JBT wants to keep exec order
Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
Does this hurt her much in the Republican primary?
Parting ways with other Republican candidates for governor, Judy Baar Topinka today she would not overturn Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s rule requiring pharmacies to provide the “morning after” contraceptive pill. […]
In April, the Democratic governor ordered pharmacies that sell federally approved contraceptives to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control if they have the medication in stock. If an individual pharmacist refuses, the drugstore must have someone else available to provide it.
The contraceptive works by keeping fertilized eggs from implanting. Some opponents consider that an abortion, and they say pharmacists should not be required to provide the pill if they have moral objections.
Other Republican gubernatorial candidates have said they would reverse Blagojevich’s rule if they are elected.
But Topinka, the state treasurer and leader in polls in the GOP race, said she does not believe the emergency contraception causes abortions. She said it helps prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies.
- 6 Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 7:43 am:
She’ll lose a few votes at the margins, but not a lot that she wasn’t gonna get anyway. My prediction is this single isolated issue won’t cost her the primary.
- BIG R.PH - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 8:05 am:
Just more proof that JBT, much like G. Ryan, is actually a DEMOCRAT in Republican clothes (DIRC).
- Pat Collins - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 8:32 am:
It is another attempt to woo Dem voters. No one who cares about pro-life issues is voting for her. People who dont’ care won’t care about this issue either. It is a “no-cost” for her.
Now, will any Dem voters who don’t like Gun Ban go for her due to this? My guess is it’s part of a “drip drip” to appeal to those voters. Get 0.5% here, 1% there, pretty soon you have a decent amount.
In theory. But it really is “free” to her.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 8:52 am:
Pro-choice Dems like myself can only hope this becomes an issue in the GOP primary. Requiring pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception is an issue that polls incredibly well. Republicans look like neandrathals when they oppose contraception — especially when they start calling birth control pills “abortifacients.”
Remember, the “morning-after pill” is just a strong dose of regular birth control pills. It is a completely different pill than Mifepristone, sold in Europe as RU-486, which causes an abortion 7-9 weeks into a pregnancy. A lot of people who don’t like abortion are in favor of better contraception.
- Wildcat - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 9:04 am:
Hey Big R.PH, does every member or candidate in a party have to agree on every issue? I suppose Blago is a Republican in Democrat’s clothing because he signed a medical malpractice caps bill, right?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 9:41 am:
No. The majority of Republicans want to take Blagojevich down in November and know their best chance is with JBT. She will get a free pass from the majority of voters, and the looneys will try to make hay out of it, well, because they are looneys.
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:10 am:
If the pharmacist does not want to give me medication prescribed by my physician because of the pharmacist’s personal religious beliefs, why are they in that business? I thought the physician has primary legal responsibility for my medical treatment, not the pharmacist. If the pharmacist decides that my cancer or HIV meds are morally wrong do they have the right to stop providing them to me because they strongly feel it is wrong? The pharmacist should make sure what I am getting is legal and within acceptable professional standards. Beyond that keep your personal opinions about my care to yourself. Are those politicians my treating physician? If not, please butt out.
- Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:27 am:
That’s it. I’ve had it. I myself talk about the need to vote for a republican in the general election no matter if he or she is pro-choice. We should vote for a lesser of two evils that has a chance to win. Now, Topinka is no longer the lesser of two evils. She is the equal of evil. What would be the difference in voting for Rod? Nothing! It is a sad, sad day that I pray for an Oberweis nomination. Judy Baar has gone too far!
- Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:33 am:
Oh, and for you communists. The government should not be allowed to force anyone to give anyone emergency contraception. This is private industry and it should be each individual pharmacist that decides what they will and will not dispense. I don’t care if it is birth control or a candy bar. Private enterprise should be free to choose. And if they won’t give you your birth control, here is an idea; “GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!” Communists… forcing your beliefs down my throat…
- Anon - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:36 am:
Thank goodness there is ONE reasonable Republican in the primary. Of course pharmacists should dispense lawfully written prescriptions. What if the clerk is opposed to alcohol. Could she refuse to check out beer?
- Bubs - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 11:30 am:
It won’t lose her many votes. I support Topinka, and still do, but I can’t agree with her on this.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 12:11 pm:
At last, she’s taking a position on a issue that is actually a tough one for politicians.
It probably will cost her votes in the primary, where the reigious right wingers will have a disproportionate impact–disproportionate to their proportion of the electorate, and disproportionate to the more moderate views of the state and country.
Hopefully, she will also pick up some votes from Repub, Dem and independent women who want to see a woman in the governorship and/or want to support her stance against the party’s religious
fanatics.
- RFK fan - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 12:36 pm:
I can’t help but think this is a loser for Republicans (and maybe especially for Frank Watson?). Remember, the issue here isn’t exactly abortion. Though Reps will try to spin it as a freedom-of-conscience issue for pharmicists, the Dems can reasonably spin it as getting in the middle of a decision best left to a woman, her husband/partner, her minister, her doctor, whatever…
…and by the way, where does it stop? Suppose I like chocolate a little too much. Hey, sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. What if the pharmacist believes I should conquer it on my own and won’t give me a prescription appetite-suppressant drug? What if a pharmacist thinks I should cure alcoholism on my own and won’t give me antabuse? I haven’t come up with the best examples here, but it doesn’t strain the imagination to think that a couple of examples could be come up with that would make very hurtful ads against the far-right of the Republican party.
- Larry Horse - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 1:18 pm:
The real issue is the fact that EC is not over the counter, which it would be if George Bush (the only bigger incompetent boob in US politics than Rod Blagojevich) hadn’t appointed religious wackos to the FDA.
This is something I care about because I am pro-Life, and this is one of the best ways to stop abortions, as it reduces the risk of getting pregnant after unprotected sex to less than 1%, thus leading to less unwanted pregnancies and thus less abortions. Nothing makes me sicker than the fact that so many people in the pro-Life movement are anti-Pursuit of Happiness. Consenting individuals should be able to have as much sex and whatever kind of sex they want to and should be able to use whatever kind of birth control they would like to prevent pregnancy. To believe that the government has any business in preventing such activity means that you have no respect whatsoever for the spirit of the Constitution and have no regard at all for the idea of limited government.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 2:48 pm:
Yes, but she will gain far more in the general. As long as our Republican Party thinks the most important issues people are worried about in Illinois are abortion and not banning assault weapons we will continue to struggle to elect people statewide.
- Abe - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 3:58 pm:
Well put Schnorf.
- B Hicks - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 5:24 pm:
Judy’s numbers are what they are. They’re not going to move one way or another, no matter what issue she indorses or blasts. Out of all the candidates, she is looking the least Gubernatorial.
One thing she did do is kill any chance of picking up Brady supporters if he should decide to cash in his chips.
- B Hicks - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 5:43 pm:
Judy Barr Tompinka, the Illinois GOP saviour, the anointed one. I hope that you guys aren’t getting your hopes up too high.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:23 pm:
Judy’s problem is she looks to Gubernatorial, Gubernatorial like Blago a person a majority of the people in Illinois won’t vote for. If she looks too much like Blago why would the Democrats vote for Judy they can just vote for Blago which won’t change things in Illinois.
- roy slade - Tuesday, Jan 31, 06 @ 10:34 pm:
One election at a time- folks- and JBT seems to get that fact. Win the primary, then move and adjust the message for the General election- where you are able to use this current governors words “new ways of business” “only the most qualified will come to work for me” and “I had nothing to do with those contracts”. You get the drift!