Patronizing businesses based on corporate beliefs

[Sylvia727]

You've mentioned personal money several times now, but I don't necessarily differentiate.

After all, where does Heavin's personal wealth come from if not from his investment in Curves? This company is not non-profit, and he is no volunteer.

The arguement has been made that his earnings from Curves are no different than a paycheck, and he is no different than an average stockholder. I was trying to sound out other people's takes on this philosophy.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I would allow the possibility that OR is making this up. They certainly don't mind breaking other laws, and a good lawyer could tie up a libel suit for years and get them off with a slap on the wrist. The lawsuit would also be free publicity for them. In the meantime, OR gets a celebrity endorsement to lend authenticity to their cause.

This is very true, although assuming that if Heavin is avoiding them like the dog turds they are, it's possible that OR would hit him with a SLAPP technique in order to keep mooching off his celebrity, and maybe that's why he hasn't come out against them? (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) This isn't an uncommon thing - SLAPPs have become so problematic that several states (including Illinois) have either passed laws against them or have laws pending.

(For those who may not know: a SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. What this means is that the anti-choice groups will sue an individual or group for the express purpose of tying their money up in court fees and garnering whatever's left over for their own coffers. In general, a SLAPP user will sue to the point of bankrupting the other party, or at least attempt to get them to settle out of court (which will still incur heavy monetary damages); this has the intended effect of silencing the opposition, thus removing the obstacle they pose to the anti-choice group.)

I assume you mean until Curves is acquited beyond all doubt? Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money? Just curious. It's your prerogitive where you spend your money.

I'm not a gym person so I don't go to gyms anyway. But if I was, and Curves was proven beyond all doubt to not have any involvement with extremists, then I'd give them a fair shake.

As far as personal funds go...IF it was shown that Curves was not affiliated with extremist groups BUT Heavin was giving money to, say, any of the mainstream pro-life groups...I have to admit I would be hesitant about going there, for the same reasons which I stated in my earlier post.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lowering the abortion rate - but IMO it has to be done a certain way and from my observation, most pro-lifers want an all-out ban on abortion and the holy grail of Abstinence favored over things like contraceptive use. That won't go over so well. (Not that there's anything wrong with abstinence - I'm celibate by choice myself - but it's not exactly applicable to, say, married couples or abused women who may not have the choice to refuse their batterer's advances) The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to educate people *thoroughly*, give them free range to *all* options, and try as best as we can to reserve abortion for emergencies like "oh shit, the contraceptive failed!", rape, or severely endangered woman's life. The thing with abortion is that it will *never* be eliminated entirely - it's been going on since time began and always will; the best we can do is lower that rate, and educating people is the best way IMO to do that.

But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me.

Very true. I have a relative by marriage whom I love dearly...and she considers herself to be pro-life. I have my theories as to why, but we're both aware of the other's stance (if not the reasons for it) and we sort of gingerly 'dance' around the subject if it comes up (which isn't often, thankfully). Believe me, I have to bite my tongue very very hard sometimes, because I'd rather keep the relationship intact - that's more important to me and we both know neither of us is going to change the other's mind anyway.

We pro-lifers don't like the anti-choicers any more than you pro-choicers do; in fact, some of us dislike them more. They make our peaceful and constructive efforts look similiar to violent and destructive efforts.

Would you be willing to stand (figuratively or literally speaking) side by side with pro-choicers to a) stop the extremists, and b) work towards a workable solution to the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies? (It's okay to say no, and I'll explain why in a minute) It's not enough to just say "we denounce the actions of X group", because to the anti's anybody who disagrees with them on any bit of their ideology is automatically an enemy anyway - but they have levels of enemies, and the ones that are going to get the bulk of their attention are the pro-choicers and the Planned Parenthoods and all.

Now, what is IMO totally understandable is why a lot of people don't want to directly confront these groups (and this is why I said I understand if a pro-life person isn't interested in dealing with pro-choice people) - a LOT of them have a history of extensive harassment and violence to the point of shooting people on sight. (Legal limits are still their preferred main tactic, if only because it lets them sneak in their ideology before people can recognize it for what it is, but there are always loose cannons out there who are only too happy to take matters into their own hands.) To the extremists, there is NO room for compromise whatsoever: it's their way, nothing else.

To give you an example of this, there was a huge controversy surrounding a Planned Parenthood last year that opened in an area I'm familiar with (There's a thread on this in Fratching somewhere, actually). This PP offers abortion services (which not all PPs do), so naturally that got the attention of a major anti-choice group (which, ironically, is based in the same area as the PP!) Some of the pro-life people that were polled said that although they personally did not like abortion, they understood that there was a serious need for the other majority of the PP services (and there is - one county in particular has seen its STD rates skyrocket in the past 5 years) and that with that one exception, they were otherwise okay with having the PP around - they were actually MORE worried about the effects the protesting anti's could have on local homes. (The head anti openly said he wanted to get permits from the city to picket (read: harass and intimidate) PP employees' *homes*, so yeah, we're dealing with a pretty nasty bunch here)

The anti's want this PP shut down, no questions asked - they've flat-out said so numerous times. They aren't interested in preventing or treating STDs, or lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate, or helping women who are financially on the skids getting much-needed exams and treatment. They're even against *contraceptives* - Head Anti also has been noted in print as having said that contraception is the same thing as abortion (it's not, and no legitimate doctor would ever say so). And with their history of harassment - they've already tried a SLAPP and continue to attempt to tie up things in court; the PP's opening was actually *delayed* because of their crap - I would not be surprised in the least when somewhere down the line the worse behavior (vandalism, butyric acid attacks, bombings, shootings) starts to make itself known.

The local police department, God bless 'em, has shown a ready presence at each and every protest event that's been held at the site to date (and yes, the antis HAVE been known to direct their violent attacks towards law enforcement; the chief of police even said in print that the protestors were deliberately trying to provoke them in order to attempt lawsuits. One particularly frightening violent tactic is for antis to set up bombs with a delayed trigger - these explosives are set in order to go off in a series: once to cause the initial damage to a clinic, and again to take out any 'rapid responders'...like your medical emergency personnel and your law enforcement officials).

With that kind of menace, I wouldn't blame anybody, be they pro-choice or pro-life, for not wanting to put either themselves or their loved ones under that kind of threat. Clinic escorts alone have to hear all sorts of vile things said to them on a *daily* basis, nevermind the stuff these people will say to the woman herself. I am seriously in awe of such people's bravery, because they are literally risking their professional reputations and their lives to help women in dire straits.

The pro-choice side DOES need more pro-life folks who are willing to work with them (and there are actually quite a few pro-choice people who for personal reasons disagree with abortion but believe in letting people dictate their own choices (as an aside, I wonder what that makes them - both pro-choice and pro-life?)); the problem is that neither side is ever going to agree on certain sticking points and what happens is everybody gets sucked into the morality quicksand instead of being able to get things done.

To me, the ideal setup would be both bunches getting together, going "okay we all disagree on point X but we also all agree on points Y (the need to educate people) and points Z (the need to stop the extremists from wanking off), so let's just focus on Y and Z and see what we can do there." (Which is a lot easier said than done, I know)

[rahmota]

Just wanting to respond here to this and then I'll back out as Amethyst seems to have this one under control here.

It's fine to go on suspicion; in fact, it's rather unhealthy to take everything at face value.

This is true but also one shoudl not live such a paranoid life that they dont trust anything. A nice middle ground of trust but verify usually works out the best. I mean to use your example a guy in buddist robes come sup and smacks me upside the head. I might stay a bit more defensive the next time one comes walking up but I'm not gonna freak out, premtively strike him or ignore him either.

But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me

Well I have to disagree on this. It all depends on how far apart the ideologies are. I get along well with some people that are not overly pro firearms ownership as their idelogy is they dont want want but dont care if I have one. Someone who was rabidly anti-firearms ownership would wind up getting the boot out of my life. Same way on most subjects. I'll tolerate a person who disagrees with me up to a certain point but if that disagreement is too far apart, too radical, or too diametrically opposed to what I personally believe in then it would be for the best for all involved if we didnt try and pretend to be friends.

[Sylvia727]

This is true but also one shoudl not live such a paranoid life that they dont trust anything. A nice middle ground of trust but verify usually works out the best. I mean to use your example a guy in buddist robes come sup and smacks me upside the head. I might stay a bit more defensive the next time one comes walking up but I'm not gonna freak out, premtively strike him or ignore him either.

Completely agree. Unfortunately, some people see a psycho calling himself "pro-life" blow up a building, and then jump all over the next person they meet who calls themself "pro-life". It'd be great if pro-lifers didn't get the flak intended for anti-choicers, but...*shrug* Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?

Well I have to disagree on this. It all depends on how far apart the ideologies are.

Well, sure. One of my roomies is pro-choice, and I'm pro-life. We'd both like to see the vast number of abortions eliminated. She because it's expensive, often unhealthy, and in many cases could have been prevented. Me because of all of the above, but also because I fear the possibility of human life, or a human soul, being destroyed. We try not to discuss the morality of it and instead focus on possible solutions. It works out well. Another person spouts off hateful anti-choice rhetoric at every opportunity, and I avoid him as much as humanly possible. Even though ideologically one might think me better friends with the anti-choicer, the pro-choicer is a much better person.

This is very true, although assuming that if Heavin is avoiding them like the dog turds they are, it's possible that OR would hit him with a SLAPP technique in order to keep mooching off his celebrity, and maybe that's why he hasn't come out against them? (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) This isn't an uncommon thing - SLAPPs have become so problematic that several states (including Illinois) have either passed laws against them or have laws pending.

It's a distinct posibility. 'S one reason why I'm reserving judgement on the man.

As far as personal funds go...IF it was shown that Curves was not affiliated with extremist groups BUT Heavin was giving money to, say, any of the mainstream pro-life groups...I have to admit I would be hesitant about going there, for the same reasons which I stated in my earlier post.

I can understand that. I tend to choose options with less negative connotations, too. I wouldn't shop at an anti-choice-associated company any more than I would shop at an (issue I'm rightwing on)-associated company.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for lowering the abortion rate - but IMO it has to be done a certain way

<snip>

The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to educate people *thoroughly*, give them free range to *all* options, and try as best as we can to reserve abortion for emergencies like "oh shit, the contraceptive failed!", rape, or severely endangered woman's life. The thing with abortion is that it will *never* be eliminated entirely - it's been going on since time began and always will; the best we can do is lower that rate, and educating people is the best way IMO to do that.

Right beside you there. I'd like to see legislation enacted that would reserve abortions for emergencies, but unfortunately I know that this law could never get through our legal system uncorrupted. I suppose that's the main place I differ from pro-choicers; I don't believe that someone, having had perfect access to other options and education, should have the 'choice' to destroy a potential human life just for her own laziness/selfishness.

Would you be willing to stand (figuratively or literally speaking) side by side with pro-choicers to a) stop the extremists, and b) work towards a workable solution to the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies?

Am and have to (b). I'm involved in some university campus efforts to educate and provide access to birth control, even though the founders and most of the volunteers in these groups believe abortion is a viable alternative. To me, that doesn't undermine the good these groups do. When I'm out of college, I plan to find other organizations I can volunteer at, and the ones that provide abortions will not necessarily be stricken from my list. Keep in mind, though, that I'm a more practical pro-lifer. Many other pro-lifers tolerate PPs and support non-abortion birth control clinics.

It's not enough to just say "we denounce the actions of X group", because to the anti's anybody who disagrees with them on any bit of their ideology is automatically an enemy anyway - but they have levels of enemies, and the ones that are going to get the bulk of their attention are the pro-choicers and the Planned Parenthoods and all.

If I ever become an influential pro-lifer, I promise to release a press statement that says that anti-choice efforts are evil to humanity and destructive to pro-life efforts. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. It's not the fault of me or my ideology that I'm not first on the anti-choicers' hit list. Perhaps I'm misreading this? What would you like to see from rational pro-lifers?

The pro-choice side DOES need more pro-life folks who are willing to work with them (and there are actually quite a few pro-choice people who for personal reasons disagree with abortion but believe in letting people dictate their own choices (as an aside, I wonder what that makes them - both pro-choice and pro-life?)); the problem is that neither side is ever going to agree on certain sticking points and what happens is everybody gets sucked into the morality quicksand instead of being able to get things done.

To me, the ideal setup would be both bunches getting together, going "okay we all disagree on point X but we also all agree on points Y (the need to educate people) and points Z (the need to stop the extremists from wanking off), so let's just focus on Y and Z and see what we can do there." (Which is a lot easier said than done, I know)

I'd love to see an organization like that. I think it would quickly get polarized towards one side or the other unless the founders kept a tight leash on political rhetoric, but I would definitely join an org like that. I don't anticipate having the energy or resources to found a group like that in the next five years, nor would I have the tact necessary to keep the hotheads on both sides from tearing each other's throats out.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?

Right on with you there. Unfortunately, there are always assholes that ruin it for everybody...

Me because of all of the above, but also because I fear the possibility of human life, or a human soul, being destroyed.

Truthfully?

I don't know whether or not abortion is a sin, as some people believe. I don't claim to know what God's exact will is, or even whether or not there IS a God. (I'm agnostic) I would much rather err on the side of caution (aka things like birth control)...but because of certain factors (which I've gone into great length here and elsewhere), I do believe that there are times when abortion may well be the best case scenario. Obviously it's not right for everyone facing an unwanted pregnancy, but for some women, it might be. And I don't see those women as being bad for it in any way - they know their situations best, and I know that if (God forbid) I was in their shoes I would want at least the same basic courtesy and leeway extended to me. I figure if it is a sin, and there is a God, that God will deal with the situation in his own way.

I DO agree that abortion should not be used as primary birth control; however, it should be noted that the women who do this do it only because they had little to no access to basic education and birth control resources to avoid abortion (almost always because they're poor - some of the most rural areas are truly frightening in terms of lack of education and resources). I'm inclined to doubt that most if any women take the decision to have an abortion lightly.

I suppose that's the main place I differ from pro-choicers; I don't believe that someone, having had perfect access to other options and education, should have the 'choice' to destroy a potential human life just for her own laziness/selfishness.

It boils down to basic autonomy. If, assuming that a woman has had perfect access to resources to prevent pregnancy, acts responsibly, is not raped, but doesn't want children (either at all or at a particular point in her life) and winds up pregnant from being in a relationship...what do you do with that woman if she decides she wants an abortion? You would literally have to force her into prison until she gave birth - and that basically says that women have no rights to their own bodies, they're just property and aren't allowed full rights like the other half of the human race (aka men). And that, I will never agree with - even if a female happened to act in an irresponsible manner. Stupid? Sure. But IMO forcing her to carry to term creates more problems than it's worth: you take away the woman's basic right to personal autonomy, and you raise the risk of a child being born into a situation where he/she isn't wanted and may well be abused because of it. Nobody wins there.

As far as 'potential' goes, I will agree up front that this makes me sound cold, but I can't find any energy to get worked up about an embryo that isn't at viability (meaning, it could survive outside the womb on its own) when there are so many people who are already here and suffering. That's another issue pro-choicers have with a lot of pro-lifers - some of us (generic us) see it as "they only care until the baby gets born, then it's tough luck and screw you." To me, there's a big difference between an infant and an embryo. They're both human, yes, but one only has potential, and potential is not the same thing to me as actually *being*, if that makes sense.

I'm involved in some university campus efforts to educate and provide access to birth control, even though the founders and most of the volunteers in these groups believe abortion is a viable alternative. To me, that doesn't undermine the good these groups do. When I'm out of college, I plan to find other organizations I can volunteer at, and the ones that provide abortions will not necessarily be stricken from my list.

On behalf of all pro-choicers and myself, thank you for taking on this effort. I mean that sincerely.

If I ever become an influential pro-lifer, I promise to release a press statement that says that anti-choice efforts are evil to humanity and destructive to pro-life efforts. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. It's not the fault of me or my ideology that I'm not first on the anti-choicers' hit list. Perhaps I'm misreading this? What would you like to see from rational pro-lifers?

I might not have worded it well, so I apologize if it sounded like I was nitpicking you.

None of what the antis do is your fault, or the fault of rational pro-lifers. What bothers me is that there seems to be a lot of 'silence' on the rational pro-life side every time something like a PP protest or such comes out, or a violent act erupts. Words (as in denouncement) alone are not going to make extremists stop or go away - they need to have it hammered home that their terrorism is NOT acceptable and will NOT be tolerated anymore. That includes their manipulation of the justice system to block women's access to all range of options, be it through SLAPPs or sneakily-worded bills that on the surface might appear to do good but actually help pave the way for more extreme laws that worsen things (I believe there's one such petition pending in Colorado wherein the bill might initially appear to restrict abortion to a specific period, but technically enforced, it would literally include and outlaw *contraception* - a dangerous precedent, if such were to go through. Sneaky bills have also been attempted in South Dakota last year where the governor banned *all* abortion in the state outright as a direct challenge; voters later tossed that measure out on its ass because the bill made no exceptions for rape, incest or threat to the woman's health/life).

I'm fine with someone not believing in and not getting an abortion in accordance with their own beliefs; to me it's a personal choice and I wouldn't know what someone else in that situation would be feeling or wanting to do or not do. It's only when people try to force women into behaving a certain way - by harassing them or cutting off their range of options - that it pisses me off. And that's what you see with the anti-choicers.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I behave responsibly in regards to sex. I was lucky to have had the necessary education at appropriate ages. (Of course, it helps that I really don't have a sex drive to begin with, heh) But if I were to become involved with someone (not likely at this point in my life for reasons too long to go into here), I would *insist* in no uncertain terms in discussing our respective approaches to the subject of children *before* we had sex. Personally, I don't want kids, ever (also a long story). But I accept that other people do, and that's cool too. Any man to get involved with me would have to accept that this is *not* up for negotiation, ever, and that as precaution against unwanted pregnancy, we would both have to get sterilized (I believe in taking out all insurance, heh). (And yes, I also understand that some people aren't willing for reasons of their own to do such.)

Now, if by some chance I wound up pregnant (another case for sterilization: the threat of rape!), I would NOT want to go through with it. I believe I *would* be desperate enough to throw myself down a flight of stairs, or drink poison, or something equally as horrid just to induce miscarriage (and very likely end or scar my life) if I couldn't get a safe, legal abortion. Because I just don't want to be pregnant, let alone have any kids. (And here you get back to the issue of autonomy again) I don't think that in of itself is necessarily selfish (and someone once pointed out to me that technically, everything humans do is selfish; the question is whether or not it's a selfishness that inflicts itself on anyone else, which of course leads to new merry-go-rounds...) I'm more than happy to behave responsibly in regards to sex, and to help others do so as well, but I also don't believe in punishing people for having had sex (which won't fix the core problems anyway), and to me, that's what forced pregnancy looks like.

Don't know if that answers your question, but I hope it helps.

I'd love to see an organization like that. I think it would quickly get polarized towards one side or the other unless the founders kept a tight leash on political rhetoric, but I would definitely join an org like that. I don't anticipate having the energy or resources to found a group like that in the next five years, nor would I have the tact necessary to keep the hotheads on both sides from tearing each other's throats out.

I agree with you on all counts. (I don't even have the organizational skills necessary, let alone tact, LOL - yay for ADD. XD ) But, we can always dream...?

[Seshat]

<Semi MOD hat, semi personal opinion>

I'd just like to say that I'm very happy to see Sylvia727 and Amethyst Hunter discussing pro-life and pro-choice so calmly - and finding such common ground.

THIS is my personal ideal for Fratching. Finding places where apparently disparate beliefs intersect, and learning the reasons for the differences.

<Removing MOD hat>

I'm STRONGLY in favour of improving sex education. A relative of mine tells me that when she was in hospital, in the early stages of labour, the woman in the next bed over was terribly frightened.

She asked my relative where the child comes out. 'Does it come out through the mouth?'

My relative quickly ascertained that yes, this poor woman who was in labour really was that ignorant, and arranged for a maternity nurse to explain things to her.

I want a world where that sort of thing never happens again.

I want a world where every woman - and man - knows at least the biology of sex, reproduction, contraception options, STD protection and the emotional consequences that sex can have.

I also would greatly approve of sex education including the social consequences of sex, the ethics of sex as appropriate to the social cultures in the region, and comparitive sex-ethics of world cultures.

Religious considerations should also be included, even if the formal curriculum treats the religions in a comparitive-religious-studies sort of way. The families and their religious advisors can provide a more personalised religion-and-sex education to their children.

I am personally very strongly pro-choice. But I would gladly work with pro-life people to develop and lobby for such a curriculum. And I'd happily work towards an abortion section of the curriculum which included both pro-life and pro-choice arguments, and treated each side fairly.

Even if we decided it was 'fair' because we each felt equally mistreated by the curriculum.


<MOD hat back on>

. . . and we should probably get back towards the nominal subject of this thread, fairly soon. If we get three or four more posts on the abortion topic, there's enough interest for it to have a thread of its own.

<MOD hat off again.>

[Sylvia727]

Alright, since everyone here seems to have found a common ground in that anti-choice = evil and education = good ...

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

On the other hand, I can see the rights of the women in their area to have access to bc. If, as is so often the case, one pharmacy in a mega chain drives all the others out of business, where should these women turn?

What about the women who take bc for other reasons? I have PCOS, which basically means that when I'm off my bc, my hormones go out of whack and grow cysts on my ovaries. One of my aunts has PCOS too, and she had to have an ovary completely removed after it was subsumed by its cysts. I plan to have kids someday, and I kinda need my ovaries for that, not to mention the health risks and that I currently can't afford the expense of surgery. Plus, when I'm off my meds, the cramp leave me in the fetal position for hours at a stretch. Should a pharmecy be allowed to deny me the meds I need, just because it also inhibits pregnancy?

One of the PP reps who came to speak at my uni passed around a morning-after pill that is available OTC for about $40. She recommended that women who were worried about spur-of-the-moment bad decisions purchase one and keep it on hand. Should a pharmacy be forced to keep these on hand? Should they be required to stock condoms?

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

[Boozy]

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

And I'm entitled to spend my money where I want. How is it unfair of me to spend my money at places that don't turn around and spend part of that money on causes I don't believe in?

There is a difference between being entitled to an opinion and being free of any consequences for voicing it.

[Seshat]

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

<snip>

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

I don't have a good answer for the pharmacy-contraceptive issue. I think the best compromise available is for the pharmacist to recommend another, nearby pharmacy which does provide the drug. However, what if there are no nearby pharmacies which do?

I do have an even trickier situation. You're a doctor in a Catholic hospital - or other hospital with similar beliefs abortion-wise. You have a patient suffering an extremely difficult pregnancy. It is your medical opinion that the patient will die without an abortion. What do you do?
What if the reason you're practicing in that hospital is that you are yourself Catholic, and believe that abortion is a sin?

As for the fairness or unfairness of boycotting a business whose views differ from yours: it's your money. This is how the market works: people buy the stuff they want. If someone doesn't want a gas-guzzling car, do you think they should buy one anyway?

[Boozy]

Doctors are health care practitioners licensed by the state. Here in Canada (I am not sure about elsewhere), they swear an oath to do what is in the best interest of their patients. They can be a member of any religion, but if that religion tells them to break that oath, the state can take away their license.

Same deal with pharmacists. I'm usually quite liberal when it comes to making realistic accommodations for certain religions. For example, I think Sikhs should be exempt from wearing the RCMP hats so that they can wear their turbans and still serve as police officers.

But I draw the line when it comes to projecting your morality on someone else. If a pharmacist has a problem with filling certain prescriptions, they need to find a new line of work. Providing doctor-prescribed medication is the major requirement of their job.

[AFPheonix]

Heh. We had a call from another pharmacy the other night to counsel a patient on her Plan B script because the pharmacist at the other store didn't want to. I'm glad I work with a bunch of pharmacists who aren't idiotic about EC.

I can't speak for other states' rules, but in Oregon the pharmacist is allowed to not dispense ONLY if there is another option available for the patient, IE another pharmacy nearby with the product in stock or another pharmacist on duty at the same store who will dispense. The pharmacist is not allowed to interfere with the patient's ability to get the medicine. Furthermore, that pharmacist is required to identify nearby pharmacies to the patient and ensure that they have it in stock before they send them away. They are not allowed to lecture the patient on their religious ideas or morals about EC, nor can they damage or destroy or keep the patient's prescription.
My particular chain has cracked down on pharmacists who want to be stinky about dispensing it, too. Sorry, but if you want to run an uber-religious pharmacy, open up your own shop. You don't get to do it under the auspices of my chain's logo.

We do have a pharmacist who gets all bent out of shape when someone wants insulin syringes for potentially non-insulin purposes (ie drugs). Those guys usually ask for a 10 pack of them.
We usually just brush on by her and sell them anyways. It's a public health service, and the druggies in our area are usually well behaved enough that they don't leave their used needles in the neighbors' yards or under swing sets. If we had an issue with needles being discarded all over the place then yeah, we'd probably tighten up on selling them, but until then, we're helping prevent the spread of Hep C and HIV.

[Amethyst Hunter]

What about pharmacies that refuse to stock contraception or the morning after pill? On one hand, I can see their rights as private businesses to sell what they want. If I belonged to a religion that prohibited alcohol and the government told me I had to sell alcohol, I'd be pissed. Shouldn't the owners have a say in what they sell?

Thing with alcohol is that it's *not* a necessary requirement (Some folks might argue otherwise, LOL, but that's another story). Medicine IS a necessity, particularly for people who have serious health conditions - as you pointed out, PCOS.

If we let pharmacies pick and choose what medicines they will and won't give out, who they will and won't serve (sucky/abusive customers aside, that is), where does the line get drawn next? Do we turn down all prescriptions for AIDS medications because the pharmacist may believe that AIDS is God's punishment for "those nasty homos"? How about things like insulin? There are actually people who believe that any disease is God's doing and that it can simply be eliminated if you pray enough, if you're a "good" enough Christian, and if you take medications for it then you aren't trusting in God and supposedly that's a sin. Unfortunately, diabetes doesn't work like that. It WILL kill somebody if left untreated properly, and some folks *need* insulin to survive.

Make no mistake - that's *exactly* what these BC-denying antis would do if they had carte blanche. I heard there is a law in Michigan stating that paramedics can refuse to treat someone they believe is homosexual (and possibly pagan, too, but I definitely remember the gay part) based on the whole "moral clause" thing. If that's true, it sets a horrifying precedent for medical care: if you're not "feminine" enough, if you're the "wrong" religion, if I just don't plain like the way you look, I can literally let you die. I think that's about as un-Christian as it gets, myself.

I don't want some self-righteous snotball judging my life by their beliefs - and that includes refusing me medicine just because they don't like it and I want/need it (I take BC for a messed-up cycle, and I promise, if any asshat tries that BS with me, you WILL be hearing about it on the news and it ain't gonna be pretty).

Plus, when I'm off my meds, the cramp leave me in the fetal position for hours at a stretch. Should a pharmecy be allowed to deny me the meds I need, just because it also inhibits pregnancy?

One of the PP reps who came to speak at my uni passed around a morning-after pill that is available OTC for about $40. She recommended that women who were worried about spur-of-the-moment bad decisions purchase one and keep it on hand. Should a pharmacy be forced to keep these on hand? Should they be required to stock condoms?

Is it fair to boycott a business if their views don't align with your own? They're entitled to their opinions too.

You pretty much answered your own question. Businesses are entitled to have their own opinions; they just aren't entitled to force those opinions on everybody else. Healthcare is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned.

[Seshat]

If that's true, it sets a horrifying precedent for medical care: if you're not "feminine" enough, if you're the "wrong" religion, if I just don't plain like the way you look, I can literally let you die. I think that's about as un-Christian as it gets, myself.

That behaviour directly opposes the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus himself would disapprove.


And no, I'm not Christian. I was just raised that way, and haven't forgotten the lessons.

[Sylvia727]

Medicine IS a necessity, particularly for people who have serious health conditions - as you pointed out, PCOS.

My PCOS medicine is a necessity, yes. But I think the argument could be made that birth control isn't. I don't agree with that opinion, but I've heard it voiced, and I think there is a kernel of truth in it, in that women aren't automatically jeopardized by its absence.

If we let pharmacies pick and choose what medicines they will and won't give out, who they will and won't serve (sucky/abusive customers aside, that is), where does the line get drawn next?

I like the law in Michigan someone quoted, where a pharmecy was only allowed to not stock something if a nearby competitor did stock it, and then provide directions to the rival. I think this would be a workable compromise. I don't want to see pharmacists forced to do things against their religion, because then where does that line get drawn?

I heard there is a law in Michigan stating that paramedics can refuse to treat someone they believe is homosexual (and possibly pagan, too, but I definitely remember the gay part) based on the whole "moral clause" thing.

That is just effing ridiculous. If that law doesn't get appealed and overturned...I just don't know. *shakes head sadly*

[Amethyst Hunter]

But I think the argument could be made that birth control isn't. I don't agree with that opinion, but I've heard it voiced, and I think there is a kernel of truth in it, in that women aren't automatically jeopardized by its absence.

Depends on who you talk to. Granted, not every woman can take hormonal BC for various reasons (some people simply don't react well to it), but for those that do, it's a godsend. Some folks are also allergic to the latex in condoms, and if you're trying to avoid unwanted pregnancy, condoms (and BC) are usually first in the line of defense. Take away either/both of those options, and you're stuck with a risk that has serious repercussions if you roll the dice and come up on the losing end of the bet.

I know there's a method called NFP (Natural Family Planning) to time pregnancies, but IMO it's way too much risk (no offense to anybody that does use this method) - not for nothing is there a joke out there that goes "What do you call someone who uses NFP?" "Daddy." Something like 80 - 90% of all women in the States are using hormonal BC at some point in their lives...that's an awful lot of people to gamble with by altering BC access.

I like the law in Michigan someone quoted, where a pharmecy was only allowed to not stock something if a nearby competitor did stock it, and then provide directions to the rival. I think this would be a workable compromise. I don't want to see pharmacists forced to do things against their religion, because then where does that line get drawn?

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, where there would be lots of competitors available and (most) people could rely on public transit to get there. In more rural areas, that could be a big problem, especially taking poverty into account - not everyone has access to a vehicle or public transport. There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face!

IMO there's a fine line between respecting religion and just being a jerk about something, and I honestly don't believe that pharmacists who refuse to dispense BC are honoring any religious tenet - why don't they use their "moral clause" to deny Viagra prescriptions, or hoaxy diet pill sales? Neither of those things is particularly critical to people's health (it could be argued that Viagra and ones like it encourage promiscuity, if one thought along those lines), and in the case of the latter, they can even harm people (fen-fen, anyone?).

Thus far, it's only been BC that they've been targeting. Who uses BC (the pill)? Women. And, too, if they're going to attack BC based on false information and religious bias, they could at least be fair about it and go after condoms and male-related things too. But they haven't, they don't and I strongly suspect that they won't. I smell serious misogyny there.

If BC is so objectionable to these people, they don't belong in an industry that puts them into contact with it, period. (There's another rant I could go into about how dominionists are deliberately encouraging their people to go into pharmacology for this express purpose, but that's for another time and another spot.) Someone else pointed out that it's akin to a vegetarian working at a meat-based restaurant and refusing to serve meat-based dishes (or vice versa), and I agree.