35 Comments - Bill - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 8:51 am: This guy has to much time and money on his hands. Maybe he should lower prices instead and give his customers a break. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:08 am: This practice is spreading. In Minneapolis, there is a problem with cab drivers at the airport refusing to transport passengers who have alcohol. I suspect that the next step will be to have them refuse to transport women not wearing proper religious garb. When that happens, it will be interesting to see if the religious right lines up behind those cab drivers. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:27 am: Skeeter is right. But the situation in Minneapolis has spread to Target. Certain clerks with certain religious beliefs refuse to check out pork products. Instead of giving them the boot - Target appeased them into doing other work that will not confront their religious convictions. So, you see you have to be the “right” oppressed minority to receive special recognition. PC is so stupid. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:39 am: What religion forbids clerks to scan pork products? I know of religions where you can’t eat pork, but I’ve not heard of one that forbids facilitating others from eating pork (after all not everyone is a member of the religion in question). As for this issue, I would rather this gentleman waste his money (or related interest groups’ money) on this than bother the rest of us with other inane actions. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:47 am: Check it out! http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html You have to be a person liberals believe is oppressed in order to be allowed to oppress. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:48 am: Maybe Luke Vander Bleek should claim bigotry as a member of a persecuted Dutch religious minority? - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:55 am: Vanilla, Where is the religious right in the Minnesota conflict? That was my point. For all your talk of PC, the religious right cares deeply about the “rights” of Christian extremists, but shows no concern for the religious rights of other groups. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 10:21 am: Mr. Vander Bleek is asking that we accommodate his religious beliefs. In exchange for an ability to refuse to fulfill prescriptions on specific medications designed to terminate pregnancies, he will continue to respect society’s other rights. That is not the case for the group in Minneapolis. Their religious belief that pork, seeing eye dogs, alcohol is unclean, and that modern ladies are harlots is not scientifically based. Mr. Vander Bleek and the pharmaceutical companies recognize the science behind the medicines he dispenses and he has a problem with what it does. It is a fact, not an opinion that the drugs terminate pregnancy. It is not a fact that pork, seeing eye dogs, alcohol is unclean. So one group is enforcing unscientific standards onto the majority and using religious beliefs as the reason. Mr. Vander Bleek isn’t doing that, but yet he is still considered unworthy of sympathy. That is a stupid double standard and you know it or you wouldn’t have brought it up in your first posting on this subject. Stereotyping Mr. Vander Bleek doesn’t change the facts. Sorry. - i d - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 10:45 am: The people should be fired for failure to perform the duties for which they were hired. An employer advertises for a position, interviews and explains the duties; then the individual has the choice to agree or disagree to take the job knowing what they will be required to do. These people were not kidnapped and forced to labor in jobs against their will. These situations are preplanned and the employer is the one being forced into a portrayal of bigotry and/or racism. The employee should be fired and charged with criminally fraudulent behavior towards the employer and the courts. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 10:45 am: Vanilla, You last post does nothing more than to declare that you believe that Christians are right and Muslims are wrong. That’s it, and nothing more. The pharmacist doesn’t like the drug, although the drug works. He doesn’t want to handle it. The cab drivers don’t like various products, although those products do their job. They just don’t want to have contact with them. For you to declare a victor is nothing more than for you to declare one religion to be right and the other to be wrong. And of course, that was my point. Right-wingers talk a lot about religious freedom, but it only matters to them when it is the “right” of Christians to treat others badly. - RickMonday - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 10:51 am: ID, I agree with you 100%. Using your same logic, the guards at the Nazi concentration camps were just following orders and should have never been punished. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 11:14 am: This guy’s argument is he doesn’t like what the medicine does. He doesn’t respect the judgement of the woman who will be bringing the script to him to fill and wants to insert his judgement into the equation instead. He does have an option under IL law though. He could choose to open a pharmacy that does not dispense contraception at all. He would then be free and clear of the requirement. That fact that he chooses not to do that is interesting. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 11:52 am: cermak_rd Would that it were true. Vander Bleek owns two pharmacies. The suit relates to a Blago administrative order limiting the effect of Illinois ‘conscience law.’ Vander Bleek contends that the Governor can not amend the law. - i d - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 12:19 pm: RickMonday, I would doubt that the guards at a Nazi prison camp would for any reason, be fired from their jobs; more than likely, they would have been “fired upon” thus ending any revulsion to the duties assigned. Would I apply a different standard to prison guards in the United States than in a Nazi prison camp? Yes, but we are not talking about beating a patron of a store, we are talking about scanning a pork chop or handing someone a bottle of a legal product. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 12:27 pm: “You last post does nothing more than to declare that you believe that Christians are right and Muslims are wrong. That’s it, and nothing more.” No. You are wrong. That’s it and nothing more. There are many Christians that do not eat pork. Yet they do not stand in the way of others doing so. They are wait staff at restaurants, clerks, butchers and do not consume pork. They do not allow their religious belief to override common sense or their jobs. A lot of Christians do not drink. Yet, they we do not see them preventing others from imbibing by blocking stores or preventing others from buying alcohol. A lot of Christians do not like dogs. But they understand the importance of seeing eye dogs and accommodate others using them. Our society continues to provide freedom whenever a group feels threatened. We accommodate others whose needs conflict with our own when it comes to beliefs. But this case is different because we are discussing science and medicine. There is provable facts here, and the case is not just about beliefs. Our current political atmosphere is causing embarrassing double standards. With Mr. Vander Bleek, we are seeing a governor telling Christians that life does not start at conception and a need to terminate a possible pregnancy is a medical emergency. That is scientifically wrong. A possibility of being pregnant is not an emergency medically that requires we overwrite our laws. Blagojevich did this to win votes, and politically it is popular. That doesn’t make it right in any way. Science is on the side of the people you want to stereotype as ignorant Christian right wingers. Call them whatever you want, but science will continually call you out and continue to disprove your political stand. The more we learn and see within a uterus, the harder it will be to claim that we are not human, and the life within it doesn’t deserve protection. Science is on one side, your political beliefs are on the other. Historically we know what ends up eventually happening - science wins and we have to accommodate our political beliefs, just as we have to accommodate any religious beliefs without scientific basis. To beat up on Mr. Vander Bleek as some kind of neanderthal-like ignorant creature overlooks his years of science studies, degrees and common sense. You just don’t make any sense when you do that. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 1:27 pm: VM, First term abortion is legal in Illinois. Contraception is legal in Illinois. As a result, not selling the products is purely a religious decision. The law says the products are legal. The pharmacist is refusing to provide a legal product. There is no difference between that religious decision and the decision of a cab driver to refuse to transport a person carrying alcohol. By the way, if you want to talk about science try this: I can scientifically tell you that dogs drool. They also shed. Speaking from the point of view of science, transporting a dog in a cab will cause some level of damage to the cab driver by making his cab dirty. Conversely, selling the birth control drugs will not do actual harm to the person selling the products. Based on that science, I now expect that you will line up with those Muslim cab drivers and support their refusal to transport dogs in their nice clean cabs. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 1:28 pm: Truthful James, Mr. Vander Bleek could easily stop selling all contraception. Once he did that he would be clear of the law. His problem is he doesn’t want to drop the Pill (under its myriad names) and all the business that drives to his pharmacy. Never mind that if Plan B acts as an abortifacient (and the science is still out on that) then so does the Pill. In other words, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. It’s a simple issue, he either stops stocking all contraceptive pills or he accepts the requirement. The fact that he doesn’t given the fact that Plan B is just a more potent form of the Pill, tells me he is more interested in his 15 minutes of fame than anything else. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 1:58 pm: cermak_rd: I tried to state the basis for the suit. Mayhap it was not clear. I repeat from an earlier comment. “…The suit relates to a Blago administrative order limiting the effect of Illinois ‘conscience law.’ Vander Bleek contends that the Governor can not amend the law…” You might wish to review some pertinent information at http://www.hcdhealth.com/ViewNewsArticle.cfm?ID=42. Then again, you might not The step after the case is finally litigated is for him not to carry any contraceptives. Not yet. Skeeter – Your logic is laughable and lamentable. Taxis are a quasi public utility regulated by the municipality and subject to license under the law. The Muslims have raised a phony issue, attempting to modify Municipal law and replace it with a radical interpretation Sharia law — camel’s nose under the tent, and all that. VM can protect himself. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 2:09 pm: Truthful, Labeling something “laughable” doesn’t really answer the question. It just points out the weakness in your own argument. If the point was truly laughable, then your logic would show it to be so. You haven’t done that, or even come close. Pharmacies are regulated and pharmacists are licensed. Your pharmacist has attempted to replace Illinis law with a radical and misguided version of Christianity. Now that I point that out, does that mean I win the debate? Apparently that matters to you (although you laughably refuse to point out why that matters). As with the case of pharmacists, hypothetically those passengers could wait in line until a non-Muslim cab driver comes into line. Where is the harm in that? If the pharmacist can decide that he need not provide a product he finds religiously offensive, why should a cab driver be forced to make trips that he finds religiously offensive? These cab drivers are perfectly willing to transport passengers that do not offend them, just as your pharmacist is perfectly willing to dispense drugs that do not offend him. Muslims have “raised a phony issue” only to the extent that you and VM don’t like Muslim beliefs but do like radical Christian beliefs. If you are going to support the pharmacist, then you need to stand with the cab drivers. You won’t do that though. For all your talk about protecting religion, you only care about protecting a radical version of Christianity. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 2:33 pm: What a moron–he’s a pharmacist, but he’s claiming the morning after pill is abortificient. It’s not. I t is pharmacologically the same as the birth control pill. Why would anyone trust this man to dispense drugs if he is this dumb? He has a choice–he owns his own pharmacies so he can stop carrying contraceptives. The morning after pill is only a higher dosage of the regular Pill so if he objects to one, he should be objecting to the other. He has a right to not carry either. He should practice it since they are the same thing and stop carrying contraceptives all together. In terms of those working at Target, that’s a private business deciding to work with it’s employees. They are free with the morning after pill to do the same thing and under Illinois’ law the Target pharmacy only has to dispense, not the individual. They are free to make the same kind of accommodation they make for Muslim employees on pork. Isn’t respecting an employee’s religious conviction reasonable if it can be done without disrupting business? I’m baffled why this is offensive to anyone. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 2:51 pm: Truthful James, JCAR signed off on the administrative order in Aug 2005, which is when this rule became permanent, so the Statehouse has had some say on this rule. The HealthCare Conscience clause does not specifically mention pharmacists, and if the State House really felt strongly that it should, don’t you think it would have acted by now? It’s been 2 years for heaven’s sake. Obviously, a majority of the IL State House is happy with 1330.91j as is. I note that Jurist Knecht seemed to think that Mr. Vander Bleek had other options than the courts. His objection is how Plan B works (or how he thinks it works) never mind that the normal Pill could work the same way. Yet he’s not yet willing to give up selling the Pill until he’s out of appeals. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 2:57 pm: If so he will have wasted a lot of money. Skeeter – I keep pointing out that the case is about a law being replaced by something which did not pass the GA. Simple as that, but by am a simple man. The cab driver at the airport can be told to follow certain regulations or ply his trade elsewhere I support radical nothing. That is what is both laughable and lamentable about your tortured argument. You jump to contusions and frame your argument to get the result you (if I may use the word) devoutly desire. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 2:59 pm: Truthful, Let me get this right: Your only objection is that it was done by the Gov. rather than by the state legislature? Is that correct? If the State House and Senate passed this, then you would tell the pharmacist that he is completely wrong? - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 3:25 pm: Blagojevich issued an administrative ruling to a regulated industry consistent with the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, the ability to make such rules was specifically delegated to the executive branch in accordance with the Illinois APA. It happens every day and there is nothing nefarious about it and it is consistent with the Pharmacy Act. Even if pharmacists were covered by the conscience clause, it doesn’t matter since there is an opt out for a pharmacy owner. Pharmacy owners may choose not to carry contraceptives. He is choosing to carry contraceptives so it is bizarre to suggest that the morning after pill violates his conscience when he dispenses the drug in another form. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 3:26 pm: ===I keep pointing out that the case is about a law being replaced by something which did not pass the GA. Simple as that, but by am a simple man. Are you familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act? - Papa Legba - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 3:27 pm: Wow. How can he afford to pursue this legal action? With the state not reimbursing Dr’s, hospitals and pharmacies he must be independently wealthy. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 3:33 pm: I believe Americans United for Life is footing some of the bill (at least they filed one of the original suits). Like I said, better they spend their money on this than other inane activities. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 3:41 pm: He’s probably also getting help from Pharmacists for Life–they have referred to the Governor as Slobodan and Planned Parenthood as Klan Parenthood: http://www.pfli.org/ Oh, and they link to a bunch of Stanek’s columns. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 4:03 pm: The Health Care Right of Conscience Act does not apply to emergency contraception, also known as Plan B. From the Act (745 ILCS 70/6): “Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.” (emphasis added) - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 5:06 pm: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.” The possibility of being pregnant does not fit that description. There is no medical emergency in this case. Nothing life threatening. What I see is blantant discrimination. You guys are most likely Christians, and you disagree with this man’s Christian view on abortion. His disagreement makes you uncomfortable, so you want to tell him to shut up. In the case of the Minneapolis religious group, you are not Muslim, so you don’t want to come off as dissing their religion. You don’t agree with them, but you feel like insulting him and calling them names because you are not personally threatened by their religious views, while Mr. Vander Bleek as a fellow Christian makes you angry. You are discriminating against the Christian. Do you discriminate against other Christian religious groups? Do you laugh at Mennonites that do not want their photos taken? Do you look down your noses at the Amish who drive their old fashioned buggies? Would you demand that these religious groups support your modern lifestyle? They aren’t marching in the streets opposed to your political belief, so you let them be. Same with Mr. Vander Bleek. Mr. Vander Bleek wants to run his business the way he sees fit. You don’t agree with his religious stands. So you now want to force him to sell something designed to terminate human life and claim it is some kind of medical emergency unlike any other. Nonsense. You just don’t like being told you are wrong by a bunch of people you disrespect. You want to go to church on Sundays, and have the convenience of abortions on Mondays. Sorry, other Christians have a problem with that, and they should have the religious right to run their own businesses as they see fit. There is room for diversity. The more you support other’s rights for religious beliefs, the better for all. Mr. Vander Bleek shouldn’t have to ignor his beliefs in order to accommodate your lack of them. - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 6:10 pm: Please tell me this whole thing with a cashier at Target and pork products are just a huge joke. I thought I had read it all…………… - NoGiftsPlease - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 6:44 pm: Another point here is that Mr. Van Der Bleek does not in fact know if the woman is pregnant or not — neither does she. This medicine is used without actual knowledge of being pregnant. I heartily disagree with the pharmacist deciding what medications customers can purchase. How does he feel about viagra? it could be used for extra-marital affairs or even non-procreational sexual activities within marriage? If you want to rely on religious proscriptions, does he advise the men who come into the store not to use condoms because they would be , in effect, spilling their seed upon the ground. This is the slippery slope to the american taliban. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 9:10 pm: VM, Show some respect for non-Christians. Then you can talk about respect. Until then, you are just another idiot who hates Muslims. - faithnomore - Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 10:16 pm: What other medications might this pharmacist decide not to dispense in the name of Christianity? If I want to see a clergyman I will go to a church, not a pharmacy. Keep your beliefs to yourself, do your job, and stop whining. If you can’t do that, then join the seminary where your ridiculous opinion will be welcomed. In the meantime, please shut up. You’re giving the rest of us a headache!!! - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Mar 28, 07 @ 9:54 am: ===What I see is blantant discrimination. You guys are most likely Christians, and you disagree with this man’s Christian view on abortion. His disagreement makes you uncomfortable, so you want to tell him to shut up. In the case of the Minneapolis religious group, you are not Muslim, so you don’t want to come off as dissing their religion. You don’t agree with them, but you feel like insulting him and calling them names because you are not personally threatened by their religious views, while Mr. Vander Bleek as a fellow Christian makes you angry. Whether he is a Christian or not is irrelevant. He’s a moron. This isn’t about abortion, it’s about contraception. The law allows him to opt out of selling contraceptives. He chose not to and now has decided that he thinks the same drug with the same pharmacology is okay in one case and not the other. The morning after pill is not abortion–it is contraception. It can theoretically cause a fertilized egg not to implant, but so can normal usage of the pill. As a pharmacist he is incompetent to be making this argument Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.