticket for smoking in the car when there are children present.

Woo.

Who said anything about Christians? For all we know, that pharmacist might be a Satanist. Do his ethical preferences still get the same consideration?

I don’t care what religion they are. There’s a big difference between not giving out drugs that are intended to keep someone alive and not giving out drugs that are (primarily) intended to prevent/terminate pregnancy. If someone’s ethics allow them to withhold drugs that could lead to injury or death to others, then no, they get overriden for the good of society.

In a relatively big city, I don’t care what pharmacists do, since if something is legal you’ll be able to find someone selling it. In a small town, with the potential for all pharmacists to refuse to sell birth control pills, I don’t know. The pills should be available, but I’m not sure if we should require them to be available.

Can you not get birth control pills in the mail?

QFT. If I’m Vegan, and get a job in a slaughterhouse, I’d damn well better be prepared to kill animals, because it’s my fucking job.

I guess Bush isn’t the only guy who thinks that the constitution is just a damn piece of paper.

For the record, this new definition mostly applies to places that receive federal money, as I recall.

Err, Commerce Clause? This isn’t rocket science, people.

There are varying interpretations of what it means exactly, but regulating commerce is specifically stated as a power of the government.

I would think one way is to clearly include the prescription of such drugs in the job description/job scope.

I think it should be fairly defensible to terminate people for failing to adhere to their required job scope. If your religion prohibits you from doing your job, that’s a limitation of your religion and I don’t see how it is unfair that your own choice of religion prohibits you from doing certain jobs.

e.g. I don’t see a Muslim taking a job as ‘Pork-taster’ being terminated as a big issue if he refuses to eat pork. Further, as an employer, if you know a Muslim is prohibited from eating pork/drinking alcohol and you place him in such a position, you’re probably asking for more trouble anyway. Or perhaps a Jehovah’s witness signing up to be a soldier and immediately declaring himself a conscientious objector. I would think these kinds of employees aren’t going to see that much sympathy in court.

If someone’s ethics allow them to withhold drugs that could lead to injury or death to others.

You know, things like surgery where they cut people open, or intentionally irradiate them, or feed them a diet of chemicals that kills off so many cells in the body that they lose all of their hair. Or perhaps the administration of almost any drug. Take 50 of almost anything and you will die. Every bottle of Tylenol is a potential death dealer.

If a doctor prescribes it, it’s for a reason. A pharmacist is NOT a doctor. Determining whether or not the medication is for a good enough reason doesn’t fall to the pharmacist.

I personally have a problem with fat old guys with high blood pressure who refuse to stop smoking, drinking and banging strippers…on an ethical basis, I’d like to refuse to dole out blood pressure medication. Start fucking excercising.

You should only get bloodpressure medication if you have abstained from cigarettes, alcohol and red meat. Abstain! It’s not that hard!

It would take care of most of the right-wing uber-conservatives.

Pharmacists should not get to decide if someone gets their medication or not. PERIOD.

edit:
period…hehhehe…get it? period…

Maybe … until the postman decides that he doesn’t agree with <insert prescription medication of choice here> and refuses to deliver any such packages.

Technically, they are, at least in the US. To be a licensed pharmacist, you must have a doctorate in pharmacy (“pharmD”). They are not medical doctors, but they aren’t just low-grade technicians handing out pills, either.

Yeah, but when people say “doctor,” they mean “medical doctor.” Nobody ever shouts “Is there a doctor in the house?” when they need something deconstructed.

What this means is that Christian fanatics can essentially get jobs at pharmacies and clinics and refuse to sell condoms, contraceptives or morning-after pills if they view it as unethical.

sooooo can a pharmacy then refuse to hire a christian fanatic on the grounds of his faith?

sooooo can a pharmacy then refuse to hire a christian fanatic on the grounds of his faith?

IANAL, but I don’t think so. That’s discriminatory. Just hope that there’s enough candidates looking for the position if you want to pass over that one guy you don’t want to hire. If not, just pray he doesn’t sue.

Employers and customers are fucked.

FTR, I was referring to medical doctors.