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

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
41. This decision is not about refusing to dispense, it is about private businesses choosing whether or
Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:35 AM
Feb 2012

not to carry certain products and if the state can force them to. Pharmacies are privately owned businesses and are not licensed to serve the public good like radio and television stations. Pharmacists are not public servants, they are either in business or work for a business.

That said, the correct way to address this kind of travesty is public pressure, opinion and boycotts. Not of the chains participate in this behavior, It is limited to mom and pop stores, a dying group already. Let other know what such a shop is doing and it will go away that much faster. People power works wonders in this kind of situation.

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 #41