Senators in Indiana and Pennsylvania are trying to pass bills that would allow pharmacists to “conscientiously object” to filling birth control prescriptions.
So, uh… since when are the decisions my doctor and I make about my personal reproductive health any of my pharmacist’s business? How many goddamn hoops should women have to jump through for a little control over their own reproduction?
In other news, the birth control pill evidently reduces the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Groovy.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
It’s your pharmacist’s business when you are trying to force them to engage in a practise of murder–which is a fundamental violation of conscience, Love.
Since when is it *your* right to force *anyone* else to help you commit infanticide?
Just because you found an MD who will write a scrip for abortifaciants, that does not mean all will–and many don’t. Pharmacists have the same right to refuse as MD’s, so don’t even play.
By the way, only Lib fascists try to take away the rights of others to abide conscience. Last time I heard, that’s the bedrock of Communist thinking. Don’t like other’s having the same freedoms you enjoy??? Move to China. They love killing helpless babies over there….
In His Grace, miki
January 29th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
That’s ridiculous!! Pharmacists have enough power already.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:02 am
First off, Miki, birth control pills cannot by any stretch of the imagination cause an abortion. Let’s not even pretend that’s the issue here; the issue is those whiny bitch feminists like myself who happen to believe that they don’t have to be “open to God’s miracles” unless they choose to be.
And for all your talk of red devil Communism in taking away “the rights of others to abide conscience,” I bet you’ll be pissed as hell the first time some hippie vegetarian cashier at Walmart refuses to ring up your pot roast. The door swings both ways, “Love.”
January 30th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Well, since I raise my own meat through a local co-op and our neighbor butchers it for us, I doubt it. And we shop at the local market co-op, too–veggie-heads abound therein….and some of them are my *friends*. As well, I’m an organic veggie grower, myself. Go ahead, pick another ad hominem, Love, this one fails you….
And, for the real kicker, Sweetcheeks, go to your local pharmacy and ask this question of the *licenced pharmacist*:
“Will you please show me in the PI sheet for (name your brand of oral contraceptive) where it says this product is a terciery abortifacient?”
It’s right there in black and white, Sister Cipha. Whatever prevents a zygote from adhering to the uterine wall, or strips it out *is*, by definition, the cause of an abortion, ergo, “ABOTRIFACIENT.” I didn’t write the textbooks, I just read them *before* the bigoted tripe published by Planned Parenthood (actually, I had no choice–they just don’t hand out BSN’s without the clinical knowledge and experience….).
The biggest problem with “whiny bitch feminists” (you picked the label, not me, lol) is that y’all spend *so* much wasted time whining, smoking pot and screaming mealy-mouthed, profane epithets from your little green Volkswagons as you do drivebys past the prayer and counseling groups on the sidewalks near the abortuaries, that you have absolutely no time or energy left to be anything but angry *and* willfully ignorant. I’ve never figured out if that’s always deliberate, or just a bi-product of y’alls aimless rage.
But, just as I asked on my own blog, I’ll ask here:
What if Fascist Femme’s own mother had aborted her? Would it have been a poverty? I’m guessing, if she is truly as rational and consistent as she seems to believe herself to be, she would say, “No.”
But if you do, I say you’re either a liar or mentally ill….
To be frank, I think it’s great that you and those like you don’t want children. First of all, with your mind set, you’d be a ***horrible*** mother, and any child is blessed not to have to be tormented by the likes of you for 18 insufferable years. Secondly, the sooner all your “red devils” buddies dry up and blow off, the sooner the globe will regain her equalibrium and the rest of Society will have one less terrorist group to deal with….
I’ve added you and yours to my personal list of prayer intentions–and those of about three dozen monastic prayer lists.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:26 am
“That’s ridiculous!! Pharmacists have enough power already….”
Pharmacists have power? How do you suppose that is??? Why? Because Federal Code won’t give you the key to the Narc drawer?
I’m very curious to know what fantasy world you’re living in that you think that this posit is anything other than an utterly laughable rhetorical fallacy.
Give me some factual evidentuaries, and back them up with factual, trustworthy documentation–not “I have a friend who heard/said/did…”
And you women call yourselves free-thinkers! Pshawww!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am
And if it were all about you, you might have a point. It’s not, so I’ll ask again -
Do you think that ethical vegetarians should have the right to refuse to ring up meat products without fear of being fired?
Or in the health care industry -
Should Scientologist pharmacists be able to refuse to dispense depression medications? Should Jehovah’s Witnesses working in the emergency room be allowed to refuse life-saving blood transfusions?
A pregnancy does NOT begin prior to implantation, so no, it is not medically possible for birth control to cause an abortion. In any case, the theoretical possibility that birth control pills prevent implantation has never been proved or disproved. The body rejects the majority of fertilized eggs (Oh, I’m sorry, the body “murders” the vast majority of “children”) without any intervention at all.
What if my mother had aborted? Big what if! Let’s look at a few of the THOUSANDS of other “what ifs” that could lead to me not existing:
What if my mother had decided against having children? What if she had postponed it a month or so and let my egg spoil? What if she had not had sex at the *exact* moment that allowed the *exact* sperm to meet the egg? What if her body spontaneously rejected the fertilized egg?
If my mother had aborted fetus-me (or if ANY of the above had taken place instead) I would not have been capable of caring in the least bit. It’s sort of hard to care when you don’t have a conscious mind to care with.
By the way, I don’t think I’ve ever stated on this blog that I don’t want children. It’s very likely that at some point I will decide that I’m ready to raise a kid, and if I do, that child is going to have everything he or she needs, including knowing that he/she is deeply wanted.
And if I’m not ever in a situation where I can put 100% of myself into the responsibility of being a parent, or if I can’t provide for a child adequately, I won’t be having one.
(One thing I will definitely impress on any children of mine is that long before they reach middle-age they should know better than name-calling!)
January 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I think you miss the point. Should any merchant be forced to sell a product he does not wish to carry. Vote with your wallet. Go round the corner and buy your items elsewhere. Besides, control over reproduction for men or women is only 100% control when abstenance is the method. EVERYTHING else is a crap shoot, either with health risks to the woman or later health risks to the child if she does eventually choose to have one.
Great argument though.
Reg Adkins of http://www.elementaltruths.com
January 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
What the? They aren’t even doctors!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
The issue isn’t pharmacies refusing to carry birth control; it’s individual pharmacists who refuse to do their jobs and still want the government to protect them from being fired. The pharmacies have their hands tied; they could face a lawsuit for even refusing to hire someone based on the fact that they wouldn’t dispense birth control.
Look, abstinence is definitely the best way to keep from getting pregnant - I totally agree with that much - but most of us just aren’t going to stay celibate until menopause. And having a dozen kids you don’t want shouldn’t be the price to pay for having a healthy sex life. So, yes, a whole lot of us are willing to take on the risks (all of which are either mere inconveniences or very unlikely) .
January 31st, 2008 at 8:52 am
“Do you think that ethical vegetarians should have the right to refuse to ring up meat products without fear of being fired?
“Or in the health care industry -
Should Scientologist pharmacists be able to refuse to dispense depression medications? Should Jehovah’s Witnesses working in the emergency room be allowed to refuse life-saving blood transfusions?”
…Now this is an interesting argument, although false all the way around.
And, I needed to take some time to ask this question of four people who have the right answers–two of the girls who work at our Farmers Market, who are both vegetarians for “ethical” reasons, an acquaintance of mine who works at the Chicago branch of the Church of Scientology (you can see his email privately, if you like, but the phone call wasn’t recorded–they both covered basically the same thing, though)and a blood bank lab tech who works at one of my old haospitals–born and raised a Jehovah’s Witness–who used to live with me, as well. Here are the answers I got:
The two women at the Farmers Market, one a manager, the other a produce buyer–both college educated, both very articulate in their objections to the use of animal products across the board–each told me separately that while they find the use of animal flesh as food, cloting, makeup, medicine, etc, repulsive, neither of them objects to selling it. Why? Because the vast majority of our culture eats meat, it is a driving force in the economics of American food production and, without it, they wouldn’t have jobs. I was told that if they followed their own personal preferences to buy only produce–and that from growers within a fifty mile radius–that the Market would have to close it’s doors within two weeks. I was also told that it goes far beyond meat products, as well (see above, etc). If they each were selling just what they feel “ethically comfortable” with, half of the processed food, beauty care and baby care aisles of the Market would be empty–not just the meat cooler. Further, the manager, who does consider herself to be a “radical” feminist, read the photocopy of the posts here that I showed her and was very quick to point out that your argument here is a false one (why was I not surprised???): While vegetarians do see animals as sentient beings, animals and humans are not the same and, while vegetarians object to the pain and fear inflicted on animals taken to slaughter, “…the same can be said to those who abort babies. Everybody (really???) knows what the current research says about fetuses and pain, but I don’t know many Feminists who object to aborting them without anesthesia…”
In other words, your argument here fails, Love.
Next, my friend the lab tech…. About a decade ago, Karen and I had a knock-down-drag-out argument (with an audience) in the middle of the hospital blood bank about this very issue…kind of….
See, while she, the practising JW, was busy downstairs doing types and crossmatches for blood unit requisitions, I was upstairs working on the ICU team of a Witness man who was dying of Guillain-Barre Syndrome–and who had been on my unit for more than two months while Bethel Hospital Laiasons watched our every move to ensure no one violated Watchtower Headquarter dictates.
I said that the way this man was being forced to languish for months on end in exquisite pain and suffering–while his body became so edematous that his skin split open and weeped constantly, his eyes swelled shut and he ran a constant fever over 102.F–by his own “brothers and sisters in faith” was criminal and insane and had no purpose, Karen countered that it was their conscientious duty before GOD to follow Watchtower doctrine to let nature run it’s course; that to “eat blood” for his health would be “stealing someone’s soul.”
Now, the issue of blood transfusions and Jehovah’s Witnesses is another matter in and of itself, and one in which I am not only very well versed, but in which I have a great deal of experience and success in broaching one on one with Witnesses themselves. Nevertheless, I showed your argument to Karen yesterday and asked her what she thought and this is what she said, verbatim:
“(laughs)Well, Miki, if this were true, then I’ve been in the wrong line of work for the past seventeen years. There is no teaching or moral doctrine that says we can’t prepare or give transfusions and I don’t know why we wouldn’t. The problem for a Witness of Jehovah is not giving blood transfusions or blood components and fractions, but getting them….There are three nurses in my congregation, and we sometimes talk about the weird things we see and do at our jobs and believe me, if this were and issue it would have come up by now. The bottom line is that in this system of things we know that most people in the world do not know or care about Jehovah’s commands because they are ruled by Satan. If they get blood transfusions it means nothing to us because we know that they will probably be annihilated at Armagheddon anyway, so it doesn’t make any difference what they do. If it did, then the elders would tell us that we have to quit our jobs and disavow our approval of them, just like they do when soldiers, policemen and government workers join the Society….This is a non-issue….”
…Once again, your argument is false. So, on to Scientology:
I didn’t record this conversation because it was over the phone, not in person, and I don’t have the equipment for it, but the gist of the answer I got was this: a Scientologist pharmacist objects to all medication, not just psychotropics. Scientologists (and I do not agree with what follows, here) know that by doing the right “work” (…and I don’t pretend understand any of what he told me about this) on one’s self, that one can become perfectly aligned and, when that happens, there is no need for medications or chemicals of any kind–including birth control. What Scientologists want most in the world is to relieve suffering and, while they will recommend alternatives to an MD’s scrip, they will never refuse to fill a prescription knowing that the person’s suffering will only make them (internally) more out of whack from the stress of being opposed….
However, (and I love this part and had make him repeat it to write it down) “In Scientology, even chemical birth control is a no-no. It is up to every person to make this discovery for themselves, but, the reality is that synthetic chemicals brought into the body to stop it’s natural processes will always make the whole person sick and that is not in tune with life’s purpose. People were never meant to do this to themselves.”
Once again, the horse’s mouth says, YOU WRONG, GIRL.
…I’ve got to get to the rest of this in a bit. I need to walk the dogs before they pee in the house….
January 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
The vast majority of women (73%, in fact) have used birth control pills at some point in their lives. To suggest that the pharmaceutical industry and some of its most widely-used products aren’t a driving force in the economy would be deeply ignorant. To refuse to sell meat to a population that largely supports the choice to eat meat is not dissimilar from refusing to sell birth control to Americans.
Let’s try and follow this logically, okay? You on board? Great.
Your manager says…
(1) Vegetarians realize that humans and animals are not the same.
Misleading: Many of the more radical vegetarians are against “speciesism” and believe that simply being human does not in all ways make one superior.
It’s also worth noting that a great number of people in this country see people and fetuses as very, very different things - so this hardly disqualifies my argument.
(1) Vegetarians object to pain being meted out on sentient beings.
and…
(2) Fetuses feel pain, and yet feminists are uncomfortable with the idea of using anesthesia during abortions.
Misleading: Recent medical studies suggest that a fetus can only feel pain in the final months of pregnancy. A report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 suggests that fetuses are likely incapable of perceiving pain before 28 weeks. More than 99% of abortions are carried out before this point (most of them LONG before).
And many feminists object to using fetal-directed anesthetic because it endangers the woman, and, in most cases, is COMPLETELY useless.
So, even if you believe that blood transfusions steal SOULS, you can give them just as long as you don’t receive them.
Sounds like a good system for me, actually - you go ahead and believe that birth control kills something with a soul and not use it, and I’ll go ahead and use it since I’m not bound by your religious doctrine. Glad we could clear this up.
(Hint, hint - your guy made my case for me.)
All your Scientologist had to say was that while he personally objects to - well, just about everything a pharmacist does - if he were one, he would still DO HIS GODDAMN JOB.
In any case, finding fewer than half a dozen people who would not object in any of the situations posed does not mean that other wouldn’t want to. I happen to know that most of the pharmacists at the clinic I use are Christian (and probably anti-abortion), but I’ve never had any trouble getting my birth control.
Now, I want you to actually answer my questions. You have never said whether or not any of them have the RIGHT to object without fear of being fired, and that’s the issue here, not whether or not you can find five people who wouldn’t.
Do you think that ethical vegetarians should have the right to refuse to ring up meat products without fear of being fired?
Should Scientologist pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense depression medications?
Should Jehovah’s Witnesses working in the emergency room be allowed to refuse life-saving blood transfusions?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I’m not bound by your religious doctrine.
“HINT, HINT…” Were not talking religious doctrine, here, Girl Genius. We’re speaking about E-T-H-I-C-S. Say it with me, now….
The vast majority of women (73%, in fact) have used birth control pills at some point in their lives.
I’m looking right now at the CDC archives and JAMA–show me the actual stats. Where are they?
And, were this even true (which it is not…), would all of the same women continue with such if they actually knew what it does and how it works? Likely not. Autobiographies abound (I know, you find them horribly distasteful…whatever….) from women worldwide who were absolutely shocked to learn what they were involved with–and subsequently quit contraceptives and took up the banner to keep other women from going down the same sorry path they had stumbled down.
And, no, nothing of what I stated is misleading–you are once again, obsfucating.
“You have never said whether or not any of them have the RIGHT to object without fear of being fired, and that’s the issue here, not whether or not you can find five people who wouldn’t.
Who said anything about five people? Regardless, since you seem to be all about “the law,” here is what the First Amendment of the Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right to Freedom of Speech means having the civil right to publicly speak the truth without fear of censure or umpunity.
If any clinician objects to participating in a practise that violates morals or conscience [truth] then, yes, they do indeed have the right to object without fear of any loss, whatsoever. Therefore:
“Should Scientologist pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense depression medications?
Absolutely! Yes, they should. And I actually concure on this one, too–especially knowing that psychotropic medications are actually only therapeutic about 30% of the time (so says the FDA and the NIMH) and happen to be one of the biggest money pits in health consumer costs.
“Should Jehovah’s Witnesses working in the emergency room be allowed to refuse life-saving blood transfusions?”
This is an ignorant question. Why would a JW who is “working” need a transfusion? Regardless, every Witness in good standing (and many who are disfellowshipped) carries with them, at all times, a signed and notarized “Blood Card” that states that they belong to the Watchtower Society, that they object to the use of blood and blood components, and identifies not only contact information for medical powers of attorney, but information for locating hospital filings of Statements of Intent for refusal that absolve all involved medical personal from legal liability should they die from complications due to exsanguination. Even in a patient who arrives unconscious, by the time you’ve stripped, gowned, cathed, started lines and sent initial blood draws to the lab, this card has been found, and whatever Blood Bank requisitions that were ordered are canceled. This is just as much a “non-issue” as whether or not a JW clinician should give transfusions.
On the problem of minor children who refuse lifesaving treatment of any kind, I am adamantly opposed to that….just as I am opposed to allowing young girls to get abortions with or without parental consent, take contraception or receive the new HPV vaccine…
January 31st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“Do you think that ethical vegetarians should have the right to refuse to ring up meat products without fear of being fired?”
This is a completely unrelated issue, but,yes, just like I think that Muslim and Jewish cashiers shouldn’t have to ring up pork or liquor if they choose not to….And it wouldn’t bother me if they did, ’cause I ain’t a bigot.
And ya wanna know why? ‘Cause the Bible says so….hehehe….
Actually, it does–look it up:
Romans 14: 1-23; 1 Corinthians 8:8-13; 1 Corinthians 10
Just remember–you asked, Love….lol…. ;o)
January 31st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Oh, I know, I’m so whiny! It’s all those rights I’ve been exposed to - I’m sure if I were barefoot at the kitchen sink with half a dozen children hanging off of me, I wouldn’t be nearly so selfish.
While you may believe that personhood begins at conception, pregnancy does not begin until implantation. That’s the medical definition, not mine.
I merely expect a professional to do his or her job, and I think the employer should be able to do the same.
Now, if a pharmacist works at a Catholic pharmacy that does not carry birth control, fine. So be it. They won’t have my business, but that’s the company’s decision.
But if a pharmacist chooses to work somewhere that carries birth control, or a vegetarian chooses to work somewhere that sells meat products, or a Jehovah’s Witness chooses to work at a job where he will occasionally be expected to perform transfusions, I expect nothing more and nothing less than for them to do their jobs. And I don’t think any employer should be forced to keep an employee who picks and chooses which items on the job
description he feels like doing.
The statistic on birth control use was from this survey on menstruation carried out by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Just giving you a heads up - any comments NOT related to birth control access or the rights discussed in the topic post will be deleted.
If you want to comment on abortion, I’ve got plenty of posts on just that topic. This is not one of them.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
First of all, you have misappropriated (and, evidently, misread) this survey (NOT a study), Femme, which has absolutely nothing to do with women taking oral contraceptives for birth control, but those who have had, or could have, it prescribed as a method of menstrual suppression.
Secondly, there are flaws in the reporting numbers of this study. For instance, of those women who responded:
“Three-quarters (77 percent) of women have been on the pill, either currently or in the past.”
And, later:
“Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of women have used birth control pills at some point in their life.”
Same women, different wording—so which is it?
Third:
“The above summary is based on two rounds of research. We conducted a web survey of 1,021 women 18-40 who had not had hysterectomies and were not trying to get pregnant. Respondents were selected randomly from a panel of Knowledge Networks research participants. The Knowledge Networks panel is based on random-digit-dial sampling of the full United States population and represents people with and without their own Internet access. The survey was conducted July 8-13, 2005 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. We also conducted in-depth interviews of 25 OB/GYNs, primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who have patient contact and prescribe contraceptives.”
That’s somewhere between 73-77% of a very small, particular subset of women from one nation, and in no way reflects or represents a like percentage of “all women,” (even in the US, this does not qualify as a scientifically stable cross-section—who are you trying to kid???) which the “survey” unhesitatingly admits:
“While many [respondent] women are receptive to [menstrual] suppression, there are certain subgroups that are more receptive than others….”
…Like singles who can’t keep their skirts on, the poor and disadvantaged, the young and stupid—the survey addresses these….
Fourth, did you even bother to look at who sponsored this survey??? Not The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (which, lets just be clear, here—this is not a scientific research pool, it’s a fraternal membership association), but Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which provided an unrestricted educational grant for the compiling of the survey!!!
This data is not aimed at polling women for unbiased statistical data—it’s solitary aim is to find better ways of marketing oral contraceptives! IT’S A MONEY MAKING TOOL FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY!!!
This is all you’ve got??? What happened to your ferocity, Femme? Where’s the fangs? Where’s the “logical,” self-righteous assault on my supposed “insane fundamentalism”?
Suddenly, when faced with facts and answers to your queries, all you can answer with is some diversionary survey (not even an actual comprehensive, scientific study) and a sad, mewling whine of:
”I merely expect a professional to do his or her job, and I think the employer should be able to do the same.”
Well, I suppose, ”if it were all about you, you might have a point. It’s not, so….”
…Once again, a Lib. feminist gets smacked down by the weight her own arguments. Why am I not surprised?
Regardless, it’s been a hoot, even if you couldn’t bother to answer any of my questions. Thanks for the exercise! You should come over to my playground sometime. And, like I said, I’ll be keeping you in my prayers, Joy….I was once like you—about twenty years ago. Then I grew up and realized that life really isn’t all about me, or my happiness because, when it comes down to brass tacks, you’ll never be happy until you figure out that the purpose of life is not a destination, it’s a Who. I pray for you, Sister. And, I like your spunk. ;o)
In His Grace, miki
March 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I do indeed believe all of the above. But do you seriously think that the testicular cancer can be cured without taking one of the testicles off?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
oh and sorry # 14 or #15 comment:
I think birth control is very good for women, because i don’t want to have a baby when i am age 72.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
How dumb would THAT be?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
MY FRIEND VOWSTERS OVER AND SHE SAYS THAT CHILD BIRTH HELPS THE OVERYIAN CANCER! :/