Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pic of the week
Next Post: No comparison
Posted in:
Pharmacists for Life has been getting a lot of press lately, even though the group claims just 1,600 members. Expect that media coverage to grow now that Governor Blagojevich has issued an emergency rule requiring pharmacies to dispense birth control prescriptions, including the “morning-after” pill.
The group’s president, Karen Brauer, was fired from her pharmacist job at K-Mart for refusing to fill a prescription for contraceptives.
Brauer was quoted in a recent Sun-Times article calling the governor’s emergency rule “crazy” and “nuts.”
Brauer’s group also posted the following on its website in response to the governor’s order.
Not your typical soft-spoken pharmacists, eh?
posted by Rich Miller
Sunday, Apr 3, 05 @ 11:48 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pic of the week
Next Post: No comparison
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I wonder if they’re backed by the same pro-life groups that funded Terry Schiavo’s court battles and coordinated the resulting media frenzy
I can’t help but be impressed at the way pro-life groups are setting the terms of debate in the media. On the weekend of two-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq there was a long line of Congressman proclaiming how much they value the sanctity of life, but the dead soldiers and civilians in Iraq never came up once.
Comment by DownLeft Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 1:36 am
To the previous poster:
War and sanctity of life are mutually exclusive?
What about a war to preserve the sanctity of life?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 6:43 am
What the pro-life folks have been doing is very shrew politics. They’ve been working the fringe issues like partial-birth abortion where they can build wide consensus. Remember when they used to be in your face and viloent protestors? They’ve chucked that for building wider and wider consensus. It helps that technology makes life viable outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages. You don’t see the same kind of political creativity on the pro-choice side. They instead are caught up in what Andrew Sullivan has called the Politics of Resentment which had destroyed the left in this country.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 6:55 am
The pro-abortion bias of Miller is ridiculous.
No objectivity.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 7:12 am
Anybody got a membership list for this group of nutballs?
Everybody gets opinion, but I fill my kid’s Rx’s somewhere else.
…Speaking of Schiavo, I was glad to see Scary Randy Terry — the guy who tosses his own kids out on the street — get his big, ugly curly headed mug back on TV.
Comment by reddbyrd Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 7:18 am
I wonder what George Ryan thinks of this pharmacy group, since he is both pro-life and a pharmacist? It would have been fun for him to handle this issue.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 10:14 am
As I mentioned in my post on the story on The Inside Dope, Media Matters for America has a great background piece on “Pharmacists for Life” and Karen Brauer here.
Comment by The Inside Dope Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 11:05 am
So, what’s next?
A pharmacist who thinks single-moms are immoral, so he refuses to sell medicine to them for their kids? How about interracial marriage?
If he was renting an apartment, or selling a house, instead of dispensing medicine, a lawsuit would ensue.
By the way, anon 7:12, I saw nothing in Rich’s presentation of the material that showed a bias.
Comment by FrankSkeffington Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 1:37 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
Comment by DownLeft Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 1:40 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
Comment by DownLeft Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 1:41 pm
Would you rather get needed medicication from Rod Blagojevich, or a trusted local pharmacist?
It seems like Blago has “white coat” envy. If Rod wants medical degree, he ought to go back to school and earn one.
I know Rod, why not let pharmacist practice law! Yaaaaaaa that’s the ticket!
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 5:52 pm
A pharmacist who thinks single-moms are immoral, so he refuses to sell medicine to them for their kids? How about interracial marriage?
I guess the First Amendment is optional in this case.
We allow conscientuous objectors their freedom in the military, but let’s frame it in people actively causing harm to others, right?
If a Doctor feels that a ‘liquid drano’ prescription is necessary, why is he sending them to a pharmacist anyway? Why not just dispense it directly from a ’sample’ - if it’s so urgent?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 9:14 pm
Setting aside the important philosophical issues for a moment, how about a look at how the gov. abuses the rules process when it suits his need to throw someone under a truck. Emergency rules are only appropriate in narrow circumstances. He and/or his director stated the power to act against the pharmacy already exists (they simultaneously filed a complaint under previous rules)which is hardly a situation qualifying for emergency rules. All Pharmacy rules are statutorily required to originate with the State Pharmacy Board-did this happen? In the unlikely event anyone challenges on these grounds we will see another smashing victory for the Rod-”I only got a C in Constitutional Law” legal team. Any party having a rule invalidated is entitled to reimbursement of legal fees. Certainly a good use of resources when exixting rules already cover the situation.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 05 @ 11:17 pm
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gov04.html
“Bishop lectures Blagojevich on pharmacy rule”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 5, 05 @ 12:22 am
“We allow conscientuous objectors their freedom in the military…”
Really? I know one conscientious objector who was sent to Viet Nam. Muhammad Ali was initially jailed. And besides, objecting to being conscripted into military service is a world away from performing one’s chosen profession.
Strange things happen at the intersection of Protecting Drug Company Profits Lane and Appeasing the “Moral Majority” Avenue.
Comment by BuckTurgidson Tuesday, Apr 5, 05 @ 12:28 pm
Ummm…last I checked no one was conscripted into being a pharmacist. Big difference.
It’s also not about freedom of speech. Fulfilling a prescription isn’t speech, it is the practice of a regulated profession. They can say whatever they want (well except for misrepresenting drugs or dangers), they just have to provide the prescription for now.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Apr 5, 05 @ 1:40 pm
Last time you checked, when was someone conscripted into the military?
It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of religion.
In fact, they shouldn’t be able to say anything disrespectful or judgmental, just that they can’t fill the script for personal moral reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 5, 05 @ 4:50 pm
===Last time you checked, when was someone conscripted into the military
We do have a draft registration system, we don’t have conscription into being a pharmacist. One chooses to be a pharmacist–no one is forced to enter into that line of work. It’s a stupid comparison.
===It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of religion.
And nothing in the law is an infringement of one’s ability to practice one’s religion. No pharmacy is required to dispense contraception, but if a pharmacy does choose to dispense contraceptives, the pharmacy is responsible to do just that.
If the person doesn’t want to dispense contraceptives or whatever else might offend them, they are free to work for a pharmacy that doesn’t dispense contraceptives or they may work out something so they individually may avoid dispensing, but if the directive quite reasonably directs pharmacies that choose to stock contraceptives to dispense them when a legitimate prescription is presented. Further, it requires that a prescription presented may not be held by a pharmacy if they cannot or will not dispense.
===In fact, they shouldn’t be able to say anything disrespectful or judgmental, just that they can’t fill the script for personal moral reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again, if a pharmacy is choosing to stock contraceptives, sometehing they do not have to do, then requiring such a product be dispensed is not out of line. If that creates a problem for an employee, they may seek to have some sort of accomodation or they may work for a pharmacy that chooses not to stock contraceptives.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Apr 5, 05 @ 5:23 pm
We do have a draft registration system, we don’t have conscription into being a pharmacist. One chooses to be a pharmacist–no one is forced to enter into that line of work. It’s a stupid comparison.
Huh?
It’s a ’stupid comparison’ because there’s no compulsory registration for potential service as a pharmacist? Nice attempt at misdirection, but no, we haven’t had conscription in the military for more than 30 years, either. Today’s service member chooses to be there too.
The underlying principal remains the same. If you can demonstrate your moral reservations with valid religious practice and devotion, you don’t have to serve in the armed forces as a combatant. You still serve, just not in that capacity. Why can’t the religious freedoms of pharmacists be protected as well?
The world really is turning upside down. The right is turning against Federalism, and the left is sidelining the First Amndmt….
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 05 @ 12:29 am
Your logic is a bit bizarre. One can be a conscientious objector by not joining the army now. Your example would only apply if one was drafted so I don’t know why you are trying to use it as an example. In the case of when we did have the draft or if we were to reinstate it, one could become a CO before being called up and perform alternative service. Currently a CO just wouldn’t join.
If someone becomes a conscientious objector while serving in the military they are allowed under very specific circumstance to leave the military. The example you are trying to make seems contradict your point.
This is analagous to one not becoming a pharmacist or choosing to quit being a pharmacist to avoid doing what they dislike.
More to the point, the order applies to pharmacies so an individual isn’t being forced to do anything. However, if the pharmacy chooses to offer a particular medicine, they must dispense it or pass the prescription along to another pharmacy that will dispense it. The employees have a choice to not work for a pharmacy that dispenses such medications or make an accomodation with their employer.
The rule only deals with pharmacies that have already decided to dispense such pharmaceuticals and as such there is no violation of the first amendment because a pharmacy can always choose whether or not to dispense particular pharmaceuticals. How they deal with that with their individual employees is not a state issue, but a private business issue and whether the private business is going to work around them or not. Private businesses are not bound by the First Amendment in employee relations.
When they offer a pharmaceutical relating to the order, the pharmacy may not refuse to fill the prescription and refuse to allow the patient to take the prescription elsewhere.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 6, 05 @ 3:32 am