New bills being introduced about birth control

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by steve319@Apr 16 2005, 02:56 AM
As I understand it, the official stance of the Catholic Church is just what you mentioned, Jana: that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation. Not to tell them how they should feel or what they should believe (by any means&#33, but it’s interesting to note that I don’t see the church rushing to condemn married couples who continue to have sex after they have been diagnosed as sterile—or after menopause, for that matter. Any catholic members of LPSG who can help us understand the church’s view better?

The official view of the Church is that a married couple should produce children if they are able to do so and are able to provide for that child. Sex has never been solely for procreational purposes. The Church recognises that sex can be an expression of love and commitment, and that not everyone can afford to support a family. The point that everyone seems to overlook is that whenever the stance on birth control is stated by a religious authority in the Catholic Church, the faithful are always advised that one's conscience should be followed. In over-populated countries like India, the Catholic missionaries do not discourage contraception.

In an earlier, less enlightened era, the Church did often refuse to marry those known to be unable to produce children. That is the Church of yesteryear.

 

[MisterMark]

steve319, unfortunately, it's not about RU-486. It's about simple birth control pills that have been around for 40 years.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by MisterMark+Apr 16 2005, 12:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MisterMark &#064; Apr 16 2005, 12:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>steve319, unfortunately, it&#39;s not about RU-486. It&#39;s about simple birth control pills that have been around for 40 years.

[post=300987]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

I wasn&#39;t clear with my comment, I think. I see that this legal proposal would include everything, but I had kind of assumed that the big uproar among the "Pharmacists for Life" group was triggered by a reaction to RU-486 rather than some long-festering guilt over selling the standard, simple birth control pills.

Otherwise, I find myself wondering why they choose now to get flipped out. But I keep having to be hit over the head with the fact that socially conservative groups are seeing our current government as the prime time to get their agenda passed.

Found this on Catholic.com

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

And this on the same page:

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

From what you said, DMW, it sounds like the official doctrine can be modified when it comes down to real world situations. The way things get messy in the real world certainly can complicate things.

<!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@Apr 16 2005, 12:14 AM
In an earlier, less enlightened era, the Church did often refuse to marry those known to be unable to produce children. That is the Church of yesteryear.

[post=300982]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Wow. Had no idea. Thanks for sharing your expertise&#33;

 

[madame_zora]

Well, if the argument being levied is that a business owner should be able to do whatever he wants, why should he have to serve blacks, mexicans, women, or anyone he doesn&#39;t like?

Why should any person&#39;s personal opinion of another&#39;s personal life matter at all? Why should ANY individual get to sit in judgement of whether or not someone else is worthy of contraception, unless it is their own family? I mean, why would they possible care? Oh yeah, to bored and miserable to mind their own business. Once again, I though conservatives were for LESS government&#33;

 

[Lex]

Flip Flop flip flip flippity floppity flip. Small gov&#39;t when it meets their interests (Capitalism), big gov&#39;t when it does the same (No Child Left Behind, Gay Marriage Bans).

And some conservatives said Kerry was bi-polar...pot.kettle.black.

As Zora said--this is more likely to occur in rural areas--which is what makes it more important to make sure it doesn&#39;t happen. Pecker&#39;s stance makes sense in a metropolitan area. If my pharamacist refuses to fill a prescription, I have about 20 more within a 10 mile radius that I can choose from. But If I live in some small town of 2000 where the is only one pharmacy within, say 25-50 miles--I don&#39;t really have much choice or many options if my pharmacist decides to object.

Does anyone know if pharmacists have to take some kind of oath to provide services?

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

I found this article (which is probably what sparked the whole debate):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4359430/


I think most of you are interpreting this bill as a bad thing. It&#39;s not. Unless I&#39;m grossly misreading it, it makes sure that you can still get your prescription filled at any pharmacy.

It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.

maybe this will help clarify more:
another article about the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7505372/

 

[dickbulge]

Originally posted by Pecker@Apr 15 2005, 03:25 PM
If a pharmacist chooses not to fill a certain prescription all he has to do is to inform the customer that he does not stock that medication.

It&#39;s up to the customer whether he will take all of his business to another drug store. It is not unusual for folks with a tight budget to split their business among several pharmacies due to pricing, so why not because of availability?

[post=300915]Quoted post[/post]​

Jeesh&#33; Pecker, Not only does your pharmacist shirk his professional duty to serve the public, regardless of his personal opinions, he gets to lie or at least to hide behind a lie. He should be required, since we&#39;er making all these new laws, to post a large sign stating he will not fill prescriptions for birth control pills, AIDS medications, anti-biotics for STD&#39;s, etc., etc......

Seriously. do you realize how many people in rural and poverty areas don&#39;t have access to a variety of pharmacies?

Its very easy to take the moral high road when your chariot is gold plated.

 

[jonb]

No, everybody, it&#39;s not over RU-486. It&#39;s over the one which stops ovulation.

 

[dickbulge]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Apr 16 2005, 11:22 AM
I found this article (which is probably what sparked the whole debate):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4359430/


I think most of you are interpreting this bill as a bad thing. It&#39;s not. Unless I&#39;m grossly misreading it, it makes sure that you can still get your prescription filled at any pharmacy.

It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.

maybe this will help clarify more:
another article about the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7505372/

[post=301129]Quoted post[/post]​

Sorry TAG thats BS. A lot of pharmacies are one man jobs or the pharmacist hires and fires so we&#39;er back at the lack of access and frankly discriminatory results. And its the old "camel nose under the tent" thing. If we can discriminate on religion is this instance why not in a whole lot of other things? It divisive, mean, discrimintory and meant to establish religion. And not only that what if, say, Wal-mart, allows one group or employees to discriminate why not others? Jews could ignore Muslum customers, Greeks not serve Turks. In this new nation personal morality is now more important than civil behavior.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

While I agree that it is total bullshit that a pharmacist can refuse to do his job just because he doesn&#39;t agree with your beliefs, I still think you are missing the point of the bill.

The bill states that a pharmacist must fill a prescription if there are no co-workers around that will. So theoretically, a "one man pharmacy" has to fill all prescriptions according to the bill.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by dickbulge@Apr 16 2005, 07:36 PM
It divisive, mean, discrimintory [sic] and meant to establish religion.

Divisive? Yes. Discriminatory? Possibly, but probably not. It depends on the reasoning behind it. Mean? No. The decision is based on one&#39;s moral responsibility (real or imagined), not on cruel intentions aimed at the other party. Meant to establish religion? Not in the least. Exercising your conscience according to your own moral beliefs is not trying to establish anything, nor is it the same as proselytizing. If one feels that he cannot, in good conscience, perform a certain act, that does not mean that he is trying to claim that his religious beliefs are any any way superior to those of anyone else. It simply means that that act is in opposition to his own moral viewpoint, and that may or may not involve his religion.

My personal belief (and this is my own belief; I am not claiming that it is the only valid conclusion): dispensing the birth control pill is fine. The morning-after pill is a different matter. My belief is that life begins at conception and ending that life is murder.

 

[madame_zora]

The article I posted originally referred to several states considering similar bills. I haven&#39;t seen the wording on any of them, nor is it likely I will since this will never be brought before the public to vote on. Clearly, this is an attempt to allow religion to get a stronger foothold into government, but not the kind of religion any sane person would want.

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus wanted power and control of anything, other than the church itself&#33;

This new brand of right-wing-holier-than-thou garbage in governemnt is a grotesque disfigurement of the message of love Jesus died to deliver. He spent all his time with those society cast down, not the morally "righteous". Why does nobody get it that when you think you&#39;re holier than your brother, you just couldn&#39;t be further away from God?

 

[steve319]

This seems almost surreal.

It&#39;s hard for me to imagine any bill like this getting even this far in our society. Even here, in the center of conservative country, people see the necessity for birth control. Or maybe no local congregation has thought of this particular twist yet....

If this were to get support and approval, I could certainly see pharmacists then choosing not to fill HIV medications for patients as well on the basis of their own personal judgement. What an ugly idea.

I can see the argument that, if it were genuinely against my moral beliefs, I wouldn&#39;t want to have to sell a particular product and thereby tacitly "approve" of its use. But why go into pharmaceuticals at all if that were my feeling? Time to sell the family pharmacy and go into the nutjob-with-a-picket-sign business full time, buddy&#33;

Do recovering alcoholics who happen to work at grocery stores get to refuse to stock, bag, or scan beer? Ridiculous. Your ass would be fired.

Being a small business owner complicates things, but providing health care services is a public trust and shouldn&#39;t be open to personal whims, no matter how heartfelt or solemn.

 

[dickbulge]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Apr 16 2005, 01:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Apr 16 2005, 01:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dickbulge@Apr 16 2005, 07:36 PM
It divisive, mean, discrimintory [sic] and meant to establish religion.

Divisive? Yes. Discriminatory? Possibly, but probably not. It depends on the reasoning behind it. Mean? No. The decision is based on one&#39;s moral responsibility (real or imagined), not on cruel intentions aimed at the other party. Meant to establish religion? Not in the least. Exercising your conscience according to your own moral beliefs is not trying to establish anything, nor is it the same as proselytizing. If one feels that he cannot, in good conscience, perform a certain act, that does not mean that he is trying to claim that his religious beliefs are any any way superior to those of anyone else. It simply means that that act is in opposition to his own moral viewpoint, and that may or may not involve his religion.

My personal belief (and this is my own belief; I am not claiming that it is the only valid conclusion): dispensing the birth control pill is fine. The morning-after pill is a different matter. My belief is that life begins at conception and ending that life is murder.

[post=301161]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


DMW are you naive? These bills have very little to do with a reasonable respect for morals and everything to do with controlling the choices and ultimately the behavior of the non-observing or non-believing members of our national community. To me this is very divisive and, what you describe as "exercising your conscience", creates a nation, not for the good of all, but only of self interest.

You say you don&#39;t oppose the selling of birth control but do you care if it becomes impossible to obtain? Some people oppose the selling of condoms-do you care if they become impossible to obtain?

And it is mean and discriminatory to allow a powerful minority to force people to search for a pharmacy when they have limited financial means to do so and possiblely face humiliating confrontations in the process.

 

[KinkGuy]

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point
where it becomes stronger than the democratic state
itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power."
-- Franklin Roosevelt

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Apr 17 2005, 05:34 AM
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point
where it becomes stronger than the democratic state
itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power."
-- Franklin Roosevelt

[post=301300]Quoted post[/post]​

Wasn&#39;t he a pinko Nazi fag?

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: I think TAG has got the gist of the thing better than many; however, while the bill does try to provide alternatives it would be the first national recognition of individual pharmacists right to refuse filling prescriptions (unless no one else was available) so it is a bit of a double edged sword.

Pecker has a point but I would imagine that if a little small town "Mom and Pop" pharmacy chooses not to buy certain drugs there probably isn&#39;t much anyone can do about it. It&#39;s a different issue when an individual pharmacist who works for a large national chain refuses to sell something that the chain has in ready supply. That&#39;s a lot of what&#39;s between the lines here, does a national chain have a right to fire a pharmacist who refuses to sell certain products carried by the chain? I would say yes but,

According to the law center, legislators in at least 26 states have introduced "refusal" laws backing pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of moral or religious beliefs. Three states have already passed such laws, and a fourth state has issued a similar regulation.

Just some fun select quotes from the articles:

Yet some want additional legislation to protect pharmacists who believe certain birth control drugs are forms of abortion, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, told the Reuters news agency. The group provides legal advice and support to pharmacists.

Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.

"They&#39;ll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It&#39;s the next logical step," she told Reuters.

Oh yes, this woman is completely bat-shit insane. It&#39;s wonderful that she gets a national forum to express her ideas. I know I would be proud to be on her side of this particular argument. (sarcasm)

In addition to refusing to fill the prescription, in some cases pharmacists have refused to give the prescription slip itself back to the woman, so she could not go to another pharmacy. Several women&#39;s organizations tracking the trend have reported cases where pharmacists have publicly harangued or berated the women customer about morality or life choices.

Nice, real fucking nice. Yeah, this is reasonable behavior.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, I&#39;d love to have a pharmacist keep one of my prescriptions, I sue them for theft, mental anguish, and anything else I could think of, that&#39;s fucking ridiculous&#33; I&#39;d get their name and take their picture with my cell phone for the news story I&#39;d be sure to sell.

I did read that the laws were (at this time) requiring that another pharmacist be made available to fill the prescription, but even going there is such a dirty road to take. We&#39;ve had birth control pills for 40 years, and no hint of suggesting aborting a less than perfect child has come up because of it. Doctors don&#39;t get to refuse clients based on their religous beliefs, so why should pharmacists be in a superior position? Because the right wingers are having a field day at the expense of every American who doesn&#39;t believe as they do. No more freedom for all, just their set. Fascism, here we come.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Apr 17 2005, 03:55 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Apr 17 2005, 03:55 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KinkGuy@Apr 17 2005, 05:34 AM
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point
where it becomes stronger than the democratic state
itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power."
        -- Franklin Roosevelt

[post=301300]Quoted post[/post]​

Wasn&#39;t he a pinko Nazi fag?

[post=301364]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Madame Zora,
The sound you just heard was my butt hitting the floor after laughing it off. You just made my Sunday&#33;

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by KinkGuy+Apr 17 2005, 04:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KinkGuy &#064; Apr 17 2005, 04:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 17 2005, 03:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-KinkGuy

@Apr 17 2005, 05:34 AM
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point
where it becomes stronger than the democratic state
itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or any
controlling private power."
-- Franklin Roosevelt

[post=301300]Quoted post[/post]​

Wasn&#39;t he a pinko Nazi fag?

[post=301364]Quoted post[/post]​

Madame Zora,
The sound you just heard was my butt hitting the floor after laughing it off. You just made my Sunday&#33;

[post=301428]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Geez, Kink, I hope you didn&#39;t hurt those precious balls with that fall&#33; They might need cpr...am I too eager?

I&#39;m glad someone likes my leftist humor.