Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Another blow to woman's rights and health safety. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #1
by a bush appointee, big surprise niyad Feb 2012 #2
Like the Bush appointee that ruled agaionst DOMA? n/t 24601 Feb 2012 #13
so, one decent decision out of how many despicable ones? sorry, I am not impressed with their niyad Feb 2012 #26
Can they require pharmacies to prominently post whether or not they sell Plan B? tanyev Feb 2012 #3
That ws my first thought. xxqqqzme Feb 2012 #4
The problem, of course, is that many women don't have a lot of flexibility in purchasing decisions. yardwork Feb 2012 #7
You are correct. MsPithy Feb 2012 #10
It sounds like fertile women should have a supply always on hand, just in case. n/t pnwmom Feb 2012 #18
just in case of rape? really? RainDog Feb 2012 #28
Wow. You never heard of a condom breaking? pnwmom Feb 2012 #35
Just in case of any reason she might think it is warranted Marrah_G Feb 2012 #60
I think Plan B is used for something other than rape in the majority of cases. n/t pnwmom Feb 2012 #79
I don't know if that is possible, but if so, would be a very good idea. yardwork Feb 2012 #75
You're right -- the most vulnerable are the least likely to plan this in advance. pnwmom Feb 2012 #80
I think they have more options here than you are giving them credit for ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #34
If I'm the Catholic Church jayschool Feb 2012 #55
What an asshole. /nt yardwork Feb 2012 #5
Pharmacists aren't licensed medical doctors. BadgerKid Feb 2012 #6
When did "religious freedom" become the right to impose your beliefs on others? NC_Nurse Feb 2012 #8
NC NURSE NAILS IT Skittles Feb 2012 #38
Exactly. This is the argument that needs to be made! N/T potone Feb 2012 #40
That's what it's been about for at least 150 years Scootaloo Feb 2012 #46
I predict the 9th will overrule him. Deep13 Feb 2012 #9
Is there any single product or item that statute can require a business to sell? BOHICA12 Feb 2012 #11
So you are ok with a pharmacist that happens to be a JW left is right Feb 2012 #12
Yes for pharmacist - she/he is a merchant BOHICA12 Feb 2012 #16
Do you even know of any JW who are pharmacists because I dont. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #17
And a scientologist refusing to sell anything psychoactive? /nt TheMadMonk Feb 2012 #20
a pharmacist is not the same thing as a tire dealer. niyad Feb 2012 #25
People's lives don't depend on tires? BOHICA12 Feb 2012 #27
really nice try, but tires and drugs are not the same thing. but you go right ahead and frame this niyad Feb 2012 #30
The correct term is pharmacy (the business), not pharmacist (the person) ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #33
No. Pharmacies are not allowed to decide which state regulations to follow RainDog Feb 2012 #45
And they should. They also can challenge regulations that are inappropriate ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #56
the provision states "when there is a community need" RainDog Feb 2012 #59
So the plaintiff was a brand new pharmacy? ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #61
the issue is supplying medicines based upon the community RainDog Feb 2012 #78
so, pharmacies should not be regulated? RainDog Feb 2012 #29
As i'm learning more about society i see pharmacies as part of the commons alp227 Feb 2012 #31
Until they become government entities, I agree with the court's decision ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #32
this is why we need single payer health care... alp227 Feb 2012 #36
Single payer would not address this issue, single provider would ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #43
Auto makers are required by statute to manufacture and sell replacement parts... Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2012 #42
Try to buy a car without seat belts, air bags, high mounted third brake light Thor_MN Feb 2012 #51
That is a product requirement, not one leveled on the dealer or reseller ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #82
This message was self-deleted by its author old man 76 Feb 2012 #14
sickened eyeofnewt Feb 2012 #15
At least there should be a sign on the door stating this. This way Dawson Leery Feb 2012 #19
I was thinking there should be some way for customers to tell the difference csziggy Feb 2012 #37
I like it SemperEadem Feb 2012 #50
The judge was half right saras Feb 2012 #21
That makes sense. After all, corporations are people... Rhiannon12866 Feb 2012 #22
Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team) sdghjtyjty Feb 2012 #23
WTF Skittles Feb 2012 #24
This decision is blatently political and will be overturned. This notion that Pharmacists have the Monk06 Feb 2012 #39
This decision is not about refusing to dispense, it is about private businesses choosing whether or ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #41
libertarian clap-trap. Legislatures can and do regulate business and what they sell.. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2012 #44
The trouble is, plan B is a specific product Scootaloo Feb 2012 #47
How is it incorrect as a commerce issue ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #57
The licenses are based on percentage of reciepts based on food sold versus liquor sold.... Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2012 #72
Pharmacists, however must be state licensed. So, the state should be able to sinkingfeeling Feb 2012 #64
Medical professionals should now be allowed to deny any service based on their religious beliefs. Incitatus Feb 2012 #48
They already can refuse to do certain procedures and its legal for them to do so. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #49
I completely agree with this ruling. NaturalHigh Feb 2012 #52
Then they would be violating the exact same regulation. ieoeja Feb 2012 #66
Pharmacies are already allowed to refuse to stock certain products bsed on facts. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2012 #70
Refusing to stock a product is not imposing religious beliefs. NaturalHigh Feb 2012 #76
"I won't sell this to you because I am a Christian" IS imposing religious beliefs. And about beer uppityperson Feb 2012 #83
I guess that gives women pharmacists the right to not dispense boehner pills. dkofos Feb 2012 #53
Works for me. NaturalHigh Feb 2012 #54
Actually it give pharmacies the right not to stock them ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #58
Here with go again with the same damn judge suffragette Feb 2012 #62
State's true goal was to suppress religious objection? caseymoz Feb 2012 #63
Question for those who disagree with the ruling: Should pharmacies be required to sell homeopathics? slackmaster Feb 2012 #65
I assume the state has a medical board of some sort that makes those determinations. ieoeja Feb 2012 #68
Homeopathics in general are considered by the FDA to be diet supplements slackmaster Feb 2012 #74
Pharmacy's rights? SpankMe Feb 2012 #67
If you're going to sell medicine, you should not be allowed to discriminate based on religion Hugabear Feb 2012 #69
And what if there is just the one pharmacy nearby? IndyJones Feb 2012 #73
The problem is that not every pharmacy can carry everything and ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #81
Read my post again Hugabear Feb 2012 #85
So if Plan B or other drug used exclusively by women is not carried for something other than ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #87
That is, in fact, how the law is written. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2012 #88
Seriously, someone help me to understand this "religious" thing. IndyJones Feb 2012 #71
Plan B has not been found to be a Contragestive. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #77
Abortion has been proven to be safer for the mother than pregnancy and giving birth. truthisfreedom Feb 2012 #84
There is a business opportunity in Fed-Exing Plan B to women living in the more 3rd world states. diane in sf Feb 2012 #86
Sue them for child support HockeyMom Feb 2012 #89
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge says Wash. can't ma...»Reply #18